Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is GF8500GT 512MB better than ATI X1550 512MB?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • ATI
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 12, 2008 2:14:44 PM

I have an ATI X1550 512 MB SM 3.0 DX9c

I've found a GF8500GT 512MB SM 4.0 DX10

But it seems that there's no much information about this card on google.

Now, the parameters DX10 and SM 4.0 make this card seem better than the ATI I have, but the price is cheaper? Has anyone tried it? Is this the lowest version of DX10 card and maybe it's not worth?

With the ATI I can play very well COD4 on normal graphics for my monitor, 1024X768, Extra Textures Level no AA.
I got low fps with Crysis (but playable) when Shader Level on the game is medium...

If I get this cheap DX10 card, will I have the same quality or better?
If better, does anyone know what's the amount of difference?

More about : gf8500gt 512mb ati x1550 512mb

March 12, 2008 2:27:36 PM

I believe the 8500gt is better and it OCs well too.
March 12, 2008 2:46:24 PM

performance wise the 8500GT should be better.
Related resources
March 12, 2008 2:52:55 PM

Thank you, tekzor and thuan
I cannot find any chart that compares those cards anywhere.

I don't know what to do, to buy it or not.

If it's only slightly better, it's not worthy.
March 12, 2008 2:58:06 PM

Happy to help.

I dont know about your budget but be careful when buying a 8500gt. They come in 2 versions, 64bit and 128bit. Get the 128bit one. If you have a bit more $ to blow then go for the 8600gt, it should be about $25 more then the 8500gt.
March 12, 2008 3:03:48 PM

Thank you very much. I think I saw it in the 128 bit version.
It was 85 euros and the other model higher than this costed 150 euros. I didn't even look at the parameters.

But I bought my ATI X1550 for 100 euros some 3 months ago.
Maybe there has been a fall of prices lately, as it happens usually with computer parts... but what surprised me was the Shader Model 4.0 that the 8500 gt supported.
My ATI supports only 3.0 Shader Model.
March 12, 2008 3:10:37 PM

the 8500gt is 1 generation ahead of the x1550, so sm4 is included on the 8500gt
March 12, 2008 3:17:01 PM

...
Anonymous
March 12, 2008 3:57:54 PM

njeriuxp said:

Now, the parameters DX10 and SM 4.0 make this card seem better than the ATI I have, but the price is cheaper? Has anyone tried it? Is this the lowest version of DX10 card and maybe it's not worth?


Not worth it. It is not a gaming card.


njeriuxp said:

With the ATI I can play very well COD4 on normal graphics for my monitor, 1024X768, Extra Textures Level no AA.
I got low fps with Crysis (but playable) when Shader Level on the game is medium...



wow i guess the 8500gt might be a gaming card in your eyes. more power to you then.

njeriuxp said:

If I get this cheap DX10 card, will I have the same quality or better?
If better, does anyone know what's the amount of difference?


Quailty will not improve that much. If you want a really cheap upgrade something like the 7600gt would be better.

If you are serious about upgrading though, take something from this list
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/05/the_best_gaming_...


March 12, 2008 4:00:39 PM

njeriuxp said:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html

What scares me and makes me wonder, is this chart.
GF8500GT is at the end of the list, and it looks almost the same as ATI X1300 Pro...
ATI 1550 should be better than ATI X1300pro i guess?

Actually, a X1300 is better, believe it or not. They both have the same core config (2:4:4:4 / VS: PS:TMU:ROP) and memory (400mhz DDR2) and memory bus (128-bit). However, the X1550 has a core clock of 550mhz, vs the X1300's 600mhz.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_graphics...

It is not worth it to 'upgrade' from a X1300 to an X1550.

The 8500GT should be a 'decent' upgrade. It has a config of (16:8:4 / US:TMU:ROP), clocks of (450, 900, 800 / core, shader, memory) and a 128-bit memory bus.

The 8600GT (as mentioned early) would be much better than that though, since it has a core of (32:16:8) and DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graph...

Please let us know what you intend to use the computer for and that will help us help you make the best possible decision
March 13, 2008 7:12:00 AM

Since prices are getting lower, I guess I'll wait a little bit, or I'll get a 8600GT or ATI HD 2600.
Thank you very much, guys.
a c 176 U Graphics card
March 13, 2008 8:01:23 AM

Even if the 8500GT is faster, its not an "upgrade" worth buying. I remember when a coworker was trying to convince me that his 8500GT was better then my x1800XT. I laughed and told him his 8500GT was probably about as fast as a 7300GT. When I went home I checked the charts on Toms and found out that I was right. According to the Toms video charts, if you look at the overall score, the 8500GT and the 7300GT score about the same.

If you are looking to game, neither of the cards mentioned so far would do it well. The 7600GT is the fastest card mentioned, but even that card is quickly become a low end card. (Don't bother with the 8600GT, its not much faster then the 7600GT) I'm surprised that the cards you've mentioned are selling for 100 euros, they are MUCH cheaper over here.

What cards are available where you are and in your price range? Perhaps we can find something worth buying.
!