9600m GT vs 9650m GT

Which card is best? I didnt find any reviews on google for the 9650 GT. I simply ask because the 9650 GT is 500 USD more expensive here than the 9600 GT, but is it really better?

 

If you are comparing the GDDR3 models of both cards, then 9650m GT should be about 20% better/faster.
It has higher clocks and is produced in a 55nm manufacturing process which results in less heat emission while consuimg same amount of power like 9600mGT GDDR3

I'm not sure if $500 more justifies it though.
$250 possibly ... but $500 seems a bit much.

It also depends on the remainder of the laptop.
What are the differences in components and what are the price tags overall?
Although if it's in my price range, I'd personally go for the 9650m GT.

 

No you could upgrade in Sager notebook to 9800 GTX easily or in the OCZ whitebook to Crossfired 3870s for less than 500$...

 

okay, here is the laptop, its on Norwegian but u can still understand the CPU,GPU stuff etc. http://www.multicom.no/SystemConfigurator.aspx?q=st:10556620;c:100561;fl:0

as you see its a nVidia GeForce 9650M GT 1GB (1024MB) MXM-GPU. I guess thats GDDR2 than?

 

No thse r Norwegian prices, a laptop like that would be like 4k USD

 

Yes, the 1GB of Vram 9650mGT is DDR2.
However, it should still be slightly better than 9600m GT and it's still produced in a 55nm manufacturing process.

But for a $500 difference between the cards ... I don't think it's really worth it.
Had it been the GDDR3 version, it would be worth it ... like this, the cost really doesn't justify it that much.

 

500$ difference? holy sheeet
I thought Canadians gets ripped off, now I think Canadians get good deals.

 

He said that its Norwegian prices, but, did I read it wrong, they charge you for open office??

 

they charge you for open office, they charge u for everything

 

It would be worth $20 and NO MORE!!! !! !
If it was a GDDR2 9600m GT vs GDDR3 9650m GT then $50 and no more.

 

Apparently 1 Norwegian krone = 0.146081 U.S. dollars. So Satyrion, are you saying the 9650 costs about $73 USD more than the 9600? If so, its a bit pricey, but possibly worth it.

 

I have a similar problem, I am hesitating between those 2

MSI 620 018 OR MSI 720 011 (both 9600m GT ddr3, p7350, 4g 6**) Just one is 15inch 1280x800 and the other is 17" 1440x900

Or Asus M50VN (P8600, 4G 800, 15 inch 1440x900, 9650m GT ddr2)

I just dont know which one would score better game wise.

 

I'd go for the ASUS if it was a similar price as the processor is alot better.

 

I did a few benches on the m50vn, it runs new games(~30fps) (Mass Effect, Fallout 3, COD 4, RA3) on mostly high settings at native resolution.. I'm wondering how it'll scale against an 9600m gt ddr3 though.

 

Same, I wish I could ask the reseller if he'd mind if i installed benchmarks on his pcs ><

As for prices, they are the same yea. I just cant find any test on the DDR 2 9650m gt :/

Edit: (Which I suppose I'll do if i buy it)

 

The m50vn has a DDR2 9650m gt, I can do some specific benches if you want me to..

 

That would be awesome if you can, cause I'm deciding between an ASUS with a Geforce 9650M GT DDR2 and an MSI GX620 with a Geforce 9600M GT DDR3. Though the MSI has the upper hand cause it's made out of aluminum with some plastic and has a 15.4 WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) screen.

 

9600m Gt Gddr3 > 9650m Gt Gddr2

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9650M-GT.10764.0.html

550/1325 core/shader to the 9600's 500/1250, as well as being 55nm instead of 65. It's very marginally faster stock, but it may have even more room to OC (which the 9600 already has a lot of, see sig).

If the offered 512MB 9600 GT is DDR3, take that, the 9650 with DDR2 would be a downgrade.

 

It has been reported that the Geforce 9650M GT DDR2 scores around 4764 in 3dmark06 while the Geforce 9600M GT DDR3 scores around 5300 at stock clocks. Honestly what the hell was Nvidia thinking with their 9 series numbering scheme?

 

It has nothing to do with numbering scheme because you're not comparing them apples to apples. 9650M GT GDDR3 > 9600M GT GDDR3, similarly for GDDR2 models.

 

They should have never even made ddr2 9600/9650

 

I know.. in this day and age all performance cards should be DDR3.

 

Totally agreed.

 

I know about the DDR3 really being better then DDR2.

However the only reseller of gddr3 card laptops here(Denmark) I could find(Zepto's Nox/Mythos) are rediculiously pricey for the same configuration I'd get from the m50vn: (P8600, 4GB ram, 9650m, High resolution(I actually prefer 1440x900 to 1680x1050 on an 15" screen), 500GB HD) added up to an extra 200$ with a basic one year warranty and no OS..

 

Nvidia isn't the problem (well, only), Asus (or anyone else) tries to cut costs going with GDDR2 memory instead of GDDR3. That way, the price of N80's, N50's, and M50's and such don't fall into a slightly higher brackets. Sure they could use all GDDR3 versions and absorb the costs keeping the same MSRP, but why? They are in the business of making money ("It has the same tag name, consumers won't really notice"). Bottom line is they are paying less for the GDDR2 VRAM.

MSI seems to always use GDDR3, wait for them? (9650M GT)

If the 14.1" N80, at some point with GDDR3 actually scores 5300 stock on a entry level CPU, that is pretty bad ***, and I want one. The GDDR2 version is nothing to get excited about.

 

Most of what i've seen from msi gaming laptops was 512mb GDDR2 8600m GT's

I havn't looked into their new lineups in detail though.

I wonder which would be cheaper for manufacturers 512mb GDDR2 or 256mb GDDR3...

 

MSI GX400/GX620 use the 9600M GT 256/512MB GDDR3, respectively.

 

And the MSI GT735 uses the ATi HD 3850 512MB DDR3, while the upcoming MSI GT625 will be equiped with the Geforce 9800M GS 1GB DDR3. So yea, most of their lineup is DDR3 whether performance or high-end GPU.

 

Why do u care Satyrion? I thought they were non gaming cards and not good enough for you..

 

Go here:
9600M GT. 3DMark06 3930-5860
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-GT.9449.0.html

9650M GT. 3DMark06 4826-6000
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9650M-GT.10764.0.html

I would say the 9650 GT beats its azz full handedly all the way around.

If its worth a $500 USD upgrade I would say HELL NO!

Myabe, MAYBE, $150.

 

Just stick with the DDR3 9600. The 9650 is just a barely higher clocked 9600 anyway.

 

I guess you are not aware that notebookcheck isn't a very reliable source are you? The slowest Geforce 9600M GT DDR2 in the HP Dv5/Dv7's score 4400+, while the DDR3 version in the MSI GX620 scores around 5300+ in 3dmark06. This is based on posts by actual members on NBR who own these cards. Also you have to keep in mind the CPU's used in these tests. Though the numbers aside, I wouldn't trust notebookcheck too much.

 

Yes, yes, yes...

Ive heard it all before...

We can also argue the semantics of the validity of 3DMark all day too...

And I have heard of the subjective unreliableness of notebookcheck. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing so much as even close to its data base anywhere.

My 3650 clocked in at ~3600 06 marks out of the box. Which is right ware notebookcheck said it would be.

So, until notebookcheck does me wrong, or something better comes out, I will reference its information.


But really, what is your point? That notebookcheck reports unfairly low 06 scores? If we apply that same logic to the 9650M GT we still have a significantly better performer.


PS

I like your underhanded condescension. Very passive aggressive.

 

Just as u know, all rounded number on that site r fake and the card never got that score> they simply wrote what they assume the card would get. After that the real tests come in and still u dunno what CPU they used.

 

Yes, and you would know this as youre a highly trusted worker for notebookjournal arent you Satyrion? Coughsarcasm

And the CPU doesnt matter much in 3D06 until you reach the "Satyrion Gaming Card" region. When talking about 9600M, CPU will make small differences.

 

Well point is that there is little difference between both cards, even less difference since the higher clocked one is GDDR2 and the lower clocked one is GDDR3.

That much we can conclude from everyone's numbers >.>

 

I understand notebookcheck does speculate on what a card may put out. They do this in cases where new hardware is announced but not available. Specifically they did it with the 4000 serious. (note all references have been removed) Regardless, I thought it was a nice gesture. It showed, based on tec specs, where they thought different models would place with others.



I have no problem with that. All you have to do is scroll to the bottom of their little stat page and see how many notebooks they tested with that card. If there aren't any, then you know its not legit. At least for the purposes of proving a point. Maybe sharing speculation... But not to back up any type of claim. But in most cases they have legitimate, actual benchmark results.



But when they report an average 3Dmark score based off about 15 (in the case of the 9600M GT) laptops benchmarked, all with (semi) detailed configs for the systems tested, it's a little hard to refute (click More Details next to the benchmark result). Unless you want to say they are just making sh!t up. In that case, I have nothing to say about that.



Now, to your credit. For the 9650M GT, I see they only benched one, and that was with DDR2. It resulted in a score of 4826. They are surmising with DDR3 you can reach ~6k.



When you look at the details for the 9600M GT on 3DMark06 you see they guessed a score of 3800k, but in reality it clocks in much higher. The lowest legitimate test score shown there is 4390, which completely backs up Cheeseman's claims.



If their estimation's are consistently conservative in terms of projected performance, then it could gain to reason the 9650M GT could turn ~6800 on 3DMark06 with DDR3. However, looking at how the 9600M GT scales in terms of DDR3 v. DDR2, I would say a more reasonable guess would be ~6200.



But in the end, the 9650M GT is mo betta.



Here is how I would brake it down

9600M GT DDR3 v. 9650M GT DDR3: 9650M GT upgrade for ~$175 USD
9600M GT DDR3 v. 9650M GT DDR2: 9650M GT = down grade. Dont do it!
9600M GT DDR2 v. 9650M GT DDR3: 9650M GT upgrade for ~$250 USD
9600M GT DDR2 v. 9650M GT DDR2: 9650M GT upgrade for $~125 USD

 

No, unlike some1 that uses a chemical romance dude as avatar, i got something called common sense, and i am observant

 

So all you guys would agree that:

9600m GT DDR3 > 9650m GT DDR2?


I was looking to get the m50vn but now might have to rethink.

 

Well said. I think that sums up most of the questions regarding this dilemma.

 

It's really by a slight margin, nothing big. Both of those GPUs are more or less equivalent in performance. The difference isn't groundbreaking really >.>

 

Well, "slight margin" is subjective.

You would get about ~1000 more on a 3DMark06 score with a 9600M GT DDR3 v. a 9650M GT DDR2. I would consider that to be a significant margin.

To put that in perspective, my Radeon 3650 went from a ~3800 score to a ~4400 after overclocking. That translated into about ~10 more FPS in games. Witch in turn was the difference between unplayable and playable in some games.

Based off my own experience I would say you could probable bring the 9600M GT up to 9650M GT clock speeds. This would absolutely smash the 9650M Gt...

I would imagine you MAY be able to obtain a ~6800 score in O6

A 50MHz overclock on the core and an 75 on the memory is pretty small. I bet you could brake ~7k

 

So are there any mainstream laptops with a 9650M GT DDR3?

 

Hmm, I didn't think the margin was that wide. But then again, I skimmed through the numbers everyone posted and it seemed to be within a >400 3dmark margin, but if it's in the 1000 range, then yes, it is somewhat more significant.

 

Do you consider the ASUS N80VN mainstream?

Edit: 1000? No way mang.

 

Checkout this thread on the Geforce 9600M GT DDR3 in the MSI notebooks:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=312248

Scores 7000+ in 3dmark06 at 1280x 1024 with stable clocks.

 

Just to make sure we are on the same page:
9600M GT DDR3 = 5860 3DMark06
9600M GT DDR2 = ~4600 3DMark06 (roughly ~1k 06 Marks v. DDR3 version)
9650M GT DDR2 = 4826 3DMark06

Dont get me wrong. Same DDR rate v. only the mild clock increase = not a big difference. But the DDR2 v. DDR3 = substantial difference.

The medium 3DMark06 score on the 9600M GT with DDR2 is in the mid ~4000 range. I'm guess the medium for the 9650M GT with DDR2 will be in the high ~4000. Probably an average of about 200 to 400 06 marks.

That seems very reasonable to me.

 

The users in that topic are also overclocking their CPUs to 3Ghz. That's probably adding... nearly 1000 to their scores. The card itself can't even hit a 3k SM2.0/3.0 score, so I figured something was up.

 

Whoa, not that much. Even without the CPU overclock, he should still get about 6600-6700 on 3DMark06.