Comments on: Palit 9500GT 256MB DDR3 vs HD4650 512MB DDR2 Comparison

By: jogos

jogos — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:41:34 +0000

jogos…

[...]» Palit 9500GT 256MB DDR3 vs HD4650 512MB DDR2 Comparison at goldfries.com[...]…

By: manny

manny — Wed, 26 May 2010 23:02:47 +0000

i would agree with most people here

am building an cheap HTPC and need some more info on exact settings to get +30 framerate on those games mentioned.

i mean the review does give good info and proves a point, but not the details to get +30fps (which is what we all want to know)

cheers

By: goldfries

goldfries — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:51:37 +0000

Eh, it’s HD4650.

There is a HD4650 DDR3 version but it was rare and I think it still is, simply because the HD4650 DDR3 version would probably kill off the sale of cards like HD4670.

At the time of the review, only 9500GT and HD4650 DDR2 available and they were compared here due to similar pricing.

By: DBK444

DBK444 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:46:57 +0000

well my advice is 9500GT vs HD4670 are same the only differences of this two here and the reviews is HD4670 has DDR2 while 9500GT has DDR3 which has the advantages did you see how close they are? if HD4670 has DDR3 then it well probably PWND 9500GT , the Memory Capacity is not option here it doesn’t matter so for sure and HD4670 is greatly faster card i would recommend this card for heavy games like Crysis on Very High with 30+ FPS

By: CcMann Anonimato

CcMann Anonimato — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:47:29 +0000

there is better the 9500GT because is DDR3, that’s the real signify of a graphics card acelerattor. Do you understand? And people who haven’t got an [WIDESCREEN] with 1024×768 are fine. I’m sorry by my bad english, because i’m Argentinian and i don’t know too much english but yes everything about PC.

By: goldfries

goldfries — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:52:16 +0000

@anon, i really appreciate the feedback.

there’s a reason why i had a lower resolution test (1024×768) which i think it shows clearly that both the cards work great at lower resolution, even with max detail. on the other hand in some games, lowering the resolution didn’t help so people will have to settle with lower resolution on it.

looking at the low resolution test, i’m sure it’s quite clear that these cards work well even on HIGH settings with AA on some games, other than Crysis and World in Conflict – i think is more than sufficient to understand the card. furthermore there’s the comment section here for people to ask.

however, you have good and valid points, they’re noted. I’ll provide benchmark for PLAYABLE settings for high resolutions next time.

@anon2 – erm. thanks for the sarcasm.

By: anon2

anon2 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:13:44 +0000

writing a review to prove stupid people wrong rather than to provide information to people who want to know. great logic in that!

By: anon

anon — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:39:23 +0000

i agree with Stormcrow,

your benches provide no decision making value for potential buyers. people who are looking at these cards obviously do not require 4x AA and highest quality settings in games.

it would be more useful if you could run the benches on medium graphic details and without AA. at least then, users could decide which card would be more suitable for them to use at a particular resolution with fair quality settings.

if you refer to reviews on the web on lower end graphic cards, you will notice that these reviews focus on providing reasonable settings for users during the benches.

of course, being the great debater you are, you could argue that in the end, the benches still do prove 9500GT as the overall winner, but please keep in mind that the user still has no idea on what type of performance the cards can deliver on usable settings.

to put it into a simpler conclusion. the users would still have no idea on whether or not the cards could provide a decent gaming experience at a particular resolution due to the benches that provide no real meaning to them.