Quick Question - 8600 GTS 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 vs 9500 GT 512MB 128-bit GDDR3

[Grimace]

I want one of these to replace my old 7800GT 256 as my main vid card, but keep my old one so i can run 3 monitors.

So I was wondering which one is better for gaming? they are both an upgrade from my current correct?

Am I just having to decide if i want the dual DVI out of the 8600 GTS, or the single DVI/HDMI out of the 9500GT?

8600 GTS

9500 GT

thanks!

 

[lopri]

9500 GT, easily. They're same things spec-wise, except 8600 GTS is 90nm (80nm?) and 9500 GT is 65nm (or maybe 55nm). Less power, less heat. And 9500 GT has an improved video processor if I'm not mistaken.

 

[error8]

And both cards are not any good for gaming.If you want to play recent games, you have to spend more for the card.

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: error8
And both cards are not any good for gaming.If you want to play recent games, you have to spend more for the card.

yes because everyone plays at 1900*1200 4xAA 16xAF

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: jones377

Originally posted by: error8
And both cards are not any good for gaming.If you want to play recent games, you have to spend more for the card.

yes because everyone plays at 1900*1200 4xAA 16xAF

No, it's because nobody plays at 1024X768, with everything on low-medium anymore. Well, maybe you are, but that's just 0.003% of the gaming community.

 

[lavaheadache]

the 8600 gt in my vostro laptop paired with a measily 1.6ghz c2duo handles cod4 & 5 easily with all effect in high detail no AA @1280x720 (aka 720p) Fps always over 30. Hell it even handles crysis With a mix of high and medium @720p with an average of mid 30's.

Error8... I think you've made an error These low-end cards are very capable for budget gaming. Trust me you would be blown away by my lappy.

 

[error8]

I don't know man. I know someone who has an 8600 GT and it struggles in everything. A game here and there might work fine, but you can't have spring with only one flower, you now?

 

[firewolfsm]

Those cards can run 1280 at medium to full settings on any game.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Those cards can run 1280 at medium to full settings on any game.

Prove it!

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Those cards can run 1280 at medium to full settings on any game.

Prove it!

no need. my friends vostro 1500 at 1280x800 and 8600GT runs pretty much any game at medium settings (not sure about high), but definitely medium.

8600GT is a VERY capable card...in my old mbp, it ran all my games just fine, and that was the 128MB version, not the 256MB.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

If you can spend a little more get this http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814130437.

Otherwise, get this http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814162019.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Those cards can run 1280 at medium to full settings on any game.

Prove it!

no need. my friends vostro 1500 at 1280x800 and 8600GT runs pretty much any game at medium settings (not sure about high), but definitely medium.

8600GT is a VERY capable card...in my old mbp, it ran all my games just fine, and that was the 128MB version, not the 256MB.

Yes but it's on medium settings. That doesn't makes it a capable card, if you can play games at medium settings, on a low 1280X800 resolution. If you can't max out all settings and I'm not talking about AA, then that card is not that "capable".

As Waitingfornehalem pointed out, OP should spend just a couple of dollars more for at least a 9600 GSO for example, which is way more "capable" then an old 8600GTS/9500GT, which can hardly be considered an upgrade from his 7800 GT, which was a high end card at its time.

8600GT/GTS as well as the crappy HD2600 series, were low end cards when they were released, back in 2007. Imagine how low end are they today.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: secretanchitman

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Those cards can run 1280 at medium to full settings on any game.

Prove it!

no need. my friends vostro 1500 at 1280x800 and 8600GT runs pretty much any game at medium settings (not sure about high), but definitely medium.

8600GT is a VERY capable card...in my old mbp, it ran all my games just fine, and that was the 128MB version, not the 256MB.

Yes but it's on medium settings. That doesn't makes it a capable card, if you can play games at medium settings, on a low 1280X800 resolution. If you can't max out all settings and I'm not talking about AA, then that card is not that "capable".

As Waitingfornehalem pointed out, OP should spend just a couple of dollars more for at least a 9600 GSO for example, which is way more "capable" then an old 8600GTS/9500GT, which can hardly be considered an upgrade from his 7800 GT, which was a high end card at its time.

8600GT/GTS as well as the crappy HD2600 series, were low end cards when they were released, back in 2007. Imagine how low end are they today.

1. You seem to misunderstand what capable means.
2. They were mid range, not low end when introduced.
3. If he's going to spend a little more, why get a 9600GSO when he could get an HD4670 instead? HD4670 for $50AR
Handily beats the 9500GT(Often twice as fast for $10 more, and faster usually than a 9600GSO)

Unless he uses Vista in which case mixing vendors wouldn't work.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

1. You seem to misunderstand what capable means.
2. They were mid range, not low end when introduced.
3. If he's going to spend a little more, why get a 9600GSO when he could get an HD4670 instead? HD4670 for $50AR
Handily beats the 9500GT(Often twice as fast for $10 more, and faster usually than a 9600GSO)

Unless he uses Vista in which case mixing vendors wouldn't work.

1. For me capable means probably something else.

2. They were considered mid range just because there weren't any mid range cards on the market back then. There were only 8800GTX/GTS and X2900X, which were high end and right beneath them were these "fantastic" cards. 8600 GT, when it was released, traded blows with a 2006 7600 GT. That can hardly be considered a mid range card, that performs just as fast as the last generation mid range GPUs.

3. Totally agree with you on this. 4770 is a great card for just a couple of dollars.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Lonyo

1. You seem to misunderstand what capable means.
2. They were mid range, not low end when introduced.
3. If he's going to spend a little more, why get a 9600GSO when he could get an HD4670 instead? HD4670 for $50AR
Handily beats the 9500GT(Often twice as fast for $10 more, and faster usually than a 9600GSO)

Unless he uses Vista in which case mixing vendors wouldn't work.

1. For me capable means probably something else.

2. They were considered mid range just because there weren't any mid range cards on the market back then. There were only 8800GTX/GTS and X2900X, which were high end and right beneath them were these "fantastic" cards. 8600 GT, when it was released, traded blows with a 2006 7600 GT. That can hardly be considered a mid range card, that performs just as fast as the last generation mid range GPUs.

3. Totally agree with you on this. 4770 is a great card for just a couple of dollars.

error8, he said 4670 not 4770.

He should stick with Nvidia because he already has Nvidia.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem


error8, he said 4670 not 4770.

He should stick with Nvidia because he already has Nvidia.

Whatever, 4770, 4670, 9600 GSO are much better options then 8600 gts/9500 gt.

 

[theAnimal]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
He should stick with Nvidia because he already has Nvidia.

That's ridiculous. You should get whatever gives you the best bang for the buck, and for $30-40AR that would be an HD4650.

 

[geokilla]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem


error8, he said 4670 not 4770.

He should stick with Nvidia because he already has Nvidia.

Whatever, 4770, 4670, 9600 GSO are much better options then 8600 gts/9500 gt.

They are also much more expensive.

Error, I game at 1280X1024 with my rig in sig and everything's fine. Plus, the OP never said anything about playing games. Also, those cards that he listed are definitely capable for budget gaming. You might think that if a GPU can't play games at 1280X1024 with 2X/4X AA and everything on medium or high, it makes them a crap card. But we all have our opinions on this. You can stick with your opinion.

@OP. What are you doing with your system? Out of those two, I'd recommend the 8600GTS. The 9500GT basically replaces the 8600GT, which is slower than the 8600GTS. If you wish to spend a bit more, consider purchasing a 9600GT instead. You wouldn't want to purchase an ATI card though if you're going to keep your 7600GT.

 

[OCGuy]

Get the 9500GT and dont look back.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: theAnimal

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
He should stick with Nvidia because he already has Nvidia.

That's ridiculous. You should get whatever gives you the best bang for the buck, and for $30-40AR that would be an HD4650.

He said he wants to keep his existing card for 3 monitors.
If he's on Vista and has an NV card he will need an NV card even if ATI offers better performance, because otherwise (AFAIK) he won't be able to keep his existing card.
If he's on XP he could get an ATI card instead.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Lonyo

1. You seem to misunderstand what capable means.
2. They were mid range, not low end when introduced.
3. If he's going to spend a little more, why get a 9600GSO when he could get an HD4670 instead? HD4670 for $50AR
Handily beats the 9500GT(Often twice as fast for $10 more, and faster usually than a 9600GSO)

Unless he uses Vista in which case mixing vendors wouldn't work.

1. For me capable means probably something else.

2. They were considered mid range just because there weren't any mid range cards on the market back then. There were only 8800GTX/GTS and X2900X, which were high end and right beneath them were these "fantastic" cards. 8600 GT, when it was released, traded blows with a 2006 7600 GT. That can hardly be considered a mid range card, that performs just as fast as the last generation mid range GPUs.

3. Totally agree with you on this. 4770 is a great card for just a couple of dollars.

And that was in 2006. In more recent games the 8600GT/GTS and 9500GT are going to be much faster than the 7600GT and will probably be faster than the 7900GT too, which would certainly qualify it as a mid-range card in its time for me.

I've used the card. At 1280x1024 it can play Crysis on medium settings, and I'm sure I could have made it smoother by tweaking more settings but I didn't. It is a very capable card for a casual gamer.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Are you guys high?

The 4650 beasts the 9500gt/8600GT. Its only $35AR anyway. If you are going to spend that much money, Nvidia does not have an answer at that price range. The 8600gt could not really keep up with games then, how could it now? The 4650 is a near replica in performance compared to the 2900 series cards despite the smaller memory bus.

If you want to be dumb and buy the 8600gt/9500gt's, I could also recommend some monster cables and some bose products.

 

[Grimace]

thanks you guys for turning this into quite the discussion, very informative!

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Are you guys high?

The 4650 beasts the 9500gt/8600GT. Its only $35AR anyway. If you are going to spend that much money, Nvidia does not have an answer at that price range. The 8600gt could not really keep up with games then, how could it now? The 4650 is a near replica in performance compared to the 2900 series cards despite the smaller memory bus.

If you want to be dumb and buy the 8600gt/9500gt's, I could also recommend some monster cables and some bose products.

Did you not notice the compatibility issue here? We're talking about keeping the old card as well.

And don't think the 8600GT is weak by any means. Hell, I ran Crysis on low/medium settings on a x850xt quite well. Of course if you're a gamer you need a much better card to run at high settings, but more often than not a budget card will get the job done.