Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ASUS GeForce 9600GT 512MB

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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, 02:02 PM.

      Comment


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

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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, 01:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hm would it be possible to put the Timedemos online?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by teclis View Post
                        Hm would it be possible to put the Timedemos online?

                        Doom 3 is just demo1 and Quake 4 and ET:QW demos will be out there with the Phoronix Test Suite.
                        Michael Larabel
                        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Great to hear Michael, I am eager to see the Prhoronix Test Suite with the etqw Timedemo

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm glad to see this kind of test. I'm on the virge of buying a new graphics card and I'm doubting between the nVidia 9600GT and the AMD HD 3850 (with 512MB). Their linux performance plays a role for me, but more the evolution in the drivers with these cards. I'm planning on fully switching to a Linux desktop when a program I use daily, Lotus Domino designer, is finally natively supported under Linux which will be by the end of this year. When I look at this test I see ATI/AMD rapidly catching up with nVidia on their drivers and with AMDs opensource strategy we might have a good open source driver soon. So the best card between these two in 9 months time might actually be the HD 3850. Do you guys agree or am I seeing things completely wrong here?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X