Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: orcus
I JUST went from a X-Micro 128Mb Ti4200 4x Agp card 280/495 ram to a Radeon 256MB 9950 8x running at 4x(mobo limitation) at 470/440. I know its a bad choice. Its only barely a preformance increase. I f'ed up. BUT. I am getting about 700+ points more on 3D Mark 2001 SE with the 9550 at about 10000.
I can also run Unreal 2004 at 10X with some AA and AF, which the Ti4200 couldnt do. I had to set the Mipmap and Texture prefences with the nVidia drivers to preformance rather than quality and the same on the Radeon drivers- the image quality is a good bit better with the 9950 (becuase it can do DX9 ?). So I think you guys are wrong and the 9950 is better than the Ti4200. I guess it would be even better for me if I had a 8x AGP mobo. Price wise I have no idea whats the better deal. I would say that the difference is not much but noticeable.
But it is time for a new rig!
The 4200 will run all over that 9550 (I think that is what you are trying to say). The 9550 is horrible.
I honestly cant believe you are basing some of this off of 3dMark.
I think you are trying to find performance where there is none, because in no way shape or form should a 9550 be faster. A 9600XT is arguable slower than the 4200 when AA/AF isn't used.
-Kevin
A 64-bit 9550 (usually referred to as a 9550SE), yes. The 64-bit RADEON 9XXX cards are just horrible. Of course, so are the 64-bit FX5200s.
The 128-bit one is about the speed of a R9500... which is usually somewhat slower than the Ti4200 without AA/AF, and probably even or slightly ahead with AA/AF.
The 9600XT is usually even with the Ti4600 without AA/AF, and generally beats it soundly with AA/AF enabled. I'm not sure where you're getting this "a 9600XT is slower than a Ti4200" stuff from, but it's just not true.
THG numbers (old, but so are the cards...)
The Ti4600 barely beats it in a couple of the noAA/noAF benches, and loses pretty badly whenever AA/AF or pixel shaders are involved. The Ti4600 is a very solid card for DX8 and below games without AA/AF, though. I used one for a long time.
Also keep in mind that the Ti4200-8X and Ti4600-8X versions they are testing have slightly higher clocks than the original Ti4200 and Ti4600.
Results are mixed, but the R9500 definitely holds its own with the Ti4200, even beating it in a few cases (and all the time using AA/AF, but the 9500 isn't really fast enough to use it in most games). The 128-bit 9550, being about the same speed, should give similar results.
As for the GF5500... I've never used one, and the benches didn't look *that* bad... but it's certainly a poor choice if you have any other options besides an FX5200 or a R9200 (or a 9500/9550/9600SE).
Facebook
Twitter