Stupid Graphics Card Question

BurncycleBurncycle Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
in Off-Topic
I know there is a difference between the Radeon 9600 and Radeon 9600 Pro- but is there a difference between the Radeon 9600 XT and the Radeon 9600 <i>PRO</i> XT? Or are they both the same thing? On the ATI website all I see them mention is Radeon 9600 XT; but I think around here (if I remember correctly) I've heard people say Radeon 9600 pro XT....

I know the XT is supposed to support DX9, does it also do pixel shading?

sorry for the confusion, can someone clarify on this name issue?
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • CommunistWithAGunCommunistWithAGun Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
    Marketting scheme. ATI and Nvidia both issue billions of cards, which about two of are actually worth buying. For NVidia you have the most expensive FX card, and ATI's Radeon9800 XT. These are the only DX9 cards that are DX9 compatable. For example the radeon9600 is a budget card, a dx9 budget card. That means its worthless. Budget= worthless. This is because selfish hardware companies must lie to the customer.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • DruBoDruBo Back In Beige Join Date: 2002-02-06 Member: 172Members, NS1 Playtester
    edited October 2003
    nah, the 9600XT isn't worthless.... it doesn't have nearly as much cool factor as ATI's flagship model, but it's certainly DX9 compliant in its ability to run Pixel Shader 2.0 and Vertex Shader 2.0 effects.

    There's no 9600XT Pro, that's probably just websites trying to put as many keywords in one place to snag the googlehunters. There is the 9600, the 9600Pro, and the 9600XT. The only major difference between the Pro and the XT is that the XT comes with a coupon for the full version of HL2; other than that, it's just clock speeds and some pcb redesigns for more OC support.

    Commie w/gun was wrong on another point: the most expensive GeforceFX is not worth buying. It might be if it cost less, maybe, but right now there are too many issues to make it useful with modern games.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • OttoDestructOttoDestruct Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7790Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--DrunkenBozo+Oct 18 2003, 04:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DrunkenBozo @ Oct 18 2003, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> nah, the 9600XT isn't worthless.... it doesn't have nearly as much cool factor as ATI's flagship model, but it's certainly DX9 compliant in its ability to run Pixel Shader 2.0 and Vertex Shader 2.0 effects.

    There's no 9600XT Pro, that's probably just websites trying to put as many keywords in one place to snag the googlehunters. There is the 9600, the 9600Pro, and the 9600XT. The only major difference between the Pro and the XT is that the XT comes with a coupon for the full version of HL2; other than that, it's just clock speeds and some pcb redesigns for more OC support.

    Commie w/gun was wrong on another point: the most expensive GeforceFX is not worth buying. It might be if it cost less, maybe, but right now there are too many issues to make it useful with modern games. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Hes right there is no 9600 XT Pro. And so far from benchmarks (tomshardware is the only one I've seen with actual numbers) the XT gets maybe 5 fps over the Pro, which saddens me as the 9600 XT is advertised on ATI's site to outperform cards twice its cost. I'm tempted to get a 9500 Pro now that I've seen benchmarks on it.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.