Geforce Ti4400 vs. Radeon 9550 256MB

  • Thread starter Thread starter jordysanchez
  • Start date Start date
J

jordysanchez

hello dudes.
I have recently downloaded battlefield 2 demo and when I wanted to
start it, it didn’t start. Know I found out that my card (Geforce
Ti4000) isn’t supported by the game, however the radeon 9550 is. And I
really wanted to play this game so I gues I have to get a new card.
But I don’t want to spend to much money at it.
So is it good for me to replace my geforce ti4400 by a radeon 9550
128MB or 256 MB? Or with other words which one is better?

Thanx everybody, here’s a look onder my desk.
Pentium 4 2.4GHz
1024 DDR400
Geforce Ti4400 128MB
 
jordysanchez said:
hello dudes.
I have recently downloaded battlefield 2 demo and when I wanted to
start it, it didn't start. Know I found out that my card (Geforce
Ti4000) isn't supported by the game, however the radeon 9550 is. And I
really wanted to play this game so I gues I have to get a new card.
But I don't want to spend to much money at it.
So is it good for me to replace my geforce ti4400 by a radeon 9550
128MB or 256 MB? Or with other words which one is better?

Thanx everybody, here's a look onder my desk.
Pentium 4 2.4GHz
1024 DDR400
Geforce Ti4400 128MB

--
Posted using the http://www.hardwareforumz.com interface, at author's
request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL:
http://www.hardwareforumz.com/General-Discussion-Geforce-Ti4400-Radeon-9550-256MB-ftopict57442.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
http://www.hardwareforumz.com/eform.php?p=289295
Click to expand...

radeon 9550 isn't a bad card at all, you might consider a geforce5200 as
well.

a geforce5200 will be about £45 and a radeon 9550 will be about the same,
probably less, no problems with the 9550, i know someone playing half life 2
on a 9200 (apparantly they are anyway). I prefer nvidia geforce rather than
ati radeon, but thats just my personal preference. either cards will run the
game fine (nvidia GeForce5200 or ati radeon 9550)

hope this helps
 
radeon 9550 isn't a bad card at all, you might consider a geforce5200 as
well.

a geforce5200 will be about £45 and a radeon 9550 will be about the same,
probably less, no problems with the 9550, i know someone playing half life 2
on a 9200 (apparantly they are anyway). I prefer nvidia geforce rather than
ati radeon, but thats just my personal preference. either cards will run the
game fine (nvidia GeForce5200 or ati radeon 9550)

hope this helps
Click to expand...

Half Life 2 will play on older cards better than many
similarly graphic intense games, because HL2 scales down
better. FX5200 or R9200 won't be very useful for most
modern and near-future games, including popular past titles
like Doom3 or Farcry.

The paritcular game OP is interested in might be seen as
only a temporary diversion- perhaps a few dozen hours of
playing but then onto the next game. For that reason, I
wouldn't advise only buying the bare minimum one game needs
but rather at a minimum a card that exhibits fairly good DX9
performance... in nVidia cards that would be at least a
6600, 6600GT or 6800LE even better.
 
kony said:
Half Life 2 will play on older cards better than many
similarly graphic intense games, because HL2 scales down
better. FX5200 or R9200 won't be very useful for most
modern and near-future games, including popular past titles
like Doom3 or Farcry.

The paritcular game OP is interested in might be seen as
only a temporary diversion- perhaps a few dozen hours of
playing but then onto the next game. For that reason, I
wouldn't advise only buying the bare minimum one game needs
but rather at a minimum a card that exhibits fairly good DX9
performance... in nVidia cards that would be at least a
6600, 6600GT or 6800LE even better.
Click to expand...

how about 5700
 
how about 5700
Click to expand...


Not too good either.
Unfortunately nVidia was playing catch-up during the
FX5(nnn) era when it came to DX9 support. While I prefer
nVidia cards over ATI in general, in the low-budget range a
Radeon 9600-somethingorother is probably the best bet around
that price point.

Then again, consider gaming for what it is- if that's the
use of the system, it may be the most demanding thing the
system does and thus if one puts forth $100 for a CPU, it
should be expected to put forth $150 for the video card,
given that it's a GPU plus board plus memory, etc. After
all the games themselves are a not-insignificant chunk of
change too.
 
kony said:
Half Life 2 will play on older cards better than many
similarly graphic intense games, because HL2 scales down
better. FX5200 or R9200 won't be very useful for most
modern and near-future games, including popular past titles
like Doom3 or Farcry.

The paritcular game OP is interested in might be seen as
only a temporary diversion- perhaps a few dozen hours of
playing but then onto the next game. For that reason, I
wouldn't advise only buying the bare minimum one game needs
but rather at a minimum a card that exhibits fairly good DX9
performance... in nVidia cards that would be at least a
6600, 6600GT or 6800LE even better.
Click to expand...

Thinx for all the info, I is just I don’t have the budget to buy a
6800LE. And the radeon 9200 isn’t supported by battlefield2.
I have also found some specs of the radeon 9600. there it says that
the radeon give you 6.4 memory bandwith and the ti4400 gives you 8.8.
all the other specs where higher of the NVIDIA then the ATI so I think
I save some money and buy an 6800LE in a few weeks/months.

btw the geforce FX 5200 isn’t supported by BF2 either... :(
 
Thinx for all the info, I is just I don’t have the budget to buy a
6800LE. And the radeon 9200 isn’t supported by battlefield2.
I have also found some specs of the radeon 9600. there it says that
the radeon give you 6.4 memory bandwith and the ti4400 gives you 8.8.
all the other specs where higher of the NVIDIA then the ATI so I think
I save some money and buy an 6800LE in a few weeks/months.

btw the geforce FX 5200 isn’t supported by BF2 either... :(
Click to expand...

Memory bandwidth is important, particularly for very high
resolutions or FSAA. It's only the beginning though, while
it might make the nVidia FX5(nnn) series, including the
TI4400 good at DX8 games, when it comes to DX9, the specific
features supported by the GPU, including the pixel shader
support, was (not more evolved in the case of ATI, but
actually worse than nVIdia's, it just happened that
Microsoft spec'd DX9 at a lower depth than anticipated),
lesser performing than ATI's implementation. Once this DX9
spec was revealed, nVidia backtracked and reoptimized for it
in the 6(nnn) series.

Right now BF2 looks quite rough around the edges, it's quite
surprising how few cards it supports, seems a bit like the
developer hasn't put in much time on it yet and (ought to)
would think about expanding the potential market by changing
this situation- but even so, FX5200 just isn't a very fast
card, if supported it still might not be very playable with
good enough resolutions and eyecandy to get the full effect.
 
Back
Top