HD 2400 Noticeable Upgrade or Not

GrandslammerBD · 03-28-2008, 10:19 PM

I currently have the Radeon 9550 AGP Graphics Card and it hasnt impressed me with performance at all. I am planning on upgrading my PSU from 300 watt to 500 or so, that way I can get a more powerful card. I do realize that some of the PSU brands are poor quality and I will research and find out a good quality brand that is in my price range. But anyway, at Best Buy I saw an HD 2400 PRO AGP Card. Would this be a noticable performance increase from the Radeon 9550. I dont need top of the line equipment, just something that will improve from the Radeon 9550. I will be playing games like Star Wars Battlefront 1 and 2, Star Trek Legacy, Dark Star One, and many others. Some of these games are not as demanding as others. Another thing is, I realize it is an HD Card. I dont think the eView 17f3 CRT Monitor I use supports HD. Does this mean I will have to get a new monitor or is there some plug or connection that gives me the HD.

**UncleMacro** · 03-29-2008, 12:22 AM

It would help if you'd include specs on the rest of your computer and a price range for your new card. But (in anticipation of that)...

The "HD" is just part of the name of ATI's series of cards. You won't need a new monitor. A Radeon 9550 with 128 bit wide video RAM is not too quick. The slower 9550 models with 64 bit wide video RAM are much worse. If you have the faster model 9550 then a 2400 Pro is maybe 50% faster. Personally I'd stay away from 2400 Pro and look at the 2600 Pro or 7600 GS. They're both three or four times quicker than the faster 9550 and can be had for less than $100 if you shop in the right place (Best Buy can be a bit expensive).

GrandslammerBD · 03-30-2008, 07:50 PM

Specifications
ATI Radeon 9550
AMD Sempron 3300 2GHZ Socket 754
1.5 GB of DDR RAM
80 GB ATA Hard Drive
eView 17f3 Monitor
Emachines T3116

Thanks for the recommendations, but I dont think my computer will be able to handle the GeForce 7600 GS or HD 2600 Pro. Will it handle it or not? I think my processor would be the bottleneck. My computer will handle PCI or AGP and I prefer AGP because it is faster.

**UncleMacro** · 03-31-2008, 03:33 PM

Your CPU is definitely not high-end but it's not actually that bad. A socket 754 2 GHz Athlon64 is actually pretty decent. You really don't need a high-end CPU for most games these days. They tend to be limited by the video card rather than the CPU. That 9550 is definitely currently your gaming bottleneck at all times. It's vvvveeeerrrryyyy sssslllloooowwww.

With your kind of hardware I might consider the 2600 XT which is quicker than the 2600 Pro and 7600 GS but only a little more expensive. I wouldn't try running a 2600 XT or Pro with your current power supply. A 7600 GS is about 30 watts so it might well run with your supply (and then again it might not) whereas the 2600s are closer to 50 watts. If you have a "good" 300 watt supply with most of its power on the 12 volt rail then it would run all of these video cards just fine because the rest of your hardware looks to be very low power. Your power supply is probably yawning with boredom as we speak. But you never really know what kind of supply is included in that kind of machine so people doing serious upgrades just tend to play it safe and get a new power supply. If I was spending the money on a new power supply (non-crap ones start at $60 or so) then I'd spend the extra $20 and get a 2600 XT at someplace with decent prices like www.newegg.com. Even if the CPU is your bottleneck at times, the 2600 XT would perform better in plenty of circumstances so it would be worth the extra cost.

Oh, and forget about PCI video cards. They're slow and expensive. AGP is your only rational choice here.

Oh, there's an "issue" with the AGP 2600 Pro and XT cards. ATI's official drivers apparently don't currently support the AGP version of these cards. So you may have to run only the drivers which come in the box with the card or run the Omega drivers. I don't know why ATI did this. It's stupid and annoying.

03-28-2008, 10:19 PM	#1 (permalink)
GrandslammerBD Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 192 OS: Windows XP	HD 2400 Noticeable Upgrade or Not I currently have the Radeon 9550 AGP Graphics Card and it hasnt impressed me with performance at all. I am planning on upgrading my PSU from 300 watt to 500 or so, that way I can get a more powerful card. I do realize that some of the PSU brands are poor quality and I will research and find out a good quality brand that is in my price range. But anyway, at Best Buy I saw an HD 2400 PRO AGP Card. Would this be a noticable performance increase from the Radeon 9550. I dont need top of the line equipment, just something that will improve from the Radeon 9550. I will be playing games like Star Wars Battlefront 1 and 2, Star Trek Legacy, Dark Star One, and many others. Some of these games are not as demanding as others. Another thing is, I realize it is an HD Card. I dont think the eView 17f3 CRT Monitor I use supports HD. Does this mean I will have to get a new monitor or is there some plug or connection that gives me the HD.

03-29-2008, 12:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
UncleMacro TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,133 OS: Vista SP1 My System	Re: HD 2400 Noticeable Upgrade or Not It would help if you'd include specs on the rest of your computer and a price range for your new card. But (in anticipation of that)... The "HD" is just part of the name of ATI's series of cards. You won't need a new monitor. A Radeon 9550 with 128 bit wide video RAM is not too quick. The slower 9550 models with 64 bit wide video RAM are much worse. If you have the faster model 9550 then a 2400 Pro is maybe 50% faster. Personally I'd stay away from 2400 Pro and look at the 2600 Pro or 7600 GS. They're both three or four times quicker than the faster 9550 and can be had for less than $100 if you shop in the right place (Best Buy can be a bit expensive).

03-30-2008, 07:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
GrandslammerBD Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 192 OS: Windows XP	Re: HD 2400 Noticeable Upgrade or Not Specifications ATI Radeon 9550 AMD Sempron 3300 2GHZ Socket 754 1.5 GB of DDR RAM 80 GB ATA Hard Drive eView 17f3 Monitor Emachines T3116 Thanks for the recommendations, but I dont think my computer will be able to handle the GeForce 7600 GS or HD 2600 Pro. Will it handle it or not? I think my processor would be the bottleneck. My computer will handle PCI or AGP and I prefer AGP because it is faster.

03-31-2008, 03:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
UncleMacro TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,133 OS: Vista SP1 My System	Re: HD 2400 Noticeable Upgrade or Not Your CPU is definitely not high-end but it's not actually that bad. A socket 754 2 GHz Athlon64 is actually pretty decent. You really don't need a high-end CPU for most games these days. They tend to be limited by the video card rather than the CPU. That 9550 is definitely currently your gaming bottleneck at all times. It's vvvveeeerrrryyyy sssslllloooowwww. With your kind of hardware I might consider the 2600 XT which is quicker than the 2600 Pro and 7600 GS but only a little more expensive. I wouldn't try running a 2600 XT or Pro with your current power supply. A 7600 GS is about 30 watts so it might well run with your supply (and then again it might not) whereas the 2600s are closer to 50 watts. If you have a "good" 300 watt supply with most of its power on the 12 volt rail then it would run all of these video cards just fine because the rest of your hardware looks to be very low power. Your power supply is probably yawning with boredom as we speak. But you never really know what kind of supply is included in that kind of machine so people doing serious upgrades just tend to play it safe and get a new power supply. If I was spending the money on a new power supply (non-crap ones start at $60 or so) then I'd spend the extra $20 and get a 2600 XT at someplace with decent prices like www.newegg.com. Even if the CPU is your bottleneck at times, the 2600 XT would perform better in plenty of circumstances so it would be worth the extra cost. Oh, and forget about PCI video cards. They're slow and expensive. AGP is your only rational choice here. Oh, there's an "issue" with the AGP 2600 Pro and XT cards. ATI's official drivers apparently don't currently support the AGP version of these cards. So you may have to run only the drivers which come in the box with the card or run the Omega drivers. I don't know why ATI did this. It's stupid and annoying.