Radeon 9800se vs Radeon 9600xt

[sahiludani]

Which of the above is better, i know that the 9800se has only 4 pipelines, but so does the radeon 9600 xt, and both are of the same price...

 

[Crashman]

OMG! LMAO! First off all, pay little attention to the review sites performance figures on the 9800SE, as their cards are not typical (using a 256-bit RAM interface rather than the standard 128-bit for the 9800SE).

The 9800SE is weaker than the 9600 Pro. In fact it's almost as weak as the 9600 non-pro. The 9600XT is stronger than the 9600 Pro.

So the 9600XT is far better than the 9800SE.

Think about it, both have 4 pipes and a 128-bit RAM interface, but the 9600XT is clocked much higher.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[HardWareBoss]

9800se I would not trade my TI4200 for that turd.

 

[cleeve]

The answer is a little more complicated than that.

The 9800SE comes in 2 flavors: some with a 128 bit memory interface, some with a 256 bit memory interface.

The stock 128-bit 9800SE sucks crap. Not even as good as a 9600 PRO.

The stock 256-bit 9800SE is pretty decent, and will perform in the 9600 PRO/XT neighborhood.

The real bonus of these cards is that you can mod them to true 9800 specs with a software driver. If you are successful (only 50% of the time it works), then you have a true 9800.

Still, for the money, it's not worth it. 9800SE's tend to be wayyy to expensive. A 9600 PRO or 9600 XT are cheapewr and a sure thing.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

I wood, I wood, says ponochio.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[HardWareBoss]

I saw I saw. Said the blind man.

 

[sahiludani]

Thanx a lot guys. So radeon 9600xt it is...
Also btw is the nvidia geforce fx 5900xt any good can it compete with radeon 9600xt in dx 9 ?, I am quite wary of the nvidia products at present.

 

[pauldh]

There are other threads on this topic, but to sum it up, the 5900XT is a little faster than the 9600XT in most tests. ATI seems to be the more promising way to go for DX9.0, but you can't go wrong with either card. The 9600XT is cheaper though and most (not all) retail version come with a Half-Life 2 coupon too.

If you haven't read Toms VGA Charts 3, it will give you a good picture of how most of the cards now available compare to each other.

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt

 

[cleeve]

Corrections Cleeve: THe 256-bit 9800SE is around the same performance as an 9800NP in most situations.

No WAY a 4 pipeline 256-bit SE is going to perform anywhere NEAR a 9800NP.

When modded successfully maybe, otherwise it's firmly in the 9600 PRO neighborhood.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>