You should read the review you have posted again! In the tests like splintercell, IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, Call of Duty, 3DMark03 at resolutions upto 1280x1024, the 9600xt is faster. And the extra 128MB will make some difference in games with more details and better textures. You will see the difference in FAR CRY when using a GFX card with 256MB videomemory. I can tell because I own the two cards myself, the 128MB 9500pro and the 256 MB 9600xt. And only in the test of Prince of Persia: Sand of Time the 9600xt is somewhat slower, a 3 frames per second slower, that not much. Even in the synthetic tests don't show a big difference in performance. The margin is just to small. The mentioned review gave the 9600xt a 4.5 out of 5!!!!!! YEAH!!! YEAH!!!! YEAH!!! http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/ati9600xt/?p=4 The radeon 9500pro and 9600xt are both very nice gfx cards, which have served me well! I think those people who are disappointed with the 9600xt in the past, should buy a 9800xt. :vader::vader::vader::vader::vader::vader::vader: As for the 6200 128bit, it will be fine if you play games without the eye candies. But the 6200 will be just too slow for newer games like Elder Scrolls 4: OBlivion. But with Oldblivion you still can play Oblivion with decent graphics. If your budget permits, get an AGP 7300GT for under 100bucks! The 7300gt is much faster than the 9600xt, 9500pro, geforce 5200 and 6200. edit: just highlight something, nothing else. HaHaHaaa edit: add opinion about the topic!