Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Been out of the perpetual upgrading loop for quite some time and have
a question about the *relative* performance of the Radeon 9550SE.

I am aware of where it fits status and performance wise within the
current Radeon and Nvidia GeForce FX hierachy.

I'm on a pretty restrictive budget right now (read as pov upgrade).
I'm currently still running (no laughing please my ancient AGP 4X
32MB Hercules MX ((GeForce 2 175MHz core, 183MHz RAMDAC).

Looking for _a_ performance increase, according to Tom's Hardware the
Radeon 9550 seems to support DirectX 9 better than the equivalently
priced third tier Nvidia products. I am aware of the 64 bit memory bus
limitation of the 128MB 9550_SE_, but it's VERY affordable.

So my question is, in real world performance will there be much of an
noticeable or appreciable increase in performance between that of my
old generation GeForce 2 MX and the Radeon 9550SE?...or should I not
bother? I can't afford to buy even a 2nd tier card right now.

Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"seagull" <the_guru@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I'm on a pretty restrictive budget right now (read as pov upgrade).
> I'm currently still running (no laughing please my ancient AGP 4X
> 32MB Hercules MX ((GeForce 2 175MHz core, 183MHz RAMDAC).
>
> Looking for _a_ performance increase, according to Tom's Hardware the
> Radeon 9550 seems to support DirectX 9 better than the equivalently
> priced third tier Nvidia products. I am aware of the 64 bit memory bus
> limitation of the 128MB 9550_SE_, but it's VERY affordable.

The 64bit memory bus is a killer. You want to avoid it at all costs. This
128bit 9550 128Mb card
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProd [...] 141&depa=1

is $12 more than the 64bit 9550SE. You can afford $12 more, surely.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:04:38 GMT, "Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net>
wrote:

>The 64bit memory bus is a killer. You want to avoid it at all costs. This
>128bit 9550 128Mb card
>http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-125-141&depa=1
>
>is $12 more than the 64bit 9550SE. You can afford $12 more, surely.

Thanks. Good suggestion, ....if I were in the US.

Can't get the D suffix version of that card here only the T.

ie: R955128T and costs AUD$90-.

The T is restricted by a 64 bit memory bus. The D is 128 bit.

Cheapest available 128bit memory bus 9550 card is AUD$129-

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> The T is restricted by a 64 bit memory bus. The D is 128 bit.
>
> Cheapest available 128bit memory bus 9550 card is AUD$129-

On this Aussie site the 128bit 9550 card is Aud$110, and the 9550SE is
$93.50. That's $20 cheaper than your source....

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:33:04 GMT, "Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net>
wrote:

>On this Aussie site the 128bit 9550 card is Aud$110, and the 9550SE is
>$93.50. That's $20 cheaper than your source....

Which site would that "this Aussie site" be....? 'cos I do appreciate
your suggestion. I can get the T ver for $89-, but the 128bit memory
bus is worth the extra $20-.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

seagull wrote:
> Been out of the perpetual upgrading loop for quite some time and have
> a question about the *relative* performance of the Radeon 9550SE.
>
> I am aware of where it fits status and performance wise within the
> current Radeon and Nvidia GeForce FX hierachy.
>
> I'm on a pretty restrictive budget right now (read as pov upgrade).
> I'm currently still running (no laughing please my ancient AGP 4X
> 32MB Hercules MX ((GeForce 2 175MHz core, 183MHz RAMDAC).
>
> Looking for _a_ performance increase, according to Tom's Hardware the
> Radeon 9550 seems to support DirectX 9 better than the equivalently
> priced third tier Nvidia products. I am aware of the 64 bit memory bus
> limitation of the 128MB 9550_SE_, but it's VERY affordable.
>
> So my question is, in real world performance will there be much of an
> noticeable or appreciable increase in performance between that of my
> old generation GeForce 2 MX and the Radeon 9550SE?...or should I not
> bother? I can't afford to buy even a 2nd tier card right now.
>
> Thanks.

I had a Radeon 9550SE. I was able to play Call of Duty fine on my
machine at 1024x768 with most options. But it is a 64bit memory bus
which does slow things down. In 3dMark01 I was getting around 6000 and
in 3dMark03 I was getting about 1600. I saw that standard 9550 owners
seemed to be getting about 2200 so almost a 40% increase.

I have since upgraded to a 9600XT and my 3dmark01 score is 13200 and 03
is 3800. I can play HL2, Doom3, far cry, riddick at 1024x768 medium
detail (or 800x600 high detail for doom3) with no problems - though
things can slow down in riddick in a couple of places.

I have a 3.0Ghz P3 and used to have 512Mb of ddr400 but upgraded to 1GB
which made quite a bit of difference for far cry & doom 3

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

A followup thanks to Augustus, ofn01 & Harry for their help, with an update
on the thread which might be of assistance or guidance to others triaging
under a similar budgetary constraint.

Taking heed of the advice and experience offered, I decided to avoid the
64bit path even though the pricing was appealing. This is of course, exactly
the SE's raison de etre and a nomeclaturial trap for the unwary. For a while
I thought I was goiing to score a 9600XT at an online advertised killer
price, but the reseller renegged with a paltry excuse when I ordered
undoubtedly realising his or the distributor's mistake when he contacted his
supplier for stock.

Coming down to a toss up between it and the Sapphire, I ended up with a
128bit 256MB 9550 from Tul (PowerColor) for AUD$123 (USD$93) delivered, and
am delighted with it in terms of bang for the buck. Going with the 128bit
memory bus was a must, though it involved a significant price leap (40% and
up) from the crippleware 64bit SE versions. Strangely, doubling the RAM cost
only the paltry few 'pennies' more (+AUD$8/USD$6). Arguably unnecessary for
the latest FPS where the res will be kept constrained by the desire for
frame rate, having 256MB onboard has however proved useful for games like
THQ's Warhammer "Dawn of War" where it allows maxing textures which are drop
dead gorgeous. The Tul 9550 came with 5ns Hyundi DDR400, but I've yet to
play with its memory clock. The chipset core however is very impressive and
I'm achieving the same sort of results as numerous tests report. In summary,
this card represents superb value for the gamer on a tight budget, and
possibly falls into the category of best buy/performer in this category.
Highly recommended.

CguLL

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"CguLL" <iguana_bwana_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4266cb8b$0$272$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> snip

What are the core clock and memory clock speeds of your card? also how many
pipelines does it have?
Thx.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

CguLL wrote:
> A followup thanks to Augustus, ofn01 & Harry for their help, with an update
> on the thread which might be of assistance or guidance to others triaging
> under a similar budgetary constraint.
>
> Taking heed of the advice and experience offered, I decided to avoid the
> 64bit path even though the pricing was appealing. This is of course, exactly
> the SE's raison de etre and a nomeclaturial trap for the unwary. For a while
> I thought I was goiing to score a 9600XT at an online advertised killer
> price, but the reseller renegged with a paltry excuse when I ordered
> undoubtedly realising his or the distributor's mistake when he contacted his
> supplier for stock.
>
> Coming down to a toss up between it and the Sapphire, I ended up with a
> 128bit 256MB 9550 from Tul (PowerColor) for AUD$123 (USD$93) delivered, and
> am delighted with it in terms of bang for the buck. Going with the 128bit
> memory bus was a must, though it involved a significant price leap (40% and
> up) from the crippleware 64bit SE versions. Strangely, doubling the RAM cost
> only the paltry few 'pennies' more (+AUD$8/USD$6). Arguably unnecessary for
> the latest FPS where the res will be kept constrained by the desire for
> frame rate, having 256MB onboard has however proved useful for games like
> THQ's Warhammer "Dawn of War" where it allows maxing textures which are drop
> dead gorgeous. The Tul 9550 came with 5ns Hyundi DDR400, but I've yet to
> play with its memory clock. The chipset core however is very impressive and
> I'm achieving the same sort of results as numerous tests report. In summary,
> this card represents superb value for the gamer on a tight budget, and
> possibly falls into the category of best buy/performer in this category.
> Highly recommended.
>
> CguLL
>
>

Yeah the memory bus needs to be a min of 128 and so you did the right
thing. A lot of people on a budget are quite happy with the 9550, and as
it sports the same RV350 core as the 9600 people seem to (in most cases)
be having a fair bit of luck overclocking (once you use something like
ATITool to unlock the clock settings).

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

default 250, 200x2, 4 pixel, 2 shader

overclocked stable 350, 230 so far. Will get a larger heatsink and ensure
resilicon for maximum conduction before pushing GPU sustained at that or
trying harder. Very happy with default performance, the o'clock is a free
bonus. Previous experience & reports from others sugggest memory won't go
much harder maintaining stability.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> Yeah the memory bus needs to be a min of 128 and so you did the right
> thing.

Thanks.

> A lot of people on a budget are quite happy with the 9550, and as
> it sports the same RV350 core as the 9600 people seem to (in most cases)
> be having a fair bit of luck overclocking (once you use something like
> ATITool to unlock the clock settings).

No boasting rights in a 9550. But in terms of pure bang for the buck default
out of the box with directX 9 support, not to mention the bonus of its
overclockability, it's THE card for gamers on a tight budget. I love this
card. Together with my new box, after my faithful but now ancient Hercules
Prophet II MX, it's like night and day!

CguLL

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

CguLL wrote:
>>Yeah the memory bus needs to be a min of 128 and so you did the right
>>thing.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>>A lot of people on a budget are quite happy with the 9550, and as
>>it sports the same RV350 core as the 9600 people seem to (in most cases)
>>be having a fair bit of luck overclocking (once you use something like
>>ATITool to unlock the clock settings).
>
>
> No boasting rights in a 9550. But in terms of pure bang for the buck default
> out of the box with directX 9 support, not to mention the bonus of its
> overclockability, it's THE card for gamers on a tight budget. I love this
> card. Together with my new box, after my faithful but now ancient Hercules
> Prophet II MX, it's like night and day!
>
> CguLL
>
>
I second that CguLL... My Sapphire Radeon 9550 with 256MB vid ram works
liek a dream,
for a low end vid card.. There should be some boasting rights, while it
maye not play Doom 3
to an excellent standard it does play the following games rather well,
some in high detail:
Call Of Duty: United Offensive;
Dangerous Waters;
Silent Hunter-III;
Il-2 Sturmovik + Forgotten Battles + Ace Expansion Pack + Pacific Fighters;
Lockon Modern Air Combat;
Half Life-II;
Xplane.

As you an see I pretty well play specialized genre's. So far Xplane
seems to be the only sim that
I've listed that ultilizes the 256MB portion of the vram.

So as stated elsewhere in this thread the 9550 (128-bit model) is the
best bang for the buck,
and if you're lucky enough to be able to flash it to a 9600Pro then all
the better. (I haven't tried)

--Looker007