ATI 8500 vs 9600

**ATI 8500 vs 9600 -** 05-04-2005, 04:16 | posts: n/a

I have a 8500 w/128 meg of ram and a plain 9600 w/128 meg of ram. Which is the faster/better card? I assume the 9600 but i just want to make sure before I change out the cards.

oralpain · 05-04-2005, 04:20 | posts: 71

Definatly the 9600. It's faster and has full DX9 support.

The 8500 equivalent to an upper geforce 3 or lower geforce 4.

SVT Amateur · 05-04-2005, 04:26 | posts: 1,100 | Location: San Antonio, Texas

9600.

killer_939 · 05-04-2005, 10:14 | posts: 2,559 | Location: Australia

y did thay make the TI4400-4800 more powerfull than the FX5200-5500?

SVT Amateur · 05-04-2005, 14:09 | posts: 1,100 | Location: San Antonio, Texas

Killer, this is the ATI forums.

clkProject · 05-04-2005, 21:37 | posts: 846 | Location: New Hampshire

Quote:

Originally posted by SVT Amateur
Killer, this is the ATI forums.

Total Domination.

SorienOR · 05-04-2005, 21:45 | posts: 6,454 | Location: Oregon

Well I can tell ya from recent personal experience lol.

Two of my comp's listed below, one has a 2400+, one has a 2500+. The 2500+ has a 9550 overclocked to 9600Pro speeds, and the other has a 128mb pure 8500 (not LE, 275/275).

They are virtually identical in DX8 games..ie Battlefield 1942 and 3dmark01. In DX9 though (specifically, Guild Wars) the 9600 is seriously faster...easily double the framerate and 3dmark03 scores. Plus it looks better since it is using the dx9 path.

So there is no reason not to swap for the 9600.

UZ7 · *Last edited by UZ7; 05-05-2005 at 00:23.*

Quote:

Originally posted by killer_939
y did thay make the TI4400-4800 more powerfull than the FX5200-5500?

The whole FX series were suppose to be a new line of DX9 based cards and shouldve been faster than previous cards, but it didnt turn out to be that great (DX probs) in the long run hence why ATI won that battle (FX5900 vs 9800s etc...)... but you can see now how nVidia made up for it.