Radeon 9200 to 9550?

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

I currently have a Radeon 9200 128 MB card in my system,
but I have an opportunity to buy a 256 MB 9550 card cheap
(under $50).

My question is, would I see that much of an improvement from
the 9200 to the 9550? Would the extra 128 MB of RAM make
a big difference?

The system this would be in is: Pentium III 1 Ghz, 512 MB RAM,
80 GB hard drive.

I'm building a new system later this year, but want to keep
squeezing the most out of my older system too. Just wondering
if the 9200 to 9550 upgrade would be worthwhile.

Thanks in advance.


- Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org
Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org
11 answers Last reply
More about radeon 9200 9550
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    There would be a minimal difference between the two cards.

    --
    DaveW


    "S. Smith" <scott.smith@iphouse.com> wrote in message
    news:v0a7g1heh7pn89uo776ho2qck94rter5rt@4ax.com...
    >
    > I currently have a Radeon 9200 128 MB card in my system,
    > but I have an opportunity to buy a 256 MB 9550 card cheap
    > (under $50).
    >
    > My question is, would I see that much of an improvement from
    > the 9200 to the 9550? Would the extra 128 MB of RAM make
    > a big difference?
    >
    > The system this would be in is: Pentium III 1 Ghz, 512 MB RAM,
    > 80 GB hard drive.
    >
    > I'm building a new system later this year, but want to keep
    > squeezing the most out of my older system too. Just wondering
    > if the 9200 to 9550 upgrade would be worthwhile.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org
    > Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    S. Smith wrote:
    > I currently have a Radeon 9200 128 MB card in my system,
    > but I have an opportunity to buy a 256 MB 9550 card cheap
    > (under $50).
    >
    > My question is, would I see that much of an improvement from
    > the 9200 to the 9550? Would the extra 128 MB of RAM make
    > a big difference?
    >
    > The system this would be in is: Pentium III 1 Ghz, 512 MB RAM,
    > 80 GB hard drive.
    >
    > I'm building a new system later this year, but want to keep
    > squeezing the most out of my older system too. Just wondering
    > if the 9200 to 9550 upgrade would be worthwhile.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org
    > Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org


    To some extent, it depends on what you want to do with the system.

    In your case, I think the 9200 is well-matched to the P3 system. I
    would save the $50 and apply it to an Athlon64 system in the future.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:48:08 -0700, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:

    >There would be a minimal difference between the two cards.

    Actually, I just double checked. I am using a Radeon 9000 Pro
    128 MB card right now, not a 9200.

    Would there still be little difference between a 9000 and a 9550?


    - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org
    Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Isn't there some way to mod a 9550 into a 9600 or a 9600 Pro? I read it
    somewhere, although I can't remember for hte life of me where it was.
    I'm pretty sure it's a softmod though, so it shouldn't be too hard to
    manage. If that's possible, he should see a very significant increase
    over a 9000 Pro.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "S. Smith" <scott.smith@iphouse.com> wrote in message
    news:hsf7g11ppp3plk72tqv71crqjk831ac3pb@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:48:08 -0700, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:
    >
    >>There would be a minimal difference between the two cards.
    >
    > Actually, I just double checked. I am using a Radeon 9000 Pro
    > 128 MB card right now, not a 9200.
    >
    > Would there still be little difference between a 9000 and a 9550?

    Yes..the 9550 is slower, lower bandwidth (250/200)and FWIW is DX9.0 and
    AGP8X compliant. Although you have nominal DX9 ability, the card is a bottom
    feeder. Your 9000 Pro is faster overall (275/275), is DX8.0 compliant and
    AGP4X. The AGP 4X/8X difference is meaningless. An X800XL can't saturate the
    AGP8X bus. Keep it or spend the bucks for at least a 9600XT which is a real
    and inexpensive upgrade from a 9000 Pro.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Augustus wrote:
    > "S. Smith" <scott.smith@iphouse.com> wrote in message
    > news:hsf7g11ppp3plk72tqv71crqjk831ac3pb@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:48:08 -0700, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>There would be a minimal difference between the two cards.
    >>
    >>Actually, I just double checked. I am using a Radeon 9000 Pro
    >>128 MB card right now, not a 9200.
    >>
    >>Would there still be little difference between a 9000 and a 9550?
    >
    >
    > Yes..the 9550 is slower, lower bandwidth (250/200)and FWIW is DX9.0 and
    > AGP8X compliant. Although you have nominal DX9 ability, the card is a bottom
    > feeder. Your 9000 Pro is faster overall (275/275), is DX8.0 compliant and
    > AGP4X. The AGP 4X/8X difference is meaningless. An X800XL can't saturate the
    > AGP8X bus. Keep it or spend the bucks for at least a 9600XT which is a real
    > and inexpensive upgrade from a 9000 Pro.

    No sense in this case. The CPU is 1GHz P3, which will not be able to use
    the 9600XT better than the 9550. OTOH, if the original poster buys the
    XT, he will spend his valuable assets to a card, which will be obsolete
    (well, maybe not obsolete, but it will be at least cheaper) later this
    year when it is time to do some reserach for the new machine. Actually,
    if I were the original poster, I'd sell the current 9000, buy a pint of
    beer and a second-hand Radeon 8500 (or a R8500LE or even 9100) with the
    money acquired. The 8500(LE) is a lot better than the 9000 and money
    spent on beer is never wasted :-)

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

    Hukuis wrote:
    > Isn't there some way to mod a 9550 into a 9600 or a 9600 Pro? I read it

    Sometimes, yes. It depends mostly on 1) the memory bus width (in some
    9550's it's only 64bits wide, vs 128 bits in 9600/Pro and 2) the
    (nominal) speed and quality of the memory chips used on the 9550 and 3)
    the quality of the core specimen in the 9550. If you go wrong in 1), you
    are screwed, the performance (if clocked to speeds of 9600/pro) is
    reduced to half of the 9600/pro. If 1) is OK but 2) or 3) not, you still
    have some hope to squeeze some more out of the poor 9550.

    > somewhere, although I can't remember for hte life of me where it was.
    > I'm pretty sure it's a softmod though, so it shouldn't be too hard to
    > manage. If that's possible, he should see a very significant increase
    > over a 9000 Pro.

    I used to have a 8500LE (clocked a little bit, to 295/295 IIRC) in my 2G
    Celeron system. Then I found a nice 9600 to go with the C rig, sold the
    8500 and ran some tests. The 9600 (non-pro, clocked stock 325/400
    core/mem, overclocked to 420/450) didn't perform so much better than the
    8500 and the 8500 seemed to act a lot better in old games (smoother and
    yes, even faster). At first glance it looked like the 9600 performed
    WORSE than the 8500 did but it was a driver issue. I had forgotten to do
    a complete driver cleanup after uninstalling the 8500 and there was some
    old stuff causing the weird results.

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

    > No sense in this case. The CPU is 1GHz P3, which will not be able to use
    > the 9600XT better than the 9550.

    I disagree. You'll notice a significant difference going from a 9000 Pro to
    a 9600XT on a PIII 1000. I've had one (went from an 8500 128Mb (which is a
    better card than the 9000 Pro), to a 9600XT), and it was a decent upgrade.
    I then went to a 9800 Pro on the same PIII 1000 and that was a major jump
    again. A PIII 1000 isn't as much of a dog as you remember.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net> wrote in message
    news:I0aNe.142226$wr.117685@clgrps12...
    >> No sense in this case. The CPU is 1GHz P3, which will not be able to use
    >> the 9600XT better than the 9550.
    >
    > I disagree. You'll notice a significant difference going from a 9000 Pro
    > to a 9600XT on a PIII 1000. I've had one (went from an 8500 128Mb (which
    > is a better card than the 9000 Pro), to a 9600XT), and it was a decent
    > upgrade. I then went to a 9800 Pro on the same PIII 1000 and that was a
    > major jump again. A PIII 1000 isn't as much of a dog as you remember.

    What I meant to also say is that A PIII will show a marked 3D performance
    increase from a 9550 to a 9600XT.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Well, Intel gave the PIII a die-shrink and out came the Pentium M. The
    architecture is competitive with the Athlon FX at equal clock speeds.

    Damn, imagine what would've happened if Intel didn't let its marketing
    department design the P4...

    --
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
    It can therefore be said that politics is war without
    bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


    "Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net> wrote in message
    news:I0aNe.142226$wr.117685@clgrps12...
    > A PIII 1000 isn't as much of a dog as you remember.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Augustus wrote:
    >>No sense in this case. The CPU is 1GHz P3, which will not be able to use
    >>the 9600XT better than the 9550.
    >
    >
    > I disagree. You'll notice a significant difference going from a 9000 Pro to
    > a 9600XT on a PIII 1000. I've had one (went from an 8500 128Mb (which is a
    > better card than the 9000 Pro), to a 9600XT), and it was a decent upgrade.
    > I then went to a 9800 Pro on the same PIII 1000 and that was a major jump
    > again. A PIII 1000 isn't as much of a dog as you remember.

    Happy to hear that :-) I just happened (really, this is a nice
    coincidence) to get a 9600XT for 20 euros to install on my 1GHz P3
    system :-) to replace existing R7500 :-) So, probably my UT games will
    not be slideshows ay more :-)

    The rig is actually purely for work, but there's gotta be some fun, too.
    The Bad Thing is that when I replaced the old 800E with the 1G I found
    out that the caps on the mobo are gone. They all bulge and some of them
    even leak. I dropped the FSB on the P3 to 100MHz to reduce the load,
    removed the case sides to keep the temps lower and didn't install the
    9600XT. All this to keep the system as stable as possible for as long as
    possible 'cause I donät know when I'll get another i815 mobo. Yes, it's
    gotta be a i815, I don't want to mess around with a system working nice
    and flawlessly.

    --
    gt
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Graphics