- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Location
- Kingston, NY
Hexus.net review of ASUS 9600 XT
It looks like the 9600XT is going to be the ATi midrange card to beat, at least the ASUS and Powercolor cards. The 9600XT gave both the 5600 ultra and 5700(non-ultra) runs for their money, frequently beating them at 1024x768 and 1280x1024, even with FSAA and AF on, only losing to them at 1600x1200 due to their superior fill rate. With the memory bus overclocked to 729mhz (129mhz over stock 600mhz), it cleaned up at all resolutions. DX9 benchmarks (Aquamark) were no contest. I'd say the 9600XT has more lasting power than the 5700, due to it's considerable superiority at DX9 apps. The 5600 Ultra never stood a chance. I just wish they had included a 9600 Pro or 9700 for comparison. When I read it the first time, I thought it was a 9700 non-pro they were comparing it to, cause, you know, that'd make sense.
Keep in mind, the ASUS and Powercolor cards use 2.8ns Samsung RAM, as opposed to the 3.3ns RAM other manufacturers are using.
It looks like the 9600XT is going to be the ATi midrange card to beat, at least the ASUS and Powercolor cards. The 9600XT gave both the 5600 ultra and 5700(non-ultra) runs for their money, frequently beating them at 1024x768 and 1280x1024, even with FSAA and AF on, only losing to them at 1600x1200 due to their superior fill rate. With the memory bus overclocked to 729mhz (129mhz over stock 600mhz), it cleaned up at all resolutions. DX9 benchmarks (Aquamark) were no contest. I'd say the 9600XT has more lasting power than the 5700, due to it's considerable superiority at DX9 apps. The 5600 Ultra never stood a chance. I just wish they had included a 9600 Pro or 9700 for comparison. When I read it the first time, I thought it was a 9700 non-pro they were comparing it to, cause, you know, that'd make sense.
Keep in mind, the ASUS and Powercolor cards use 2.8ns Samsung RAM, as opposed to the 3.3ns RAM other manufacturers are using.
Last edited:
