• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Go for Radeon 9550 for Low Budget?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: xgi
I need to do a 3Dmark test some time later... got my 3Dmark2K1 CD borrowed to my friend... but I bet it's around the 3K point... at least it's higher than Ti4200...
Click to expand...

text

look at the game benchmarks. there is no 9550 in there, but you can imagine where it would be(below the 9500non-pro) and you can see that the 4200 will crush your 9550 in gaming. 3dmark03 is NOT the end-all-be-all for benchmarking. of course the 9550 will beat it in 3dmark because of its (crappy)DX9(crappy) "support" that does NOT mean it is faster in games than the 4200, which it isnt by a long shot.
 
But at least it can support DX9 hardware processing... some games only require part of the DX9 feature set... so it can still be playable with proper configuration...
 
Originally posted by: xgi
But at least it can support DX9 hardware processing... some games only require part of the DX9 feature set... so it can still be playable with proper configuration...
Click to expand...

key word is support. face it man, the 4200 owns the card you just bought. end of story.
 
Originally posted by: reallyscrued
NO, LOOK AT MY 3DMARK THREAD. the 9550 beats it by 1000 points. benchmark ur system and we will tell u if its worth the upgrade.
Click to expand...

I looked at your 3dmark thread. You don't even have a 9550 listed. Not only that, but you can't compare 3dmark03 scores of a Ti 4200 with something like a 9550 or a 5200. The Ti4200 can't run a couple of the tests, so its score drops like a rock. Not like it matters anyway. Like Nick said, a 9550 or 5200/5500 having DX9 is worthless. The only DX9 games they will run acceptably will be games that like have one single DX9 feature sparsely in the game. If we start talking about really DX9 titles, like FarCry (which is not even fully DX9, mind you), then those 9550 and 5200 cards are going to fall to their knees. The Ti4200 running a DX8.1 path in FarCry should have much better performance than a 5200/9550 trying to run the game with a DX9 path. Plus, like what was stated earlier, you have to consider DX8.1 and lower performance as well, in which the Ti4200 would win hands down. 3dmark isn't a game, remember that.
 
Yes... the Ti4200 did outperform R9550 in other tests but only by a "marginal" difference... This shows that the R9550 is also capable of DX8 games with addition of DX9 capabilities... this adds to the future-proofing issue...
 
Originally posted by: xgi
Yes... the Ti4200 did outperform R9550 in other tests but only by a "marginal" difference... This shows that the R9550 is also capable of DX8 games with addition of DX9 capabilities... this adds to the future-proofing issue...
Click to expand...

PUH-LEASE.

the 4200 didnt just "marginally" beat the 9550. it bent it over and raped it hard. and how is a card that cant handle DX9 games TODAY "future proofing"??? it isnt even today proof. :roll: quit trying to justify your bad descision. admit you got owned, take the card back, then buy a 4200.
 
The Ti 4200 significantly beat the 9550 XT in quite a few tests. Other tests were marginal victories, others were marginal losses. The XT version of the 9550 is essentially just a higher clocked version of the 9550 that you have, so a vanilla 9550 is going to perform less. Note how the 9550 XT gets 15 FPS in FarCry at 10x7. I'd imagine it will get about 20FPS in 800x600, and 30FPS in 640x480. There's DX9 future proofing for you.
 
Do you know that I run GTA:Vice City at 640x480x32Bits with playable framerates using my previous Matrox G400 card.. I don't mean to offend but I just don't usually go out and buy all the latest games...
 
If you are happy with your card, then more power to you. The 9550 is basically an underclocked 9600. If you can throttle you clock up to reasonable speeds, your card will run games much better. I suggest either downloading the omega drivers, or using a utility like powerstrip to overclock your card. If you insist on having dx9.0, and can get a decent overclock out of the card, you really didnt get ripped off.
 
Originally posted by: xgi
what the heck... Ti4200 it is then... BUT.. I still need the comments of users of R9550 cards...
Click to expand...

You're not going to get many, because, to be blunt, no one else was foolish enough to buy one. 😛

You should have taken Nick's advice long ago, returned the card or sold it to some other sucker, and scraped together another $20 to buy a "real" entry-level card.

- M4H
 
Anyway... I want to be sure I get the 128-Bit version.. just in case the supplier cheated me on the R9550... is there any way of checking it it's either a 128 or 64 bit version?
 
Originally posted by: xgi
Anyway... I want to be sure I get the 128-Bit version.. just in case the supplier cheated me on the R9550... is there any way of checking it it's either a 128 or 64 bit version?
Click to expand...

Download the program AIDA32 (Google for it) and use its info pages to view "Memory bus width" for your video card. No fuss, no muss.

- M4H
 
Oh... I see.. 128 Bit exactly...
But an interesting fact to know... I've changed my graphic card to Matrox G400 (my old card)... and the memory bandwidth is also 128-bit! Talk about ancient technology having 128-bit memory bandwidth since... 1998 or so... too bad it only supports DX6 features...

Edit-
Report generated:

Graphics Processor Properties:
Video Adapter : Matrox G400
GPU Code Name : G400
PCI Device : 102B / 0525
Transistors : 9 million
Process Technology : 0.25u
Bus Type : AGP
GPU Clock : 126 MHz
Warp Clock : 126 MHz
RAMDAC Clock : 300 MHz
Pixel Pipelines : 2
TMU Per Pipeline : 1
Vertex Shaders : Not Supported
Pixel Shaders : Not Supported
DirectX Hardware Support : DirectX v6.0
Pixel Fillrate : 252 MPixel/s
Texel Fillrate : 252 MTexel/s

Memory Bus Properties:
Bus Type : SDR
Bus Width : 128-bit
Real Clock : 168 MHz
Effective Clock : 168 MHz
Bandwidth : 2688 MB/s

Graphics Processor Manufacturer:
Company Name Matrox Graphics Inc.
Product Information http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/home.cfm

Driver Download http:// http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/home.cfm
 
Originally posted by: xgi
Oh... I see.. 128 Bit exactly...
But an interesting fact to know... I've changed my graphic card to Matrox G400 (my old card)... and the memory bandwidth is also 128-bit! Talk about ancient technology having 128-bit memory bandwidth since... 1998 or so...
Click to expand...

That's 128-bit SDRAM in the G400 though, not DDR. The G400MAX did enjoy a quick time in the limelight back in the day. 🙂

- M4H
 
The 9550 is a downclocked 9600 if you have a 128-bit card. If you benchmarks are decent you can be assured that your card is indeed 128-bit.

As far as DX9 cards, you should have listened to some of the people here or asked first.

If you gonna do the DX9 thing and expect decent framerates at above 800 x 600, you need a Radeon 9700 non-Pro or better, or for nVidia a 5700 Ultra or better. Yes, some of the other cards like a 9600 Pro or 9500Pro can do OK, but they use the DX9 rendering and the latest gaming titles put the hurt on them.

If you are absolutely budget limited, a good overclocking 128MB Ti4200 will beat these lessor DX9 cards without AF or AA because it won't even try DX9. Yeah, it won't look as good, but we said budget and it least it can play them reasonably smoothly.

Recently I picked up two Ti4600's for under $70 shipped, just to rock Unreal 2003 online. Using OpenGL rendering at 1280 x 1024 I get about a 70fps average with a ton of players, that's what budget is all about.

Getting back to your 9550, the core should overclock nicely. Use RageTweaker and check the memory chips.
They're probably gonna be 3.6ns or higher, so don't expect anything over 600MHz max (if you're extremely lucky), and you probably won't get that.

I would go back to the Omega Cat 3.10's, they seem to be the fastest for gaming unless you're having driver issues in newer games.
 
But my previous Matrox G400 card can handle DX8 games with low quality settings... Games like GTA:Vice City are played at 640x480x32 worked fine with fine framerates... The game should have DX8 (and maybe a little DX9?) feature set... This should give some clue that R9550 should work with games at least for 3 or more years to come...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top