ATI Radeon R9550 AGP 256MB

[foofighters]

Hi... I have possibly the worst card on the planet in the FX5200 which came with my computer. I am looking to upgrade it, but I want to spend the least amount of money possible. I have seen the ATI Radeon R9550 AGP 256MB very cheap (126 AUD) and was wondering if it was worth spending my money on. I don't feel comfortable enough to overclock and of my cards, so it needs to perform straight out of the box. What sort of an improvement would I see over the FX5200? I understand the FX5200 has a 3DMark 2003 score of 1550 (no AA/AF), does anyone know what the score of the 9550 256mb card would be? I would be happy with 3000+ but have got conflicting reports on this card from other websites.

As a second option, with the 9600XT cards..... how big is the difference in performance between the 128mb and the 256mb card? The difference in price is only $40.

 

[HardWareBoss]

9600XT 256mb is a waste of money. What's your price limit? In US funds.

 

[GeneticWeapon]

<A HREF="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=40158&item=5143656995&rd=1" target="_new">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=40158&item=5143656995&rd=1</A>


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=127163" target="_new"><b>3DMark05</b></A>

 

[cleeve]

If you're not comfortable overclocking, don't bother with the 9550. It's a very, very low clocked 9600 GPU.

( but if you get over your overclocking fear, the 128-bit versions of the 9550 are god's gift to poor overclockers)

The cheapest performance out of the box in a new card would probably be a Radeon 9600 (non-se).

If you're really strapped for cash, look for a used Geforce4 Ti4200... very cheap used, but still a gigantic leap over the 5200, and a very playable card.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Cleeve on 12/08/04 10:09 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[foofighters]

I don't really have a budget, I just want the best possible card that isn't silly money. What I mean is, if I pay $100 dollars more for a card, I really want to see a big jump in performance for that, not just say 500 points in 3DMark 2003.

Is it easy to overclock the 9550, how do you do it?

The 9600XT 256 is roughly double the cost of the 9550, and the 128 is 30 dollars less than that. Is the difference in performace between the 9550 and the 9600XT big (say over 1000 3DMark 2003 points)?

P.S. Thanks for all your help so far.

 

[cleeve]

A stock 9550 should get you about 1700 in 3dMark03. An oc'd 9550... well, depends on the overclock. But 3000+ isn't unreasonable, if the memory is also OC-friendly. The 9600XT probably weighs in around the 4000 mark.

How do you do it? First off, make sure the radeon 9550 you're buying is 128-bit and not 64-bit.

Second, don't bother with a 256mb card. The memory won't overclock as well because it'll be cheap. 128mb is PLENTY for a card in this class.

Thirdly...well, I hear the 9550 is a bit harder to overclock then your standard Radeon because Ati has taken steps to prevent people from doing so in the Catalysts.

{EDIT}
Just looked around on the Rage3d forums, apparently there is a software tool called ATItool that will unlock the 9550 and also overclock it. Easy one-step system... most guys are getting their GOUs to run at at least 400 Mhz, which is a nice bump from the stock 250...

Also wanted to mention, make sure it's got good memory for overclocking, less than 4ns on a 9550 is pretty good. 128-bit is the most important part though!

Ask around on the Rage3d.com forums if you're really interested in this option. Lots of 9550 overclockers there.

That's the easy way to start. If you get into overclocking, you can push it even further with an aftermarket GPU cooler...

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>

 

[foofighters]

You guys are so helpful!

I have decided to ditch the 9550 idea and go for a 9600XT. Now the only decision is whether to get the 128mb or the 256mb. The difference in price is $22AUD, around $15USD. Is it worth the little difference in price for the 256? I realise that the increase in performance will probably be small.

Thanks for your time guys.

 

[pauldh]

The 128MB could be faster depending on how fast the mem is clocked. I doubt that 256MB will add anything to the 9600XT, but as long as it is clocked the same, it shouldn't hurt performance either. It still may be lower rated memory that won't OC as good.

The important thin is that R9600XT's should be clocked 500 core / 600 memory. But the memory can vary from 400-650 MHz...the faster the better.


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>

 

[foofighters]

Both cards say the following in their description. Please can you tell me if this is good or not.

R350 GPU 500Mhz, 680MHzDDR 128bit

 

[pauldh]

It's actually confusing or more likely innaccurate. 500/680 sounds great...higher clocked than a HIS. But R350? Should be RV360 to my knowlege. 500MHz on a R350 core? wow! Wish my 9800 pro could do that! :tongue: Anyway, I personally wouldn't trust those specs and would get confirmation before buying. But a 128-bit R9600XT clocked 500/680 would be nice. Edit: just had to add, i have never seen one clocked higher than 650 mem. 580 is common for some brands. Maybe it's 580? What brand?


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 12/08/04 10:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[foofighters]

I asked the vendors and they send me a link with these specs....

Specifications

GPU
RADEONTM 9600 XT

Memory
256 MB 128-bit DDR SDRAM

Core / Memory Speed
500/300 MHz

AA Samples Per Second
12.0G samples/sec

Memory Bandwidth
9.6 GB/sec.

Pixel Pipelines
4 pixel pipelines

Pixel Fill Rate
2G pixels /sec.

Support DirectX
9.0

Support OpenGL
1.5

RAMDACs
400 MHz DACs

Output
DVI-I / TV-Out / D-Sub

Operating systems :
Microsoft® Windows® XP, Microsoft® Windows® 2000

Bus
AGP 8X/4X

Does this mean it is crap?

 

[foofighters]

The 128mb card is a Powercolor, I am not sure about the 256mb but assume it is the same.

 

[foofighters]

Sorry to be a pain but I have kinda talked myself out of the 9600XT now. I am now looking at the GeForce FX6600GT 128mb. It costs a little more but it looks a much better card. Am I right in thinking this? I can get it for around $320AUD ($224USD). Let me know your opinions on this.

 

[cleeve]

The 6600GT is indeed a very good card. Better than the 9600XT for sure, heck it's even better than the once-best 9800XT in many circumstances.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>

 

[foofighters]

Thanks mate. That is the card I will get. No point in me buying a crappy card just because it is cheap.

Thanks for all your help. You all rock!