I'm in the process of getting a new vid card to replace my ageing GF3ti (to accompany a XP2400 CPU). I thought I'd get a 9600Pro but decided to wait for the 9600XT or FX5700. Was this a bad idea?
I'm not really interested in spending more £'s for a much better card - 9800, 5900 etc. as this is only a 'secondary' PC and will be fully replaced next year. Should I just go for a bog standard 9600Pro or hang on a bit longer for one of these two 'slightly sexier’ models?
What is the lead time between reviews and actual availability in the UK? It’s got to early November and still no sign of either.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Waiting for the 9600XT and FX5700ULTRA (the std FX5700 is crap) was wise in that you saw the reviews of them AND have now seen price cuts to 9600PRO (FX5600ultra is pretty crap). Basically a lot depends on whether you want to try o/c'ing or not. The only important diff between 9600PRO and 9600XT is a higher clocked core, the 9600PRO o/c VERY well so if you don't mind some easy o/c'ing the 9600PRO is easily the best card. The FX5700ULTRA should be decently faster than the Rad9600XT BUT it is still based on the troubled GF-FX archy so 9600XT may very wel be as good overall. You could look for a bargain deal on the 9500PRO which is still superior to the 9600XT (although it is now closer esp excl o/c'ing) or better still the 9700 series which is just as good as the 9800 series esp when o/c'ing. TBH any of these cards are top notch for a PRIMARY system and you can't go far wrong. I wouldn't buy 9600XT nor FX5700ULTRA for the first month they debut as prices will be a good 10% higher to profit from early adopters.

