
October 27th, 2007, 04:36 PM
|
 |
AMD/ATI oc'er
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK - London
|
|
|
I don't mean to be nasty here, but being blunt, the old card was better in my eyes.
the Ti4200 may not have the fancy dx9 effects, but it has brute power, or did for it's day.
The FX5500 is in fact a slightly overclocked FX5200 which was by no means a good card. As a rough guide, every year, the previous years high end performance is the next years midrange. The upgrade of graphics card has gone from high end of one year, to budget of the next year.
Now for some statistics
TI4200 vs FX5500
Texture fillrate:
TI4200 = 250 x 4 x 2 = 2,000 (100%)
FX5500 = 270 x 4 = 1,080 (54%)
Pixel fillrate:
TI4200 = 250 x 4 = 1,000 (92.6%)
FX5500 = 270 x 4 = 1,080 (100%)
Memory bandwidth:
TI4200 = 16 x 444 = 7,104MB/s (100%)
FX5500 = 16 x 400 = 6,400MB/s (90.1%)
as you can see from above, the only place the fx5500 wins, is in the pixel fillrate, which is what produces the screen you see. The pixels.
The texture area is rendering the actual scene, and at this point, the TI4200 has a major advantage. Finally there is the memory bandwidth which the TI4200 wins again, if only by a slight margin.
I did the same thing years back with the same cards, just a ti4200 to a fx5200. i ended going back to the ti4200 for the time being, and getting myself a much better card. Since then i have learnt alot. I feel i am very knowledged in this area, as is stang on here.
A quick look on a UK website i buy hardware from shows that you can get a x1650 agp for £60, or a X1950Pro for £100. These cards are significantly better, with the x1950pro being the main one. For comparison, it has a texture fillrate of 6,900 and a memory bandwidth of 44,160MB/s. No slouch by any means.
I will finish by asking what the rest of the machine is, spec wise. As the rest of the spec of the machine will change the deciding factor of wether it is worth changing the card, or just saving for a whole new machine/large upgrade.
Hope this helps. Sorry to dissapoint.
- Paul
|