I'm one of those stupid guys (most of you here will think I am..) that buy *crappy* ATI underclocked-card-sold-as-some-card-that-is-labeled-up-with-some-misleading-model-numbers... Getting kind of bored.. I flashed it with Radeon 9600 Pro (GPU oc'ed to 440MHz, Mem underclocked to 229.50MHz...
same price? pardon me, but do you know that the "suggested" (R9600) card is US$50 more expensive than R9550 and is priced around with FX5200 locally! Plus the "better performer" card is out of stock in my town..
*edit*
For a "Diamond Member" around this forum, you're not bad at giving sucky...
Hey! I'm not defending it! I'm just suggesting to him that the R9550 is better than FX5500.. besides.. he looks like he wants a DX9-compatible card.. And how long are you going to defend the Ti4200 huh??!?
if you really want a FX5500.. why don't get a Radeon 9550.. they're in the same line except that R9550 does perform better in most cases with FX5500.. That card is around US$75+..
I'm not really saying that R9550 are good.. I just want comments of experienced user on it...
Plus.. I was going to get a FX5200 before I made my decision with R9550 since they priced around the same locally... If you compare R9550 to FX5200, R9550 will definately proves better than FX5200..
A 16ms response time should give better results (read: less ghosting effect) but some LCD displays spots no difference with higher (around 23ms) response time.. If you are going to invest a LCD monitor for a long time.. try to go with trusted names.. at least you get better trusted products and...
Yes.. I do mean about the Radeon 9550 chipset... So you owned a R9000 Pro card? Interesting to know.. They are not on sale in my country though.. I would be interested in the 3Dmark2001SE test results if you don't mind..
for that money (US$ 75), I can only get a FX5200 64-bit version.. how is that supposed to fare off with a R9550 while its performance (the R9550) is definately much better than FX5200?!
you're absolutely right... even my previous Matrox G400 card have 128-bit memory bandwidth, although it's just SDR..
*Edit*
Matrox G400 is produced around the year 1998..
As a matter of fact... there is... there's 3 part of it.. 1 explanation, 1 general comparison, 1 specific card comparison.
Click here to view the article
PCI-X is just a marketing gimmic... almost every card can't even fill 75% of AGP 8x's bandwidth... I say wait for some time longer before getting a PCI-X compatible board.. new-tech bound to have heavy price tags and even glitches...
Erm.. your're mentioning on the FX5200 or R9550 (on the US$ 75 issue)? For R9550 it's around USD$87 in my country and a FX5200 with full features cost around the same too... plus.. the Sapphire 9550 128-bit 128MB that I have is capable of multi-monitors... (CRT+DVI+S-Video).. I can't get any...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.