9500 64MB Vs 9600/Pro

[DoD]

I currently have a 9500 64MB which I love and i hate.

Its the 64MB. I cant get AA above 4x in 1024 due to this lack of memory.
Pushing my settings to "Quality" In some games pushes my FPS down to 10 at
times but maily 15-20.

So im thinking of upgrading soon, to get something with at least 128MB. I
see that 9500 pro's are being pulled off the market, so i can only really
get a 9600

However, how would these fare up against the 9500? I prolly wont get the
256MB version as that seems like a waste of money - if anything it should
be on the 9800 or 9600 pro which might use it.

Would i see a significant difference with a 9600 128MB over my 9500 64MB to
be worth the cost? (PRO version is out of my price range) As if it is, ill
wait until i can bag one for £80 and jump on it

Cheers, and thanks for any help

 

[Zulu]

I currently have a 9500 64MB which I love and i hate.

What does the rest of your system look like?

Zulu

 

[DoD]

What does the rest of your system look like?

Zulu

2600+, A7N8X, 512 MB PC 2700, that enough?

 

[Zulu]

2600+, A7N8X, 512 MB PC 2700, that enough?

Fine.
A 9700np may be a good alternative, they're dropping in price right now. Or
maybe a second one.

Zulu

 

[DoD]

Fine.
A 9700np may be a good alternative, they're dropping in price right
now. Or maybe a second one.

Zulu

The problem is avaliability.

Ive been on my local stores websites, and they have 9700P's 9800(all) 9600
(all) and all the ones below 9500. But in terms of R300 or whatever the
chip is called there's only 9700 pro i can find

 

[DoD]

I was recently looking for a 9500 and couldnt find one so settled for
the 128MB 9600 Pro. Reason I was looking for the 9500 was I
understood from reviews that the 9600 was actually slower than the
9500 because it only has 4 pipelines instead of 8?

That said the 9600 Pro runs all the latest games (most recently
Devastation and Elite Force 2) with quality settings and no problems
at all and no o-clocking. HTH, Shawk

The 9500 PRO is better than the 9600 PRO but the 9600 PRO is better than
the 9500, of which i have, and also a crippled version of that. With 64MB
you can just take 30% off all of the results for the 128MB, as its just
stupid making a 64MB version.

I dont get why they make a 256MB 9200? it only needs 64MB?

 

[Shawk]

Just looking at the Nvidia group and someone posted this interesting link

http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/

Compares the 9500, 9600 Pro, 9700 Pro and 9800 Pro against the Nvidia
offerings in the first DX9 game - (Tombraider) - interesting reading.

Shawk

Another one that might interest you is

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDY0LDE=

I'll shut up now. Cheers, Shawk