- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Location
- Nashville, TN
Well I needed a card for my second box and wanted to see if the 9600XT was much better than the 9600pro so I picked up one. A little disappointed in the in 3.3 Samsung, but still a nice card. I decided to do a little comparison with the 9600pro I had until I dropped it a broke one of the ram chips. I used the 3.8 drivers and ran my system at 242 so the test would be equal. The only difference between the two cards is that the 9600pro had a Giant II and ramsinks. The XT was using stock cooling. The clock rate on the pro was 538/356 and on the XT 553/338. Above 338 memory I had artifacts and I tried 558, rage3d wouldn't let me select 555, and while I didn't see any artifacts 3dmark03 froze in game4.
3dmark03
9600pro: 4406
9600XT: 4427
2001SE
9600pro: 15707
9600XT: 15642
Aquamark
9600pro: 36528
9600XT: 37438
The scores are very close except the Aquamark score. I'm not sure why it was so much higher. With the Giant II and ramsinks I gained 10 on the memory and 15 on the core with the pro. I'm sure the XT would do better with better cooling. I would have run a clock for clock test, but I couldn't match the pro memory speeds with the XT. The pro had 2.86ns Samsung.
3dmark03
9600pro: 4406
9600XT: 4427
2001SE
9600pro: 15707
9600XT: 15642
Aquamark
9600pro: 36528
9600XT: 37438
The scores are very close except the Aquamark score. I'm not sure why it was so much higher. With the Giant II and ramsinks I gained 10 on the memory and 15 on the core with the pro. I'm sure the XT would do better with better cooling. I would have run a clock for clock test, but I couldn't match the pro memory speeds with the XT. The pro had 2.86ns Samsung.
