ATI makes DirectX 9 breakthrough for $89

Zardon · May 24, 2004, 10:28 AM

ATI IS STILL LOOKING BAD in the DirectX 9 market below $100, because Nvidia X has almost 80 per cent of the pie. ATI always knew that it had to do something about it, and now it has.
TUL, company that we use to know as Power Color sent us some pricing on these cards, and you will be able to buy a Radeon 9550 with 256MB for $129, a Radeon 9550 with 128MB for $109, while the slowest Radeon 9550SE card will cost only $89.

inquirer

Dom · May 24, 2004, 10:31 AM

Very cool.

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 24, 2004, 06:19 PM

Btw nvidia's sub $100 market sucks and for the longest time.... I mean come on a 5200?

that as i have herd that runs mostly as a 2 pixel pipe soultion exect for a few cases... just becouse thier cards say theyhave dx9 support i've hard it not even true support....

so there goes any hope nvidia had in that market now that they have a true dx9 soultion with ps 2.0 support....

Matth · May 24, 2004, 08:34 PM

Great, we sure need a low-end shake-up...

Nvidia seem set to replace the 5200 with the equally lacklustre 5600XT that perfoms no better, possibly worse.

Of course, it all depends how ATI's interpretation of a low-end DX9 card performs - if it's half decent, then it's instant obsolescence for their 9200 DX8 models.

Mind you, if the 9550 is a low end already, and then ATI do a SE version, that could end up as another "too slow to be useful" DX9 card like the FX5200.

Vampyromaniac · May 24, 2004, 08:57 PM

well, what do you expect for under $100?

swimtech · May 24, 2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
well, what do you expect for under $100?

Actually, 800x600 - 32bit color, details set to high, some AF capability, running at 40fps in the new games would do a lot of folks very well, don't you think?

Vampyromaniac · May 24, 2004, 10:22 PM

new games, such as what? I wouldn't expect FarCry or Halo to run that well, with high detail

**MIG-31** · May 24, 2004, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
new games, such as what?

hope he's not thinking about games such as far cry, as i'm pushed on a fx5900 256mb in the highest possible @ 1024x768rez (in game) gorgeous graphics, would probably burn out a low end card.

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 24, 2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
new games, such as what? I wouldn't expect FarCry or Halo to run that well, with high detail

you'd be suprised how well game like ut2004 plays on a orgional radeon 64 mb vivo (7200)

1024x768 no aa no af

swimtech · May 24, 2004, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
you'd be suprised how well game like ut2004 plays on a orgional radeon 64 mb vivo (7200)

1024x768 no aa no af

That is what I meant, and "new" meaning, yes, Far Cry, HL2 (no aa, maybe some af - sure...), UT2004. 4 pipes, 128bit memory bus, good GPU clock, it should handle it...

Vampyromaniac · May 25, 2004, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
you'd be suprised how well game like ut2004 plays on a orgional radeon 64 mb vivo (7200)

no I wouldn't

notice I didn't say ut2004, which is more cpu dependent than FarCry or Halo

But yeah, swimtech's 40 fps sounds about right for a low-end card, under those conditions

swimtech · May 25, 2004, 02:01 PM

Would be interesting to find out for what I figure is the majority of computer owners - you know - the center of the bell curve... And you all can see that I'm behind that...

Anyway, just conjecture here guys, but OK - this site has over 60,000 members - figure half of those visit semi-regularly. Most of those I would suppose bought their computer within the last year or year and a half. That would give them a P4 processor (2-2.6Ghz), 256-512Mb DDR ram, and a 7200 RPM hard drive - fairly snappy machines...

A 9500 Pro card or better gives all these folks the capability to run the new games out now (not HL2 or Doom3 though) at 1024x768 with most of the eye candy enabled. Remember, most folks have a 17 or 19 inch monitor that really won't run well at better that 1280x1024 (and 75hz refresh or so) without looking mushy - video bandwidth limited...

An inexpensive machine purchased today includes a 2.8G processor, 512M ram, and a 7200 rpm drive with an inexpensive 19" monitor for less than a grand. The key to assisting this system for gameplay would be to equip it with hardware based sound, and give it a four pipe 9550. It should theoretically run the new stuff well at low resolution (1024x768 or less), with much better performance during gameplay than any competing video solution. Drop the rez down and it should even do the Doom3/HL2 thing with aa off - and ATI's hardware doesn't take a big hit using 32bit color and some AF - and look (and feel - control wise) good doing it.

I'm just excited some by the possibility that a really inexpensive computer should - by my estimation - be able to play the good stuff. The only way to know for sure though would be to test...

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 25, 2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
no I wouldn't
notice I didn't say ut2004, which is more cpu dependent than FarCry or Halo

But yeah, swimtech's 40 fps sounds about right for a low-end card, under those conditions

halo is playable on it

.. far cry demo is to

not eveyone needs 100pfs to play a game that only needs 30-60 fps to play like butter

EDIT:

keep in mind when you watch your tv its playing at about 25 fps

Vampyromaniac · May 26, 2004, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
keep in mind when you watch your tv its playing at about 25 fps

keep in mind that has little to do with PC games

and it's ~60 fields per second (~30fps)

May 24, 2004, 10:28 AM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	ATI makes DirectX 9 breakthrough for $89 ATI IS STILL LOOKING BAD in the DirectX 9 market below $100, because Nvidia X has almost 80 per cent of the pie. ATI always knew that it had to do something about it, and now it has. TUL, company that we use to know as Power Color sent us some pricing on these cards, and you will be able to buy a Radeon 9550 with 256MB for $129, a Radeon 9550 with 128MB for $109, while the slowest Radeon 9550SE card will cost only $89. inquirer

May 24, 2004, 06:19 PM	#3
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	Btw nvidia's sub $100 market sucks and for the longest time.... I mean come on a 5200? that as i have herd that runs mostly as a 2 pixel pipe soultion exect for a few cases... just becouse thier cards say theyhave dx9 support i've hard it not even true support.... so there goes any hope nvidia had in that market now that they have a true dx9 soultion with ps 2.0 support.... __________________

May 24, 2004, 10:22 PM	#7
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	new games, such as what? I wouldn't expect FarCry or Halo to run that well, with high detail __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

May 25, 2004, 02:01 PM	#12
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	Would be interesting to find out for what I figure is the majority of computer owners - you know - the center of the bell curve... And you all can see that I'm behind that... Anyway, just conjecture here guys, but OK - this site has over 60,000 members - figure half of those visit semi-regularly. Most of those I would suppose bought their computer within the last year or year and a half. That would give them a P4 processor (2-2.6Ghz), 256-512Mb DDR ram, and a 7200 RPM hard drive - fairly snappy machines... A 9500 Pro card or better gives all these folks the capability to run the new games out now (not HL2 or Doom3 though) at 1024x768 with most of the eye candy enabled. Remember, most folks have a 17 or 19 inch monitor that really won't run well at better that 1280x1024 (and 75hz refresh or so) without looking mushy - video bandwidth limited... An inexpensive machine purchased today includes a 2.8G processor, 512M ram, and a 7200 rpm drive with an inexpensive 19" monitor for less than a grand. The key to assisting this system for gameplay would be to equip it with hardware based sound, and give it a four pipe 9550. It should theoretically run the new stuff well at low resolution (1024x768 or less), with much better performance during gameplay than any competing video solution. Drop the rez down and it should even do the Doom3/HL2 thing with aa off - and ATI's hardware doesn't take a big hit using 32bit color and some AF - and look (and feel - control wise) good doing it. I'm just excited some by the possibility that a really inexpensive computer should - by my estimation - be able to play the good stuff. The only way to know for sure though would be to test... __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

May 24, 2004, 10:31 AM	#2
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	Very cool.

May 24, 2004, 08:34 PM	#4
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Great, we sure need a low-end shake-up... Nvidia seem set to replace the 5200 with the equally lacklustre 5600XT that perfoms no better, possibly worse. Of course, it all depends how ATI's interpretation of a low-end DX9 card performs - if it's half decent, then it's instant obsolescence for their 9200 DX8 models. Mind you, if the 9550 is a low end already, and then ATI do a SE version, that could end up as another "too slow to be useful" DX9 card like the FX5200.

May 24, 2004, 08:57 PM	#5
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	well, what do you expect for under $100?