ATI 9550 a real winner

[hkh]

This is the card that will replace the 9200 so any one think of gettig the 9200 or the Nvidia FX5500 wait until this comes out:D

Go here to see it http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId=649&dPage=1

[nocturnal714]

great find hkh :thup:

[funnyperson1]

I am a bit underwhelmed. The performance in DX8 games and benchmarks was mediocre at best.

The GeCube Extreme which was the best card got 11,550 3dmarks...on an Athlon 64 system.

I could do that with my Radeon 8500, actually on an A64 system of that speed I could probably get somewhere near 13k.

Look at the other 9550 from Powercolor, it got 7800 3dmarks, on a system that fast, thats pathetic. I've seen higher scores from Geforce 4 MXs. Heck, my mobility 9200 gets around that much on a Pentium M 1.5 with PC2100 ram.

The fps in all the other games are easily attainable by a Ti4200, even an 8500.

Either I missed something, and there was 4XAA on the whole time, or ATI and Nvidia are badly shafting the general public.

[larva]

You have to understand that this class of video cards was created for the benefit of manufacturer revenues, not yours. Cards like this are so castrated in performance from their full-featured cousins that a gamer would have to be foolish to trade the functionality involved for the minor cost savings. I've seen more people spend more on lights and cables...

If you are not concerned with 3D performance there are even less expensive cards availaible that are at least as capable (right down to the sub 30 dollar cards like a Rage 128). Or you can buy a generation-old high end 3D card for the same money and get better performance (GF4Ti).

Buyers of these "mid-range" cards make claims like "I play the occasional game, but I'm not demanding on my game performance, so these make sense." Well, a certain type of sense, I guess. But with cards like the FX5900 and now even the ATI 9800 slipping below $200, I have a hard time finding the impetus to search out a solution with but a fraction the performance that saves only a minor amount of money when placed in the perspective of the total system cost.

Those that are not obsessed with game performance (but want to have it) would be far better served to settle for "old" technology like the FX5900 or ATI9800 rather than spend extravagent sums for the latest FX6800 or ATIX800. For less demanding applications I move to proven (sub-$100) cards like GF4Ti's, and even more often to truly affordable solutions like GF4MX's or ATI Rage 128s.

Aside from my insistance that these cards answer a question no wise man asks, I can't see the new ATI as being any different. The low-end version is no more capable than the FX5700LE, and although the better version takes the 9550 GPU and extracts the performance level of a higher-end card, you can bet its pricing will also rival the particular higher-end alternative to which it compares well.

Which just goes to show the distinctions that make low end or mid-range cards just that are artificial. It costs hardly less to make a 9550 GPU than any other, it is the fact that it is placed in a minimal, restrictive, and truly inexpensive design that allows the card as a whole to be cheaper. Taking away the performance restrictions also removes the performance disparity--but unfortunately eliminates the source of the economy as well.

[Dukemurmur]

hmm if u ask me they arn't worht it not with the 9800's getting SO low in cost right now...save 4 the extra week and just get a 9800 or a 5900...in my oppinion it will be WELL worth it even if u don't play games as it will be fine 4 a LONG time.