Is it worth upgrading 9600GTS to GTS 250

[viperbri]

I currently have a GeForce 9600GSO (fixed, not 9600GTS) 384mb and am considering upgrading to GeForce GTS 250 1GB card. My budget is around $100. Do you guys think it is worth the upgrade, will I notice much of a performance upgrade in games like COD-MW2 or BFBC2?
Or am I better off holding out for awhile until I can afford to upgrade to a bigger card and a bigger power supply (my current power supply is 500watt).

Thanks for all the input so far guys...great comments.

Here are my system specs:
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
AMD Athlon II X4 620 2.6GHz
6GB Dual Channel DDR2 PC2-6400
ECS GF8200a Motherboard
EVGA GeForce 9600 GSO 384mb Video Card (DDR3)
Hitachi 1TB SATA Hard Drive
Dual 22" LCD Monitors running 1680x1050 resolution
Rosewill 500watt Power Supply

 

[Schmide]

I guess you're talking about a 9600gso (g92)? It would be an upgrade and if you can find a gts250 for $100 that would be a good deal.

Post your CPU/mem/OS and I'm sure everyone will chime in with their advice.

 

[TemjinGold]

I currently have a GeForce 9600GTS 384mb and am considering upgrading to GeForce GTS 250 1GB card. My budget is around $100. Do you guys think it is worth the upgrade, will I notice much of a performance upgrade in games like COD-MW2 or BFBC2?
Or am I better off holding out for awhile until I can afford to upgrade to a bigger card and a bigger power supply (my current power supply is 500watt).

Thanks.

With a $100 budget, there is NO way you could come close to needing more than a 500-watt PSU unless you have a really shitty no-brand one. If you have a quality PSU, you would need to be running high end SLI/Crossfire to be worried about not having a big enough PSU.

 

[happy medium]

Yes, it will be a great upgrade. (100% faster)
Your psu is fine unless its one of the real shitty 500 watt brands.
It still may be ok.

I think the gts 250 1gb is 105$ shipped on Newegg as I write this.

 

[Schmide]

Yes, it will be a great upgrade. (100% faster)

Considering it's the same architecture and the only differences are.

128 vs 96 stream
64 vs 48 texture
16 vs 12 raster
256 vs 192 bus

It should be almost exactly 33% faster.

 

[happy medium]

Considering it's the same architecture and the only differences are.

128 vs 96 stream
64 vs 48 texture
16 vs 12 raster
256 vs 192 bus

It should be almost exactly 33% faster.

I was reffering to the 48 sp version of the 9600gso.
I think they made 64 sp' versions also.

In any event if he wants to play BC2, a gts 250 1gb should net him twice the fps then the 384 mb 9600gso.

Especially if he runs @ 1900x1200.

 

[formulav8]

Edit: This was in reply to shmide

Well the ram will make a difference in certain games. He has 384mb currently and the GTS250 will have at least 512mb and he may end up with the 1GB version. Higher clockspeeds in the core, shaders, and memory as well.

I do think he will get a bit more than the 30% performance increase you mentioned whether he gets the 512mb or 1GB version.


Jason

 

[crisium]

Easily twice the FPS in BC2, I agree. Good upgrade choice. You cannot discount the limits of 384MB.

And it's more than just those numbers you listed, Schmide. There's also:

738 clock vs 550
128 spus @ 1836 vs 96 @ 1375
256-bit mem @ 2200 vs 192-bit @ 1600

 

[Schmide]

OP said 384 so it can't be the 48sp. Neither would be really that great at at 1920x1200 architecturally. The game doesn't seem to be that memory dependent anyways.

You can pretty much figure the gts250 is going to be between the gtx260 and the 9800gt, while the 9600gso 384 will be a bit below the gt240. At the very most generously 50% faster.

 

[happy medium]

OP said 384 so it can't be the 48sp. Neither would be really that great at at 1920x1200 architecturally. The game doesn't seem to be that memory dependent anyways.

You can pretty much figure the gts250 is going to be between the gtx260 and the 9800gt, while the 9600gso 384 will be a bit below the gt240. At the very most generously 50% faster.

Well in the link you provided ,it shows a 5750(= to a gts 250) giving 90% more fps as a gt 240 @ 1900x1080 high settings. So if your right and the 384 GSO is a notch below the gt240?, I guess my twice as fast answer was right. Thanks, for stopping in.

 

[crisium]

Yeah Schmide, your own link proves our point. A 9600GSO is one step behind a 9600GT. And consider that BC2 uses more than 384MB of memory, and that step widens. So ~20fps vs 35-40ish (GTS 250 usually battles with the 4850 and 5750). That's nearly 100%

 

[happy medium]

Yeah Schmide, your own link proves our point. A 9600GSO is one step behind a 9600GT. And consider that BC2 uses more than 384MB of memory, and that step widens. So ~20fps vs 35-40ish (GTS 250 usually battles with the 4850 and 5750). That's nearly 100%

Us Pennsylavania guys have smarts! Philly in the house.:awe:

 

[Schmide]

Yeah Schmide, your own link proves our point. A 9600GSO is one step behind a 9600GT. And consider that BC2 uses more than 384MB of memory, and that step widens. So ~20fps vs 35-40ish (GTS 250 usually battles with the 4850 and 5750). That's nearly 100%

If any one part of that obscure north of the Mason Dixon Line situation isn't satisfied, it falls apart. Take down the AA AS to medium or go to a typical resolution 1680x1050 (high) where both cards run fine and you and you get a ~40fps card vs a ~30fps card. (~33%). Just because you can find one situation where it's true, doesn't make it ubiquitous.

 

[blanketyblank]

What's your exact brand and model? Maybe you can flash your bios to an 8800GTS 512 which will be almost equal to the GTS 250 512 in performance.

 

[happy medium]

If any one part of that obscure north of the Mason Dixon Line situation isn't satisfied, it falls apart. Take down the AA AS to medium or go to a typical resolution 1680x1050 (high) where both cards run fine and you and you get a ~40fps card vs a ~30fps card. (~33&#37. Just because you can find one situation where it's true, doesn't make it ubiquitous.

So this guy is gonna buy a card TODAY to play at yesterdays resolution?

You are reaching.

The benchmark shows that increase in graphic intensity will favor the gts 250 more and more.

So lets say that a 33% increase minimum with 100% possible . For a hundred bucks? Sounds worth it to me.

Whats to argue?

 

[Schmide]

So this guy is gonna buy a card TODAY to play at yesterdays resolution?

You are reaching.

The benchmark shows that increase in graphic intensity will favor the gts 250 more and more.

So lets say that a 33% increase minimum with 100% possible . For a hundred bucks? Sounds worth it to me.

Whats to argue?

The argument comes when you put forth a 100% improvement blanket statement. I was just putting it in perspective.

 

[happy medium]

The argument comes when you put forth a 100% improvement blanket statement. I was just putting it in perspective.

The argument comes because you are one of those people who can't EVER be wrong and can't admit when there ARE wrong.

Good day sir.

 

[Aknosis]

This thread has been hijacked!

**Yes upgrade you will see substantial differences. The price isn't the best for them new but you can get them used around $100 and that price is well worth it.

 

[Schmide]

I'm documented wrong and am wrong a lot. My statement was fair looking at the units.

Edit: I'm sorry if I was confrontational.

 

[viperbri]

What's your exact brand and model? Maybe you can flash your bios to an 8800GTS 512 which will be almost equal to the GTS 250 512 in performance.

My current card is the EVGA GeForce 9600 GSO (GPU=G92)
Device ID=10DE-0610
BIOS Version=62.92.42.00.62
Physical Memory=384 MB
Shaders=96 unified
Memory type=GDDR3
Bus Width=192 Bit

 

[viperbri]

Here is one I am considering from Newegg. MSI N250GTS - $115 after rebate.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-445-_-Product

 

[viperbri]

or the Gigabyte GV-N250-1GI for $99 after rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-310-_-Product

Any opinions on the Gigabyte vs the MSI card?

 

[evolucion8]

The GTS 250 will be only a performance upgrade, but will have the same feature set. Isn't that is wrong, but besides higher performance, some more eye candy can be appreciated like in Metro 2033 or Battlefield Bad Company 2 in cards with newer feature sets like DX10.1.

I played Battlefield Bad Company and it uses DX10.1, Metro 2033 does the same in a strange way, ATT reports DX11 but there's no way that I can run DX11, which means that some DX11 features are running in DX10.1 mode. This isn't about PhysX vs DX10.1 war, is about which of those features suits you best.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...on%20HD%204850

If you don't have issue switching of vendor which will offer you the same GTS 250 performance plus DX10.1, HDMI Audio, better BluRay acceleration and better anti aliasing quality for under $100.00

But the GTS 250 offers you better anisotropic filtering, PhysX and lower power consumption which will be nice with your current power supply. Is up to you.

 

[Arkaign]

I've had a 9600GT 512MB (EVGA), and a GTS250 1GB (HP OEM), and I didn't notice any giant performance increase at my 1680x1050 resolution in the games I was playing.

OP, if you can squeeze a tiny bit more out of your budget, a 1GB 5770 (or even 5750) would be the way to go. You can always resell the 9600GSO to recoup a few bucks after the fact.

I know you're going from a larger gap having only a 384mb card, just giving my experience with a fairly similar change.

 

[nemesismk2]

The GeForce GTS 250 1GB would be a good upgrade from a GeForce 9600 GSO. Ive got a GeForce GTS 250 1GB and it gives me good gaming performance in my backup computer. Compared to your GeForce 9600 GSO with the GeForce GTS 250 1GB you will be able to play games at a higher reolution and higher quality.