Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: ASUS GeForce 9600GT 512MB

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,548

    Default ASUS GeForce 9600GT 512MB

    Phoronix: ASUS GeForce 9600GT 512MB

    In late February NVIDIA had introduced the GeForce 9 series with the introduction of the mid-range GeForce 9600GT 512MB graphics card. Earlier this week they then introduced the GeForce 9800 GX2 graphics card, which consists of two NVIDIA GPUs bridged together with SLI support. We have been quiet on how the GeForce 9 series performs under Linux, but this morning we are providing our initial GeForce 9600GT results using an ASUS EN9600GT TOP HDMI and comparing its Linux desktop performance to its GeForce 8 sibling and the ATI Radeon HD 3850 and 3870. On Windows the GeForce 9600GT has been able to outperform the Radeon HD 3850/3870, but on Linux an entirely different story is rendered.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=12088

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,610

    Default

    Well the Phenom 9500 is no good choice for gameing benchmarks. Much better is the X2-6400+ if you really want to use AMD CPUs - same price but much faster. None of your games uses quad core, but from 2200 to 3200 Mhz there is definitely a difference. Intel CPUs usally play in a completely different class. If you like I could do some benchmarks with E6600@3000 or @3200 with my new 8800 GTS (G92) Your benchmarks are definitely cpu limited.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Well the Phenom 9500 is no good choice for gameing benchmarks. Much better is the X2-6400+ if you really want to use AMD CPUs - same price but much faster. None of your games uses quad core, but from 2200 to 3200 Mhz there is definitely a difference. Intel CPUs usally play in a completely different class. If you like I could do some benchmarks with E6600@3000 or @3200 with my new 8800 GTS (G92) Your benchmarks are definitely cpu limited.
    Actually quake engine based games are multithreaded.

    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page3.asp
    Last edited by deanjo; 03-21-2008 at 02:02 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,610

    Default

    Then search a comparison from 2 to 4 cores. X2 is dual core too but much higher speed per core.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Then search a comparison from 2 to 4 cores. X2 is dual core too but much higher speed per core.
    I remember a Quake 4-SMP test where the quadcore definitly was faster than a dualcore processor in one of the recent GameStar magazines... I will have a look on whether I find back the article later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano
    If you like I could do some benchmarks with E6600@3000 or @3200 with my new 8800 GTS (G92)
    You love your card, don't you

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,610

    Default

    Well I am sure the quadcore you have seen was a fast Intel quadcore and not the slowest AMD quadcore possible.. I speak of 1 GHz difference not just a few Mhz for the AMD quad to dual core. Intel's highend chips you can get with similar clock with 2 or 4 cores - but do you see a 3200 mhz amd quad core here - I don't.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Yes, it was an Intel quad core if I remember correctly. I only wanted to say that these games do support quad cores, and if a game uses four cores, the clock frequency isn't that important anymore. I don't think there are games that would suffer from using a Phenom processor. Show me a game which works much faster with an Intel CPU (but a game where the AMD cpu has bad FPS, not a 200 (AMD) to 300 (Intel) FPS difference, I don't care about that).

    Before the 45nm K10.5 Phenom arrives, there will be one more Phenom 65nm stepping "B4" which is made for higher clocks. 3,2 GHz should be possible with that, but only with overclocking of course.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,610

    Default

    Well your games may use SMP but the main speed you get with higher clockspeed and 1000 Mhz more is much. When you use the same amount of money then your games will definitely run faster with with the dual core - as long as you only want but buy a AMD CPU. The Phenom 9500 is even more expensive than a X2-6400+ and slower for games (3dmark has a CPU only test which is higher with quads when the GPU is at it's limit). Even with a midrange GPU you should be able to see a difference - at least for lower res as the GPU is not a it's limit in that case. The higher the res then you see GPU limits and less CPU bottlenecks, so it depends on the use if you see a huger or smaller difference. When you want to see the biggest differences then run a game with 640x480

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Well your games may use SMP but the main speed you get with higher clockspeed and 1000 Mhz more is much. When you use the same amount of money then your games will definitely run faster with with the dual core - as long as you only want but buy a AMD CPU. The Phenom 9500 is even more expensive than a X2-6400+ and slower for games (3dmark has a CPU only test which is higher with quads when the GPU is at it's limit). Even with a midrange GPU you should be able to see a difference - at least for lower res as the GPU is not a it's limit in that case. The higher the res then you see GPU limits and less CPU bottlenecks, so it depends on the use if you see a huger or smaller difference. When you want to see the biggest differences then run a game with 640x480
    I'd have to concur.

    Just because it's multithreaded doesn't mean that a much slower Quad Core is going to out perform a 1 GHz clock difference on a Dual Core machine. You have to remember that you're losing some 10-20% of the peak performance from each of the cores for each one you add in an SMP configuration due to overhead for the SMP processing, etc.

    A 500MHz to 1GHz difference between the Dual and the Quad where the Dual is faster and has any swedge more L2 and the Quad Core's going to have a bad showing for itself.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Then search a comparison from 2 to 4 cores. X2 is dual core too but much higher speed per core.
    Clock for clock your speeds will be greater for the quads with Michaels selection of games as they are multi-threaded so your statement of " None of your games uses quad core," is completely false. As well as the tests were done to show the capabilites of video card and not the CPU. The games are GPU limited at the resolutions that Michael has used not CPU limited so it does not matter what CPU is used (within reason of course). If the CPU was the limiting factor you would have seen a flat line across all cards. Your delta would have remained the same no matter what CPU was used at those resolutions.
    Last edited by deanjo; 03-22-2008 at 01:18 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •