The reference board I received from ATI was the same red as all the others,
and with much the same layout as the 9700 Pro, but a couple of millimetres shorter.
The only notable difference between the two is the plain aluminium coloured
heatsink on the 9600 XT, and the absence of the heatspreader that the 9700 Pro
carries on its reverse side. The XT has a 50mm fan, with a large number of blades.
This fan isn't too noisy, and the sound was completely lost in the noise from
my hard drive and CPU fan.
If you take a look in the top right corner of the image below, you can see
where the external power connectors would solder in. Looks to me like it's the
same PCB as the 9800XT.
The Benchmarks
3dmark 2001 SE 1024 by 768
8500
9700 Pro
9600 XT
High End PC
10479
16063
13269
Low End PC
8486
10478
10507
3dmark 2001 SE 1280 by 1024
8500
9700 Pro
9600 XT
High End PC
7726
13765
10201
Low End PC
7013
9626
8794
These results show the 9600 XT to be almost smack in the middle
of the 8500 and the 9700 Pro. Look at the numbers for the low end system however,
and you will see the 9600 XT actually outperforms the 9700 Pro on the low
resolution test. This is good news for buyers, because people who buy mid
range graphics cards usually have mid range PCs and mid range monitors to
match. This is also my reason for using 3dmark 2001 instead of 2003, as casual
gamers don't feel the need to buy all the latest and greatest games as soon
as they come out. This makes 3dmark 2001 a better representation of the sort
of use mid range cards are likely to get. Remember that every single score
shown on the tables above represents a reasonably competent gaming machine.
Even the Radeon 8500 has some life left in it.
