Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Anyone heard of this?

Jul 30, 2004 5:02PM PDT

I was looking for a graphics card to upgrade my system (my quest still goes on, I haven't bought one yet...but soon)
and found this Radeon 9550XT by Infotek, the info on newegg said it wasn't a 9550XT (the box in the pics was a 9550XT and Infotek's other 9550 was about $20 cheaper so I figure it was) and someone in a review had said it was 400MHZ core and 500MHZ RAM, which would put it almost identical to the 9600Pro, but about $20 cheaper, so has anyone found any benchmarks for the 9550XT? ATI's website's search thing couldn't find it, but it did give 12000 possibilitys, of which I looked at about 10.
So if anyone has any Benchmark infor the 9550XT that would be great (I cannot find it on tomshardware, and they haven't put out VGA Charts 4, sadly)
any info please....thanks

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: Anyone heard of this?
Jul 31, 2004 1:20AM PDT

From my experience, at 20 bucks, one video card doesn't rip up the one that was 20 bucks cheaper.

In fact, with todays 1+GHz machines, unless you run at beyond 1024x768, you may be overbuying a video card. Be sure to reach some "balance" in the components. That is, if you have 128 Meg of RAM on the system, no video card may make up for that. Or the same for the K6-2 machines. While a nice 3D card will help, it won't pull it up to today's monsters.

Bob

- Collapse -
Re: Anyone heard of this?
Jul 31, 2004 3:10AM PDT

ok...i'm just trying to alieveiate the bottle-neck created by my ultra-slow performing (GF FX 5200) graphics card in a system that is otherwise quite capable (AMD AthlonXP 2600, Audigy 2ZS, 1,024MB PC2700, top shelf DFI KT400A mobo, great case w/cooling system, etc etc etc....)
So I figured that if it can double my 3DMark01SE scores (from benchmarks which I found it looked like around 12000 vs. the 6400 that I am getting now, and I don't know what CPU it had, most people do claim around 11000-12500 with a CPU only one step above or below mine, so I don't think it will be that bad)
But would classify a Radeon 9600XT as overbuying for my system?

- Collapse -
Re: Anyone heard of this?
Jul 31, 2004 5:41AM PDT

See if the cards around that model number turn in the numbers you want. If not, then you will not get that target number. This is from my experience.

The FX5200 is an "ok" card, but will not turn in great benchmarks. It will run most of today's games at 800x600 without all glitz turned on.


Bob

- Collapse -
Re: Anyone heard of this?
Jul 31, 2004 12:20PM PDT

well, I would say the same about the FX 5200, but it just won't give me the performance I want from Halo, it just wont keep a stable frame rate when the gaming really starts (i.e. when going through a level with lots of motion, for example vehicles or planes or lots of guys will even slow it down) so I figured if I got a card that could double it's benchmarks that would give me the boost I am looking for, since 800x600 is fine by me.
Everyone on the other fourm I post at (Extreme Over Clocking or EOC) thinks the Radeon 9800Pro is the card to buy, or the 9800SE.
I view the 9800SE as underperforming what I need (for the money that is, it performs about identical to the 9550XT while costing $30 more) and the Radeon 9800Pro seems like a tad bit of Overkill, since Doom 3/Half-Life 2/FarCry don't interest me I don't have the need for the most powerful desktop card you can get...what would you say to this?

- Collapse -
I see a trap.
Jul 31, 2004 12:39PM PDT

You wrote ... "wont keep a stable frame rate when the gaming really starts"...

One of the neat things Tomshardware did was to graph the framerate vs. time on a few games. The result was framerates can vary depending on what's going on and no video card I've seen delivered a stable frame rate. It always varied from one number to another and what you see in the reports is that average.

Bob

- Collapse -
Re: I see a trap.
Aug 1, 2004 12:39AM PDT

I say stable as in playable, for examply FX 5200 will (with minimal action) play Halo at around 25FPS, but when a lot of guys pop out or a lot of driving/vehicles moving around it slows way way down to what feels like 10FPS.
But a card like the Radeon 9600XT will play (THG benches with all the settings up right?) higher average speeds and because its a better card it won't slow way way down when a lot of guys start walking around, while the FX 5200 has no problem with UT2K4, since it will play that at 27FPS average (It's what the game itself said) with 8 or 9 guys moving around fighting, but you can notice the lag in some areas, if you get everyone together for a brief moment and if there is a shawdow affect in that area it will slow up, plus I don't even play with AA/AF so I wouldn't know how much that slows it up but AA/AF enabled it will tear 4000 points out of 3DMark01SE score (6456 to 2400-something) so I just want to play at slightly raised framerates, would you agree the 9600XT is going to be capable of doing that, or would the 9600Pro be capable of the same thing, THG averaged it for Halo at 28.x and the 9600XT at 36.x, since UT2K4 runs at 27-29 average, 28 wouldn't bug me, but if I remember right THG runs those test with all the settings cranked to give the card more workout (the 28.x was at least in 1024x768 and I will run Halo in 800x600, personal pref, so I think the 9600Pro is more than capable of delivering the boost I need)
Your thoughts?

- Collapse -
And...
Aug 1, 2004 12:48AM PDT

What I want to point out is simple. Take the card number just above and below the one you are looking at and see if the numbers are in your ballpark. If so, then your new card will likely be fine.

But no one will give you any guarantee that you will not see a 10-15 FPS scene again. My bet is Doom 3 has all Nvidia/ATI folks all giddy since it will drive a "pop" in video card upgrades. Same for Halo 2 if it arrives on the PC.

Bob

- Collapse -
Re: And...
Aug 1, 2004 8:03AM PDT

ok...so I can get any card right now, and in as short as say 6 months it could be giving me the 10-15 fps scene?
I think I am going to get the card that fits all my needs and a little head room, and just buy what fits my needs when ever i need a new one, instead of just buying the most expensive thing available.
Would that seem like a good strategy?

- Collapse -
Re: And... why....
Aug 1, 2004 9:51AM PDT

I updated my personal card to a fx5700 card just last month. I will share that I delay such updates for long periods since I've paid in the past for the 300 buck card (now a curiousity item!) and it was promptly surpassed by cards 1/2 that price in 6 months.

This trend has shown no sign of stopping and why I share with you to poke at the decisions.

How much bucks is this one?

Bob

- Collapse -
Re: And... why....
Aug 1, 2004 2:06PM PDT

I am assuming you mean how much is the card i'm looking at...
Its the Radeon 9600XT by Rosewill only $136.00 on Newegg, it seemed like a good deal compared to $166.99 for the FX 5700 Ultra.

- Collapse -
Fair deal.
Aug 1, 2004 9:31PM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: Fair deal.
Aug 2, 2004 12:50AM PDT

Ok....well I am not in the $200+ range (I wish). I think the Radeon 9600XT is what I am going to buy.
BTW
Do you know anywhere to get benchmarks on the cards that have been released in the last 8 months including these

Radeon 9550 series
GeForce FX 5500
GeForce FX 5700LE
Radeon 9250 series

I cannot locate the benchmarks for these new low-cost cards, which is part of the reason I will pay an extra $36 for the 9600XT because it's performance figures are one of the cards I have found the benchmarks about, while I still cannot locate the 9550XT anywhere...not to mention the GeForce FX 5500/5700LE since both of those are obviously in my priceing range. I still think the Radeon card I have chosen is my best buy.
Thanks

- Collapse -
Bob, why not this card for $1.50 more?
Aug 6, 2004 3:49PM PDT
http://www.compgeeks.com/details.asp?invtid=AFX5200DDR-256TV&cat=VCD

Is it because it's a 5200? I'm in the market to upgrade my video card also. But I'm confused as all hell with all these different models. I have a ti4200 currently. A gamer friend of mine told me that the 5600 wouldn't be much of an upgrade. I'm totally confused. I'm willing to spend up to ~$150. But I don't want to get burned again, as I did when NVidia was pushing mmx cards as G4s. Or would you wait for the Ultra cards to come down in price? I'm not a super gamer, but from what I've read, the Ultra cards are designed "for the future" and beating ATIs on benchmarks.
- Collapse -
Re: Anyone heard of this?
Aug 6, 2004 11:05AM PDT

Well I just ordered my 9600Pro off newegg, w/a free copy of counterstrike (IDK if that is a good thing or not but it was free). I will post up my performnace improvement from the FX 5200, which should be very noticable.
Thank You for explaining some things and keeping me from buying that GeForce4 Ti-4800SE (and as I look back at my choice to ask about that card I realize that was like asking if buying a new computer with RDRAM would be a good thing, ?!??! at myself)

- Collapse -
Re: Anyone heard of this?
Aug 7, 2004 7:13AM PDT

ok, I have a new question...
I have heard of driver issues with the Radeon 9600 series.
A lot of people have told me to get the Catalyst 4.8/4.9 drivers. Those are both BETA.
Someone said to download 4.7 since it's latest non-beta.
I don't want to use the 3.x that comes on the CD.
Would you go with 4.7? I am going to download it and keep it zipped on my HDD until the 9600 arrives, but will it work fine for my card or should I use the older 3.x version?

- Collapse -
Personally I don't like beta
Aug 7, 2004 7:49AM PDT

But if you have XP, set a restore point before installing, or rollback drivers from device manger. Told ya them ati drivers can screw ya up! Wink Good luck.

Side note: I can play Far Cry, and GTA3 after tweaking my ti4200 card!

- Collapse -
For Brandon Eng re fx5600
Aug 6, 2004 11:58PM PDT

Let's put it this way. I have the fx5500/256, fx5600, f5700le in the home. The fx5200, even with 256M is still the value card but will outperform most 2 year old cards. Tomshardware VGA charts are a good way to look at what might be faster. The kids have the 5500 and 5600 and all of it works.

Bob

- Collapse -
Thanks much for input, Bob! ;-)
Aug 7, 2004 12:43AM PDT

.

- Collapse -
Re: Thanks much for input, Bob! ;-)
Aug 7, 2004 8:47AM PDT

alright you are looking for a new GPU like me?
Why not get the Radeon 9600Pro/XT?
They are good cards.
If you are interested in the 9600Pro I can give you the specs/performance it gives me, after I get it that is....
BTW
dont get the 5200 it won't give you much boost.
I would go for 9600Pro/XT or higher
Or from nVidia (which I know better, but I am still buying ATI? I dont get it either....) from nVidia try the GeForce FX 5700/5700Ultra, the 5700Ultra may outperform that 9600XT in standard, turn on the AA/AF.
The nVidia don't stand a chance. hehehe
nVidia's card prices are all messed up right now, the FX 5900 costs $350, with the 6800 costing $285...explain that one.
Or the 5700Ultra costing almost about $5-$10 less or more than the 5900XT.
I would buy ATI since their prices don't get get MEGA offset everytime they release a new card, they just go down.

- Collapse -
You have a short memory, ozos ;-)
Aug 7, 2004 9:17AM PDT

I'm the "NVidia biased" guy from your other post. Yeah, I'm looking to upgrade, but I found I can play Far Cry, and after tweaking my ti4200, I'm getting pretty good fps on gta3. I think I'll wait, and get an Ultra card. Figgering out the differences with their other cards are giving me a freaking migraine!

Just for fun, check out my post on Windows XP game Advisor and see how your card stacks up. According to the Advisor, I can pretty much play anything, and have been playing the demo of Far Cry with out any loss in fps. Detail could be better, but I'm not that hard core a gamer.