which video card is better.....

theReaper0908 · 07-09-2006, 12:38 AM

The Geforce FX 5500 256MB or the Ati Radeon 9550 256mb?

thanks

gtjr_ph · 07-09-2006, 02:19 AM

**forcifer** · 07-09-2006, 08:55 AM

about equal, but i would get the MX. it is a little bit higher and i trust nvidia more then ati

Indoril Nerevar · 07-09-2006, 09:49 AM

I agree with forcifer: I'd go with the GeForce. But really, there's little difference between the cards, so it's a matter of preference.

**TheMatt** · 07-09-2006, 10:05 AM

Both the same, but the GeForce is 20 MHz faster. Won't make much of a difference, but I generally perfer nVidia over ATI also.

**UncleMacro** · 07-09-2006, 03:03 PM

Both cards are very slow compared to most these days but definitely go with a Radeon 9550 over a GeForce FX5500. NVIDIA has never published what's inside an FX5500 (presumably because of embarassment) but it is, for all practical purposes, a DirectX 8 card. Technically the FX5200 and the slightly faster FX5500 are DirectX 9 cards but their support for DirectX 9 is so weak that you can rarely make much use of it. The Radeon 9550 on the other hand is a slowed down Radeon 9600 which has four real live DirectX 9 pixel shaders and therefore can work reasonably well with programs which require DirectX 9 support. If you are looking at any programs which requires very much DirectX 9 pixel shading (all newer games do) then the FX5500 is a very bad option. The 9550 on the other hand will get by.

**Real_Bullet** · 07-10-2006, 02:23 AM

5200 at 128 MB is a poor card imo.

I had that card, its worse video card I seen considering it cost about $100, and on the lowest possible settings could barely play many games on it.

TheUnlimited · 07-10-2006, 09:54 AM

The 9550 isn't too bad, and consider that it doesn't need its own power plug (don't know if the FX does). Don't even think about overclocking the RAM in most cases, though.

You'll probably break pretty even in the long run.

ebackhus · 07-10-2006, 10:07 AM

Between the two I'd take the 9550. As it was mentioned before, the DX9 support in the FX series was craptacular and made them very inefficient cards overall.

07-09-2006, 12:38 AM	#1 (permalink)
theReaper0908 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 352 OS: Win XP SP3, Vista SP1	which video card is better..... The Geforce FX 5500 256MB or the Ati Radeon 9550 256mb? thanks

07-09-2006, 08:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
forcifer Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Kansas City kansas Posts: 3,627 OS: Vista Premium 32 My System Blog Entries: 1	about equal, but i would get the MX. it is a little bit higher and i trust nvidia more then ati __________________ now i remember

07-09-2006, 09:49 AM	#4 (permalink)
Indoril Nerevar Manager, Games Team Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Queensland, Australia Posts: 5,007 OS: Windows 7 RC 64-bit My System	I agree with forcifer: I'd go with the GeForce. But really, there's little difference between the cards, so it's a matter of preference. __________________ Donating to the forum keeps TSF free for all. • Common PC Game Issues • Common Installation Issues • Posting System Specs • Power Supply Information • • NVIDIA Drivers • ATI Drivers • Thermal Paste Guide • System Requirements Lab • YouGamers Game-o-Meter • • Everest • Prime95 • DirectX • AMD Drivers • Memtest86 • SensorsView • Driver Cleaner • I do not give help via PM. Please post your question on the forum.

07-09-2006, 10:05 AM	#5 (permalink)
TheMatt TSF Enthusiast Join Date: May 2006 Location: Boston Posts: 13,701 OS: Win 3.1, 98, NT 4.0, XP Debian 4.0, Kubuntu 6.06 My System Blog Entries: 3	Both the same, but the GeForce is 20 MHz faster. Won't make much of a difference, but I generally perfer nVidia over ATI also. __________________ - Matt M - KB1OSC - Folding@Home 85015 [url="http://www.techsupportforum.com/hardware-support/"] If TSF has helped you, please consider donating. If I have stopped responding to a thread, feel free to send me a PM with a link to the thread. It is advisable to subscribe to threads so you will receive updates when replies are posted. You can subscribe to threads from the "Thread Tools" Menu. »Memtest86 »Prime95 »UBCD »SpeedFan »NHC Personal »Everest »Sandra »PC Wizard »RivaTuner »ATi Tool Click here for Useful Articles and Guides

07-10-2006, 02:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
Real_Bullet TSF Enthusiast Join Date: May 2005 Location: Lumberton, MS Posts: 517 OS: Windows Vista Home Basic My System	5200 at 128 MB is a poor card imo. I had that card, its worse video card I seen considering it cost about $100, and on the lowest possible settings could barely play many games on it. __________________ I can speak Chinese, PPHUBK'YU.

07-09-2006, 02:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
gtjr_ph Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 148 OS: winxp

07-09-2006, 03:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
UncleMacro TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,133 OS: Vista SP1 My System	Both cards are very slow compared to most these days but definitely go with a Radeon 9550 over a GeForce FX5500. NVIDIA has never published what's inside an FX5500 (presumably because of embarassment) but it is, for all practical purposes, a DirectX 8 card. Technically the FX5200 and the slightly faster FX5500 are DirectX 9 cards but their support for DirectX 9 is so weak that you can rarely make much use of it. The Radeon 9550 on the other hand is a slowed down Radeon 9600 which has four real live DirectX 9 pixel shaders and therefore can work reasonably well with programs which require DirectX 9 support. If you are looking at any programs which requires very much DirectX 9 pixel shading (all newer games do) then the FX5500 is a very bad option. The 9550 on the other hand will get by.

07-10-2006, 09:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
TheUnlimited Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: New England Posts: 139 OS: Windows XP Home SP3 My System	The 9550 isn't too bad, and consider that it doesn't need its own power plug (don't know if the FX does). Don't even think about overclocking the RAM in most cases, though. You'll probably break pretty even in the long run.

07-10-2006, 10:07 AM	#9 (permalink)
ebackhus Manager, Design Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: SATX Posts: 14,262 OS: WinXP Pro SP3/Windows 7 RTM My System Blog Entries: 28	Between the two I'd take the 9550. As it was mentioned before, the DX9 support in the FX series was craptacular and made them very inefficient cards overall. __________________ ----------------------------- There are no dumb questions, unless a customer is asking them. Help in the fight against cancer and other serious illnesses.