| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 66219 | 2006-02-15 08:09:00 | Graphics card questions. | Faded_Mantis (79) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 430621 | 2006-02-15 08:09:00 | Ok, I know that Geforce 4 Ti's still preform well for a card of their age (better than the 5200 and 5500), but they don't support Direct X 9, which rules out alot of new games... However looking at preformance charts a ATI 9500 shows that is is still a good card for it's price of $130-140. Now I know that the 9500 outpreformed the 9600...but what about the 9550, does it preform similarly to the 9500 or is it a bit slower like the 9600? (note: lets assume we are talking of cards with the same VRAM etc...) |
Faded_Mantis (79) | ||
| 430622 | 2006-02-15 09:36:00 | 9550 seems slightly poorer than 9600. Read this review (www.beyond3d.com). | gibler (49) | ||
| 430623 | 2006-02-15 18:45:00 | Ok, I know that Geforce 4 Ti's still preform well for a card of their age (better than the 5200 and 5500), but they don't support Direct X 9, which rules out alot of new games... Meaning? My son is still using his Ti4200. He has played HL2, FEAR (very well too), and other new ones. The only one so far he can't is BF2 - it has no support for the 4.x series. Nothing to do with DX9.x |
pctek (84) | ||
| 430624 | 2006-02-17 11:37:00 | Quote the link "The name suggests that it somewhere in between a 9500 and 9600 but it is essentially the latter but with reduced clock speeds or lower specification." On paper the 9600 had better specs than the 9500, meaning that if the 9550 has slightly lower specs than the 9600 then it should be ahead of the 9500... But in bench marks I saw the 9500 repeatedly outpreformed the 9600, so although the 9550 is supposd to be between the 2, does anyone know where is acctually is? btw, I'll try to find the link to the benchmark I saw EDIT: Couldn't find the one I was looking for (was done by a review company) but heres one that was done by an ameteur, it shows the same trends though, only difference was game lineup and range of cards (pro used 15 or so cards, ameteur uses 5) Ameteur test (www.digit-life.com) |
Faded_Mantis (79) | ||
| 430625 | 2006-02-17 11:59:00 | On paper the 9600 had better specs than the 9500, meaning that if the 9550 has slightly lower specs than the 9600 then it should be ahead of the 9500... Heh? On paper the 9500pro had better specs then the 9600pro, and the performance comparisons just reflected the fact, When they made the 9500pro they merely put slower memory and a lesser memory controller on the 9700pro, so it had the benifit of a killer chipset and additional pipes. By the time the 9600pro was released they had a purpose built card to take its role as the mid-range performance card, As its reign was coing to an end they filled the market with "encore" editions and other stripped down models that futher lowered the performance of the card, I doubt you could even purchase a full speed 9600pro anymore. And the 9550 card is definitly a step down from the 9600pro, A capable performer in the budget end when it was released I wouldn't go slapping the card in anything nowadays unless the hardware couldn't push anything faster. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 430626 | 2006-02-17 13:31:00 | Meaning? My son is still using his Ti4200. He has played HL2, FEAR (very well too), and other new ones. The only one so far he can't is BF2 - it has no support for the 4.x series. Nothing to do with DX9.x Some new games will not run without DirectX 9 - he was just saying that that card doesn't support it. If you don't have it and the game needs it - it just won't run. |
TiJay (6055) | ||
| 430627 | 2006-02-18 05:01:00 | And the 9550 card is definitly a step down from the 9600pro, A capable performer in the budget end when it was released I wouldn't go slapping the card in anything nowadays unless the hardware couldn't push anything faster. Well heres the thing. I'm a student at college, so I still live at home. The computers I have avaliable to use are both fairly good... Athlon 2500+ 1024mb DDR400 ATI 9600pro 128mb Athlon 64 3000+ 1536 DDR400 nVidia 6600GT 128mb PCI-E And I'm a really big graphics hog, however I want to put together my own computer with some parts we have lying around and just buy some other parts, I need ram and a g-card (for a PC with a Athlon 1800+, which the 9550 would fit)...However when I go to uni at the end of the year I'm spashing out on a high end computer that will last me 3 years...so I don't know if it's worth it making this one now. |
Faded_Mantis (79) | ||
| 430628 | 2006-02-18 10:50:00 | Some new games will not run without DirectX 9 - he was just saying that that card doesn't support it. If you don't have it and the game needs it - it just won't run. BF2 doesn't run on a Ti card, not because of the version on Direct X but the pixel shader technology required. I donated my Ti to the kids' PC and got e a 6600GT due to this |
Jester (13) | ||
| 430629 | 2006-02-18 11:34:00 | The minimum requirements for Battlefield 2 are... Windows XP P4 1.2 GHz or equivalent 512MB RAM 64MB DirectX 9 video card Broadband Internet connection DVD-ROM drive (for DVD version) It clearly states that the graphics card must have Direct X 9 support...the GeForce 4 Ti's do not have DX9 support and can therefore not display the game. |
Faded_Mantis (79) | ||
| 1 | |||||