Which card is better?

[rartech]

I have both cards and I want to get peoples opinions on which one is the better card. It will mainly be used to run some games like Sims or Halo.

 

[santz]

a 256mb is better than a 128 mb anyday, time, year, age, century, millenia, history? hehe

go with 256mb, cause i had a mobility 9700 based on a 9600 desktop card and it worked gr8 except it was a 128 mb, so i know a 256 can do better

 

[Wentelteefje]

Remains to be seen... If there is a chance of unlocking pipes, the 6200 will clearly outperform the 9600... However, don't take the 256MB because "bigger is better", as both cards aren't powerful enough for that amount to really have any influence...

As I said, look around if it's possible to unlock and if so (only the older NV43 can), I'd take the 6200... Even without unlocking they are 'pretty' comparable, as the 6200 has an impressive overclocking potential...

Check this review for a comparison... I know, it's unreadable, but the graphs are clear...

-W-

 

[morgash]

yeah i would agree with wentel, if u find a nv43 core gf 6200 then unlock it, there is no comparison it will absolutely destroy the 9600. even if it wasnt unlockable, at stock its faster, it overclocks like a beast, and has new technology (HDR, SM 3.0, so on). so i would definetly go with the 6200.

 

[Munky]

Look at this:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/index0507.html

The gf6200 is an overpriced, overhyped, crippled budget card that people give way too much credit. If it unlocks, then it will be faster. At stock settings it's slower than the 9600xt, and loses in every benchmark except Doom3.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Originally posted by: santz
a 256mb is better than a 128 mb anyday, time, year, age, century, millenia, history? hehe

Nope. Not necessarily true! You could theoretically put 512 MB's of RAM on an FX 5200 or an MX 4000, and the card would still be crap. I really discourage anyone to ever use either word of mere subjective opinion in asking about VGA. "Best and better" is far too meaningless. Fast and fastest is different.

go with 256mb, cause i had a mobility 9700 based on a 9600 desktop card and it worked gr8 except it was a 128 mb, so i know a 256 can do better

What you didn't pay attemtion to was the matchup between speed and RAM. A slow card won't ever get the chance to use a lot of RAM. You could put a GB of RAM on an FX 5200, still no change. Slow card.

Both of the VGAs named are 128 Bit, both are in the speed range near the budget level, so they aren't "fast". Neither one will benefit from more than 128 MB's of RAM in games. In a program like Photo Studio, yes, then the extra RAM can be used. It is difficult to do simple comparisons of just two cards, without a battery of benchmarks. The 6200 potentially will overclock, but at stock speeds, that 9600XT "should be" faster. The 6200 does have Shader Model 3, if that means anything in this context.


:frown:

 

[SpeedZealot369]

The xt will tear the geforce a new one.

 

[dug777]

you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNLOCK IT since nv haven't made 6200s with the 6600 core for a very, very long time iirc. It will be the intended 6200 core (nv44?) and it sucks major ass.

I have had both a 256mb 6200 & a 9550 128mb. The 9550 oc'd to faster than 9600XT speeds, and kicked the living sh1t out of the 6200 in the limited time i tested it...

 

[rartech]

This is the 6200 I have is a PNY VCG62128APB Geforce 6200 128MB 64-bit DDR AGP 4X/8X Video Card.

The 9600XT is a Gigabyte Radeon 9600XT 256MB 128-bit DDR AGP 4X/8X Video Card.

I would think the 9600XT would be a little faster, but I wanted to see what other people may have experienced.