Strange Days...
DigitLife's tests show the 128-bit 9550 ahead of the GeforceFX 5600 XT 64-bit (XT? no plain 5600's on the chart), 0.8 frames per second slower than the GeforceFX 5800 128-bit (!!!!), and 2.6 fps slower than the 5600XT 128-bit (!!!!!!!)
What the hell? The 9550 is on par with the FX5800 and slower than the FX 5600XT?
Well, assuming the 5600XT is a regular 5600, then, yes, it's 2.6 fps faster than the 9550 128-bit in Doom3. However the 9550 is still the better card, because in any other game under the sun it'll beat the 5600...
The most surprising thing is how much the FX5800 sucks. Good lord, Nvidia's great hope for the 9700 PRO war can't beat a lowly Radeon 9550.
My god, they sure bought a knife to that gunfight, didn't they?
[EDIT] I screwed up... the plain-jane 5600 (non-XT) does indeed exist on the charts, and does a passable job with doom3, respectably ahead of the 9550 and FX5800.
________________
<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>