• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

9600GT greater than ATI 4870/90?

baked188 said:
hes talking **** mate, i upgraded from a 8600gt (which is v.similer to 9600gt) to a HD4850 and the performance increase was at least 80-90% if not more.
Click to expand...

An 8600 and 8600 are nothing alike in performance terms. :confused:


I think the guy is either an idiot and can't get his 4870 working, maybe he doesn't understand that ATi and nVidia don't use the same drivers?

Or maybe he's one of those people who thinks a bigger number = performance.

Like those people who think the amount of RAM a graphics card has determines its performance outright.
 
he has both in one computer apprently if you go back I made the statment "hope he don't have vista" after finding out he has both cards in the same machine at the same time.

yeah the GTX275 can do, if not does do, overclocked it can beat a GTX285 same goes for the HD4890
 
Last edited:
You'll have to excuse KHALIK and his incomprehensible lack of respect for his own community members. Believe it or not Garner is one of KHALIKS main understudies at FM, so quite why Mr KHALIK has chosen to attack him the way he has is mind boggling. Garner does not have a single bad word in him, even now when he has handed his admin in because of this personal attack.

Nice one pheer, you carry on your self desrtuct mission.

As far as this quote goes Mr KHALIK..
Like i said to many times on steam, my 9600GT out performs my 4870 but about 70/80fps.

I was making comparisons, not statements. When it comes down to actual results ingame, the 9600GT i have is better.
Click to expand...

.. have you ever thought that it might just be true for him? Probably not, because you never listen to anyone do you?

My apologies to the OC chaps for this post. I felt I had to defend Garner, and seeing as though this post would be deleted immediately on FM I was hoping this one would not. If this is deleted please accept my apology and carry on as usual.

Cheers
 
Sounds like he's playing at 640x480 and is severely cpu limited. :D

No way is a 9600 even remotely as fast as a 4870 at average and above resolutions.

gt
 
to be honest it is possible in css, as my 9600gt used to get about 160fps on average with all the settings maxed out and on the same system my 9800gtx+ gets about 140fps
 
Considering the fact that the Source engine is primarily dependant on a nice processor, the above statements could actually have some kind of merit.

Of course we don't even know what the guys other components are or what resolutions are used, but between the mentioned cards I'd say they would probably yield the same amount of performance in CSS.
 
Still doesn't mention the level of overclock (if any) and the resolution he's gaming at though.

Without those and assuming a fairly low res then i'd agree with Locke.

gt
 
Since the immature thread is about me, and i really cba to reply but anyway

I never made any claims to the owner of Fragmasters (who is KHALIK aka ph33r), i simply said that from what i experianced performance wise was my EVGA 9600GT KO edition card out performed my 4870 by about 70fps.

The fact is, only bits and peices of the convo were posted, like i said, i gave feed back from my own opinion on the hadware i had, i didnt say a 9600GT was better in general, i clearly stated MY 9600GT was outperforming a 4870.

Anyway, i play at 1400x900 (19inch widescreen) at 16:10 aspec ratio, with 4GB 800mhz RAM, Asus maximus II formula mobo, 500GB HDD, 750W power, Q6600 G0 stepping @ 3ghz (340x9 @ 1.4v) and have done since i built my comp (i always play at max resolutions for my screen, whats the point otherwise?)

I cant explain it, 9600GT gets more fps, no configs, maxed AA and AF in source games, maxed in COD4, maxed in GRID and other games like UT3 and i have no stuttering at all, all with fps exceeding 100 constantly (apart from some choke points but thats very very rare, and even then it usually drops to like 80 and still no stuttering)

However, 4870 doesnt run as well, its a brand new card from OC, and my previous 4870 (Asus 4870) had the same performance. I still run source at maxed, but i get a few performance problems like choke point stuttering, bomb going off on de_ maps, low fps with more than 34ppl, cant run GRID on maxed settings ect (you get the idea).

You may be asking "why do i have a 4870 when my so-called 9600GT wonder card out performs it). Well before i made this computer, i bought the 9600GT for a fairly cheap price and put it in my old PCworld bought Compaq computer, which was an upgrade from an Nvidia 12v powered 8400 gfx card. Then when i built this PC the 9600GT was put in and ran well, until i started getting problems with memory leaks with the GDDR. So i thought id buy a "top end" card at the time, the 4870 (i got the Asus one before my XFX) and put that in my comp.

I noticed performance issues with the 4870, so i complained to OC who replaced it many times. During the 4870 RMA process (which when back and forth for months and months) i continued to use my 9600GT despite the memory problem, just ALT-TAB'ing to correct the colour invering that happened every so often (thats all it was)

Currently, my 9600GT is at EVGA in germany for repair or replace since the 9600GT has stopped being sold on OC, and the turn around acording to EVGA is quicker than that of the 28days OC can provide, so for the same amount of shipping, id get it back quicker.

Summary, like i said, i made no claims, only observations. The author of the thread couldnt accept that, and got immature and angry over stupid stuff. A 34 year old man raging about a gfx card, not based on facts, but an observation. He may of had a fair point if he had a 4870 and a 9600GT himself, but he doesnt and cant really comment unless hes seen the results. Lastly, im a keen gamer, i like performance, so why would i possibly lie about one card being better than the other, or use a lesser performing card and say its better when its not?

Ah well, not gonna lower myself to his level, and i applaued the people in this thread who have some sense about the possibilities of strange results and how different hardware operates and performs in different engines.
 
Thanks for the post Garner - good of you to describe it fully.

It does sound odd that the 4870 is beaten by the 9600 in all those games. Might just be that your system works particularly well with that NV card.

As far as my experience with cards like this i can say i've had an 8800GTX, G92 GTS and later a 4850.

The 4850 was the best but only by around 20%-25% as far as i could see. Like you i was running a 3ghz quad and 4gb of ddr2 at the time. Later i upgraded to a dual @ 4ghz+ which really boosted the 4850's performance.

I would have said CPU limitation but since your 9600 was returning CSS framerates 70fps over the 4870's i simply can't imagine what it could be.

gt
 
CSS produces daft performance sometimes and isn't really something any cards overall performance should be based on imo. Really don't think this was worth a thread on here though even more so given it seems to be a personal thing that KHALIK was trying to use OcUK forum memebrs to try and make someone else look bad glad i don't frequent that server if this is the standard of admining.
 
I would like to be able to have css graphical settings set to the max and still get the frame rates that Garner gets. A number of other people have had high settings also and got good fps like him too. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, if I were to set every option to the max I would average around 75 - 90 fps and I consider my rig a pretty decent one, certainly will be once the cpu is sorted soon. The only thing I can put it down to is that nvidia, in my experience, do deliver excellent minimum and consistent fps. I tend to find ATi give better IQ but with that can come a performance hit. Its not a real issue for me or noticable in single player games but with online play there does tend to be a difference. I think I see what Garner means about fps dipping e.g. the bomb going off on css so perhaps this where the minimum fps comes in to its own. When I had an 8800gtx I seem to recall a more consistent fps performance and that was on my last rig as well. Damn, I wish my mobo wasn't crossfire only. :( :)
 
Last edited:
its got nothing to do with the cards, CS:S goes back some damn years. Now with CS:S I wouldn't be surprised if it was played at 640x480 or 800x600. If you go down that low in res most older cards outdo new ones as they were optimised for low res's up to a maybe max of 1280x1024, now with the GTX's and 4800 series are optimised for higher resolutions but its performance probably scales off at really low resolutions.

This is a theory, not fact, but definetly a possibility. Too many people have been saying there high end cards seem to lose potential fps in lower resolutions than higher ones.
I mean look at the benchmarks of most cards one card better than one increase the res and one card that was behind can come up to win because its potential is only reached when hitting a certain res upwards.
Also the whole gfx upgrade, dont we all give advice that its only worth it if ur playing at certain resolutions.
Putting in a high end card does not neccasarily mean your gonna get more performance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom