Ati Radeon 9600

[Timz]

WooHoo, got the XT, AWEsome card, im running BF1942 under the highest everything, UT2K3 works great, now all i need is more ram and i'll be all set

[DWk]

Originally posted by Timz@24 January 2004 - 16:33
WooHoo, got the XT, AWEsome card, im running BF1942 under the highest everything, UT2K3 works great, now all i need is more ram and i'll be all set

AGAIN..... ONE MORE TIME FOR ALL OF YOU:

BF1942 isn't a game to test a card. The graphics are weak, the engine sucks, and it requires not much of requirements whatsoever.

On the other hand, UT2k3 is a better game to test a card. I do run it on High settings with my mx440 and it runs just fine

[Mad Cat]

You want some benchmarking software like 3dmark to really test your card.

[adamp2p]

If you can find one, this is the king of all cards 9600 XT:

So, we have run the benchmarks for you to see the results. The new VPU from ATI Technologies is feeling confident in most currently available games. I can’t say the same about the new GPU from NVIDIA. However, the NV36 has its chance in OpenGL games as well as in games with poor textures but complex geometry. Besides that, this GPU shows good speed when no full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are used, as well as in high resolutions. However, this largely depends on the specific application.

The matter of price can be waved aside – both cards cost about the same amount of money. As for pure usability, the ATI RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous, too. It takes less space in the system case, produces less heat and noise and requires no additional power. The GeForce FX 5700 Ultra may be interesting to people who are not much into gaming as well as for those who want to have a graphics card with two DVI-I outputs. And of course, all hardcore fanatics of NVIDIA may find the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra an interesting solution for $200. Although our card had only one digital output, there will surely be a model with two of them in the market. The owners of a GeForce FX 5600 Ultra may find themselves behind the times – this GPU may not be able to run the upcoming DirectX 9.0 games properly.

For those of you who are looking forward to the release of such games as Half-Life 2 or S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Oblivion Lost, but who can’t afford a high-end card, the RADEON 9600 XT may suit just fine. The owners of the RADEON 9600 PRO may not bother much about the new VPU. Instead, they can try to overclock the graphics core, because the main difference between the RADEON 9600 XT and the RADEON 9600 PRO is the operational frequency.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ra-9600xt.html

That being said, there is a solution: the 9600 XT Turbo Excalibur: source http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_.../9600xt/001.htm

This card features ramsinks, top and botton.

It’s not too often that we see add-in board makers truly break the mold away from the reference design of the GPU maker, however, HIS (Hightech Information System) has really stretched out with its new Radon 9600XT Turbo. Leaving the standard memory clock speed behind, this card runs at a default of 500MHz core frequency and a boosted 650MHz memory clock. It’s the latter that’s more important to the overall performance of this card.

Forget what you think about the 9600XT, this care is truly ahead of every other 9600XT we’ve tested to date. HIS has done something that ATI should’ve done to begin with by increasing this card’s default speed. Those of us who follow GPU releases have known for quite awhile now that the 9600XT GPU should’ve been a lot more capable of delivering excellent 3D performance than when it was initially released.

Further, HIS includes a LED cooling fan - that should appeal to case-modders - memory heatsinks – just an overall bad-ass looking card. In fact, it’s far and away the coolest looking card of its kind in our opinion.

There’s really nothing too special about the included bundle – inside, you have the obligatory free copy of Half Life 2, a couple of crappy software pieces, DVI to Analog converter, and a S-Video cable. They include the latest build of Catalyst drivers (changes depending on when you buy the card and what drivers are available to HIS at the time they make the card), however, we always encourage our readers to check ATI’s website for the latest versions.
Pluses
+Excellent Performance
+"Free copy" of Half Life 2
+Good memory clock
+LED Light looks cool

Minuses
-None

Final Rating: 5 Drips.

Check out this badass heatsink:



And look how beautiful these blue led's look in action:




Another review:
http://www.legitreviews.com/Reviews/his9600xt_1.shtml

[Mr. Elmo]

just becuz a card can oc to the core/mem. speed of a xt doesnt mean it will perform as well, chipsets and archurtechture (spelling?) also determin the performance.....if a pro could easily obtain speed of an xt, the xt wouldnt be so popular.

if you buy a 9600, get teh 128 mb one....256 is useless as most game dont take that much memory and the 256mb one has lower quality rams....and its like five-somethign ns ram....i dont quite remember but thats bad for ocing.

[adamp2p]

The HIS Excalibur Turbo Platinum package is the best XT you can get your hands on.

The RAM on the cards are rated at 700 MHz, and are clocked by the manufacturer at 650 MHz, so you have some headroom for overclocking.

HIS has also informed me that they used Samsung IC's (part#: K4D263238E-GC2A) on the 9600XT. This memory is rated to 350MHz (700Mbps/pin). As you will see, HIS has clocked the memory to 650MHz on IC's that are rated at 700MHz which is up from the 600MHz standard for a 9600 XT card. I sense some potential Overclocking headroom! In case anyone is interested, this is the same IC that S3 used on their new Deltachrome S8 graphics card sample.

The cooling on the RAM and GPU is superior to any other 9600 XT on the market.

The performance of the card thus is higher than any other XT on the market.

This tweaktown review says:

The beauty of dealing with both of the HIS Excalibur cards is the extremely competitive prices both boards are boasting. Although nowhere near on par with the Radeon 9800XT in FPS, the Excalibur 9600XT visually performs on nearly the same level in real-world games. Adding in the 9800Pro IceQ’s dangerously close in game performance, both visual and non-visual, HIS has greatly impressed us and surpassed all of our expectations.

If you’re looking to purchase a card to adequately run any of the industry’s current or near future titles, both of these HIS products will more than adequately do the job. At an extremely low price of $199.00, the Excalibur 9600XT is my absolute most recommended graphic card purchase of the year. HIS is leading in so many categories because of its sheer impressive price-per-performance ratio, that it’s been standardizing throughout its line of products.

Don’t let all this pretty talk distract you, the 9600XT suffered some minor, but permanent, graphical anomalies in various games. Not visual artifacts, yet patchy and sometimes poorly rendered images. Additionally, if you’re a benchmark freak you’ll be disappointed by both of the cards low scores in 3DMark03.

Putting your head and gaming envy first, and your need for speed at bay, both these products will be an absolute gift to your loved gamer this holiday, so much that HIS Excalibur 9600XT receives our prestigious TweakTown "MUST HAVE" Editor's Choice Award.

Edit: and the baby includes HL2...can't complain...but you can subtract ~$40 USD from the final price...

[Dray_04]

Originally posted by Mr. Elmo@25 January 2004 - 15:42
just becuz a card can oc to the core/mem. speed of a xt doesnt mean it will perform as well, chipsets and archurtechture (spelling?) also determin the performance.....if a pro could easily obtain speed of an xt, the xt wouldnt be so popular.

if you buy a 9600, get teh 128 mb one....256 is useless as most game dont take that much memory and the 256mb one has lower quality rams....and its like five-somethign ns ram....i dont quite remember but thats bad for ocing.

damnit,

so NOW i cant get a 256mb 9600xt because its worse than the standard 128mb? wtf is up with that?

can u explain this to me in more detail,
thanks dude

[Mr. Elmo]

Originally posted by dray_02+25 January 2004 - 04:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dray_02 @ 25 January 2004 - 04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mr. Elmo@25 January 2004 - 15:42
just becuz a card can oc to the core/mem. speed of a xt doesnt mean it will perform as well, chipsets and archurtechture (spelling?) also determin the performance.....if a pro could easily obtain speed of an xt, the xt wouldnt be so popular.&nbsp;

if you buy a 9600, get teh 128 mb one....256 is useless as most game dont take that much memory and the 256mb one has lower quality rams....and its like five-somethign ns ram....i dont quite remember but thats bad for ocing.

damnit,

so NOW i cant get a 256mb 9600xt because its worse than the standard 128mb? wtf is up with that?

can u explain this to me in more detail,
thanks dude [/b][/quote]
i was talking about the pro...dont know about the xt....im not saying its worst....well unless you&#39;re planning on ocing. its just that most games today dont even take up all the 128mb so 256mb would be a waste of money.

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by Mr. Elmo+24 January 2004 - 20:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr. Elmo @ 24 January 2004 - 20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by dray_02@25 January 2004 - 04:34
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr. Elmo

@25 January 2004 - 15:42
just becuz a card can oc to the core/mem. speed of a xt doesnt mean it will perform as well, chipsets and archurtechture (spelling?) also determin the performance.....if a pro could easily obtain speed of an xt, the xt wouldnt be so popular.

if you buy a 9600, get teh 128 mb one....256 is useless as most game dont take that much memory and the 256mb one has lower quality rams....and its like five-somethign ns ram....i dont quite remember but thats bad for ocing.

damnit,

so NOW i cant get a 256mb 9600xt because its worse than the standard 128mb? wtf is up with that?

can u explain this to me in more detail,
thanks dude

i was talking about the pro...dont know about the xt....im not saying its worst....well unless you&#39;re planning on ocing. its just that most games today dont even take up all the 128mb so 256mb would be a waste of money. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s right. There has been no games out so far that benefit from 256 mb video memory. That is just a sales tactic for newbs who think they are getting a deal b/c the price is lower for the 256 mb card than the 128 mb version.

[Dray_04]

ok so getting a 256mb card is actually going to slow the overall performance in todays games.

ok.

so if you had a choice 128mb or 256mb, both free, which would you take?