If you clean the card often enough, check for bad caps and change the crusty thermal paste once every few years, next to enough airflow im pretty sure its impossible to break the card. Nice content as always!
Another great video, thank you my friend. I'm building my XP build this weekend & probably the next weekend too!. I've got too many CPU's and graphics cards but I'm thinking E8600 and a 6600gt to start & then bench. Thanks again for the video
Nice, the E8600 is a beast of a CPU, extremely fast. You might consider using a better video card, the 6600 GT is great, but the E8600 can use way better, maybe a 7900 or an X1900 :)
You're 100% right & I'm looking on eBay ( bit obsessed) but promised myself I'd try to use all the graphic cards I own, that I've not even tested before I buy anything else. X1650 pro, X1300, 9800 GT, 550 ti, half a dozen radeons all sitting patiently waiting for me to stop buying & test. Again thanks for that vids & as usual your playlists are my go to listen as I go to sleep aid.
Back in the day I always thought about pairing my E8400 with a GTX 260, it was a pretty good match in 2008. When oc'ed it could also feed a GTX 285 or GTX 460 or similar just fine. For a while I had it paired with a HD 4870 (similar speed to a GTX 260) and later a R7 250X (practically a HD 7770 rebrand) Depending on what you want to play with it and if you want to oc, I could see the E8600 do just fine with not just a 6600 GT, but also a 8800 GT, a GTX 275, a GTX 460, a HD 3850, a HD 4870, even a HD 5850 Old high end cards will have that nostalgic enthusiast premium, but the midrange cards should be affordable. Of those cards that you have, the 9800 GT and 550 Ti should both be a great match.
I also had Radeon 9550. The memory was a disappointment, but I couldn't believe my eyes when the GPU went easily from 250MHz to 400MHz. For nostalgia, I did aquire one Radeon 9550 few years ago as that one was my first true serious graphics card. Have to check, what kind of memory chips does it have.
Same chip as on the 9600 means it was probably a lot of well working chips that were cut down for market demand. A bit like the 9500, which often could be flashed into a 9700 without issues. So no doubt that especially on the later cards the chip was fully functional at 400 MHz, but clocked slower to fill a spot in the market.
I upgraded GF4 TI4200 to Radeon 9550 but mine was select from bunch of different cards and did 500MHz core and 600MHz memory + few more MHz for a good measure. Where it comes to GF4 Ti4200 these cards were holding out versus never faster Radeons much better in older games without shaders and heavy muti-texturing eg. Quake3. Some of the newer games showed significant difference between Ti4200 and my Radeon. I know because friend of mine got my previous card and we had similar computers otherwise so GPU was the only differentiating factor.
@@MidnightGeek99 FX cards were using improved GF4Ti architecture. Improved in numerous ways but just not able to compete with R300 with its 8 pixel shader pipeline where each shader was already truecolor. That was the issue with FX - having 16-bit precision arithmetic just like GF4Ti had and then being forced to do 32-bit math by combining two shaders reducing its total number from just 4 to 2. Otherwise in 16bit shaders performance of NV3x's 8 TMU's and 4 pixel shaders was very good. In fact per clock better than NV25 had. GeForce 4 Ti was praised by many and to this day there is this legend around it but in reality its myth is simply because ATi could not be bothered to do lower process node version of R200 and rather choosing to rebrand old 8500's as 9100's and otherwise focus on R300. To add salt to injury comparing Radeon 8500/9100 to GF4Ti in newer more shader-heavy games it wasn't as clear win for GF4Ti series. Either way FX cards were direct descendant from GF4Ti which in straight line goes back to Riva TNT NV4 chip. It is also visible in supporting long irrelevant features like palette texturing and some obscure forms of fog and other old DX5/DX6 features. There would be no reason for Nvidia to bother to implement all that stuff if FX were not the same architecture but with some tweaks. They should just tweak it more or simply put more hardware - that would make FX cards have roughly the same performance as R300 while destroying it in raw rasterization and DX8 and/or any case where DX9 was optimized to use 16-bit shaders - which actually made sense in many places. Then if Nvidia did that we wouldn't talk about FX cards being terrible and treating them as they had nothing to do with GF4Ti but it would rather be that GF4Ti was just foretaste of what this architecture can do :)
The Ti 4200 did extremely well. Especially when limited to DX8 games. Surpassing a FX 5200 and sometimes even a 6200 And the FX cards are pretty great DX8 cards. A bit like how Geforce 8/9 are really great DX9.0c cards (but can actually perform in DX10) And even the MX 460 isn't a terrible card. It might be limited to DX7, but will perform fine at that.
Yes, I remember overclocking 9550 back in day way beyond specs, adding some ridicolously big cooling.I wandered if OC worked, because I had no stability issues whatsoever and needed to doublecheck it. It was like +50% FPS in games, it even ran Crysis.
I think it would be very usefull to put a link for the resources you are using. For example I've never heard/used ATI Tray Tools and it was a little bit difficult to deduce it's name. Also, if you've reached the subject, did you use a second videocard when you flashed the BIOS?
I usually don't use links, as you know, links on the internet are shabby :) Maybe I will create a section on my website. I did not use a second videocard, I made blind attempts :))
9550’s were solid cards. Especially the 128bit variant. All 9550’s i own are 128bit and they are not far away from other 9600 series cards in terms of core and memory config. Only clockspeeds differ.
Slow clocked cards were always super interesting. You saved money on the clock, but could often undo that yourself. Getting the 9550 to the 400-500 MHz of a 9600 Pro or XT shouldn't be an issue. I've put my Geforce 3 Ti 200 from 175/400 to 230/235(470) to clocks that surpass the "regular" Geforce 3 and extremely close to the Ti 500 I've got my Geforce 7300 GT from 400/400(800) to 640/440(880), very close to a 7600 GS And don't worry about the memory clock, there were 9600 Pro cards with 200 MHz/400 MT memory instead of the regular 300 MHz/600 MT And great to see people who appreciate BIOS modding. If the card runs stable, that is the best way to bake the clocks into the card without having to manually clock when you reinstall. I would probably play around and try to call the 375/550 MHz model a Radeon 9550 Pro, or a Radeon 9555 or something like that.
Can always try downclocking and see if it becomes stable. Considering the age of the card, maybe it just aged badly and isn't stable at those clocks anymore. Also check the capacitors.
I remember that DDR2 was slower back then because higher latency. The 128MB 9800Pro with DDR1 outperformed the 256MB 9800Pro with DDR2. A Radeon 9600Pro was my first GPU I bought new. But I remember having a GF4ti 4200 for awhile too. I think the 9600pro broke. But eventually I got a 9800pro and it felt so fast. It was used for years and managed quite well.
There is a better version of 9550 and 9600 with DDR2 and it has a massive performance boost and that's a really good GPU for Win 9x gaming, it's much more powerfull than FX5600 for example. I have 2 of them for very cheap because people who sell it think it's just another 9550 old crap, but DDR2 version is rare. You can recognize them on first look, better VRAM version has smaller square memory modules. Ti 4200 is a legend and pretty rare and expensive in these days, but it's definitely the best gaming GPU for this era of late Win 9x gaming. ATI has also better compatibility with older games, with nvidia, you have to install forceware 60 series or older to make AvP and NFS 5 work properly, with ATI, you don't have to care, it just works fine.
oh, you have that better version, I didn't watch it before 😀 You should know that Ti 4200 was that good that nvidia didn't like that people still buy them later after release of FX series, because nobody was buying later FXshit series. 😀 Only card from FX series which is stronger than Ti 4200 is FX5900, maybe FX5800, which is pretty sad, everything from FX5200 to FX5600 is absolute garbage.
@@MidnightGeek99 I am just testing FX5600 and I am shocked about how bad it is, it's literally just 128bit version of 5200 with slightly higher clock speeds, nothing more.
@@MidnightGeek99 I got some Radeon 9600XT and I found out that some ATI drivers act very weird and also, pretty much everything from 9550+ or GeForce FX5700 is bottlenecked even by 3GHz Pentium 4, you have to test it with C2D to see the difference, it's shocking for me that GPU upgrades were pretty much pointless becuase of CPU bottleneck back in the day.
My radeon 9550 can effortlessly go all the way up to 500 MHz core and 720MHz Vram. It has a dual slot cooler with heatpipe and 2.8ns memory chips. You don't even have to prove the crazy overclocking protential of the radeon 9550, it became one of the most long-living card in the Chinese pc market thanks to it. Brand new radeon 9550 cards were continued to be produced until 2005 or even later. Cards like mine are made to overclock like crazy and catch up the geforce 6200 for a much lower price.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6And I remember well that with a simple bios flash, the geforce 6200 can have 4 extra pixel pipelines enabled and become a geforce 6600... Amazing time
Wow...I did not go all the way it seems, but time is not lost, I'm planning to do another video, this time using a better CPU, to really see the performance increase. Thanks!
@@MidnightGeek99 Thanks for the great work! As you have encountered so far. The overclocking capability of the radeon 9550 is limited by the driver, even though the chip itself is perfectly capable of working at higher frequency. Flashing the radeon 9600 pro bios is a solution, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the radeon 9600 pro bios downloads are for cards with DDR memory, yours coming with DDR2 chips won't work. By chance I have a radeon 9600 pro with DDR2(also kinda rare). If you want I could provide the bios file. Anyway it would be safer to take a moderate overclocking. I have many 9550/9600 killed after taking them to the limit.
Very interesting video. I liked the 9550 a lot because it was very cheap and could be overclocked like crazy. My DDR1 9550 could be overclocked from 250/400 mhz to a maximum 470/420 mhz, almost 100% GPU overclock. The 9550 uses a downclocked 9600PRO GPU after all, 400 to 450 mhz is to be expected.
Yes, it was cheap, I remember looking in XtremePC and thinking about buying one. It uses the same core as the 9600 PRO, but as you know, although they are the same chip, sometimes companies use the lesser-quality chips to build lower end components, the sillicon might not be that good.
If I had a better cooler (that fit), I'd at least try mine at Radeon 9600 clocks (Asus Radeon 9550GE's cooler is tiny). Would have to be in my late Socket A PC as I occasionally some odd artifacts on older boards. Wouldn't use it beyond testing however as I have a 6600GT as my main card (and my mum's system has an FX 5700) - and it has better DOS compatibility while also allowing me to crank the settings at 1024x768 (gone back to using the 15" 85Hz LCD TV/monitor that I used with my second PC). Performance difference between the 9550 and 9200 (both reference spec, Asus and Tul/Power Colour Respectively) is very similar unless a game is shader intensive. Single vertex shader unit vs two.
@@MidnightGeek99 With the Sempron 2800+ and the Inno3D FX 5700 (even my Aopen 5700LE), I was able to play Oblivion outside at minimum settings (no .ini tweaks - all within the menus). Found that the FX 5700 didn't actually improve performance much due to the CPU bottleneck in. Best quality (AGP) card that I've been able to acquire after the 6600GT (Leadtek 20th anniversary edition). Second most expensive as well.
wasn't this around the same time nvidia was doing weird driver-level quality tricks to get higher FPS? i vaguely also remember some benchmark "cheating" too but i don't remember if it involved this generation of GPUs. great video and very fantastic overclock!
The direct comparison in a few games between 9550 and 4200 is apples and oranges as the 9550 is running the dx9 code path while the ti4200 is running the dx8 path. You would want to force the dx8 renderer on the 9550 to get comparable benchmarks.
@@MidnightGeek99 Yes Q3A and MDK2 are both fixed function pipelines with no shaders. However Farcry does use DX9 by default and same is probably true for underground as well (not sure).
@@soumyajitdeb3943 The differences in Far Cry, UT 2004 and Underground, are that there are some effects / shaders etc. that are rendered by the Radeon, but not by the GF4.
The question is, through how many hoops do we have to jump for a "fair" comparison. And how many of us would buy a 9550 or 9600 and force games to run DX8? I mean, we're not talking about playing competitive CS:S on dxlevel80 here. So I feel like testing the cards how they come, perhaps with oc and a manual choice of driver (besides the absolutely latest one) seems like what 95% of people would do with the cards.
am reusit la fel ca si tine, update bios, 330 GPU cu 260x2 VRAM dar, avand racire pasiva, dupa vreo 10 min apar artefacte. 3DM2001SE a depasit 10.000. tre sa-i pun un cooler, neaparat :) mersi atat de mult pt pont. 3DM2000 in jur de 13500. am exact aceeasi PV ca si tine numai ca am artefacte din cauza unui chip VRAM, cele bune, doua la numar, au raciri pasive
I got strange card, it's Radeon 9550 GPU but in GPU-Z it's Radeon X1050 with GPU 400 MHZ and Memory 300 MHz Someone make flash bios this card like you in your video?
I never knew there was a radeon 9550 with gddr2 memory. I own that one with ddr1 im happy to say it play all games i throw at it i even forgot i set in driver control panel 2x AA and x4 AF in games i max out settings at 1280x1024 to 1024x768 if i want that 85hz went i use my only working crt. Got to say card was beast. Only games i not try be unreal tournament 04.
@@MidnightGeek99 🤣🤣 luckily I have zalman "flower" cooler on it with funny looking glued passive ones, it survived even bioshock then, biggest problem is to find time for that 🤣🤣 EDIT: I'm liar, it's primecooler 😁
teste noi cu OC CPU la 1980MHz, DDR440 1T CL3 3 3 8, 330 GPU cu 260x2 VRAM, restul la fel: 3DM2000: 13842; 3DM2001: 10128. de cand am pus un vent de 80 la 1000rpm sa bata pe PV... stabila, niciun artefact (pana acum cel putin)
@@MidnightGeek99 vezi c-am mai scris un comm mai sus, cu rezultatele, ca sa fie mai multe :). am uitat sa-ti spun ca sis e bazat pe A64 2800+ default skt754 cu 1x512MB DDR400 1T W2K drivere PV 4.3 (gasite pe un CD din archive pct com). 3DM-urile rulate default
Ah yes, the 9600 Pro "LZ" versions with 200 MHz/400 MT memory. Those were around. I have one. Can't get the memory to run on 300 MHz/600 MT. But I don't really need to, I don't have any system where I need the difference. My Pentium 3 will be the limit long before the VRAM is an issue, and neither my P4 nor my Core 2 Sys have AGP. In fact, I switched it for a Geforce 3 Ti 200 for table fog and 8-bit paletted textures. And if I want to enjoy DX8 tesselation, I can use my 8500
4:39 Bro Your Radeon9550 doesnt have DDR2 memory. It's GDDR2!!! GDDR2 are not same as DDR2. Those are completly different memories. DDR2 are much faster.
Radeon 9550 a fost o placa video foarte proasta, cu memorie de 6.4 GB/s, construita pe un ditamai cablajul si ambalata in ditamai cutia, plina cu accesorii de 2 bani: CD, manual, adaptor dvi-vga, cablu s-video si multe promisiuni de update-uri la driver de parca ar fi facut-o cea mai buna placa din lume. Singurul lucru pt. fraieri a fost entuziazmul de overclocking al GPU-ului care in mod aleator putea fi de la 260 Mhz, pana pe la 290 Mhz, lucru care avea efect de maximum 5-10 fps-uri in jocuri.
Haha, tin minte cutiile alea absurde de zici ca luai placa de baza, asa era si la FX 5800 Ultra. Ce vrei, marketing, trebuiau sa manance si ei, nu? :))
Bro, 4200 ti CANNOT have 512 MHz memory. And Radeon 9550 DDR2 has 400 Mhz memory. But you have GDDR2 version. Not DDR2. You are combinining rated speed with real clock. Such tests and such amateur mistakes, decreases relevancy of tests to minimum.
@@MidnightGeek99 No, Radeon 9600 Pro doesn't have 600 Mhz. It's memory speed. Look even on video, in ati tray tools... It doesn't say CLOCK, or CLOCK RATE. It's just "memory speed" . It's not measured in MHz!!!! MHz is clock unit. 9600 pro has 300 Mhz. Check even specs, wikipedia, it's 300 ,not 600 !!!
I love your channel because not enough people give love to these old cards and components. Great video and keep up the good work!
Thanks, I appreciate it :)
If you clean the card often enough, check for bad caps and change the crusty thermal paste once every few years, next to enough airflow im pretty sure its impossible to break the card. Nice content as always!
Thanks! That's right, and it's a good practice to take care of these components, we're not getting new ones :)
@@MidnightGeek99 Except for the Geforce fx 5500 which is still being sold new on ali etc, or new-ish, doubt the cores will actually be new.
Another great video, thank you my friend. I'm building my XP build this weekend & probably the next weekend too!. I've got too many CPU's and graphics cards but I'm thinking E8600 and a 6600gt to start & then bench. Thanks again for the video
Nice, the E8600 is a beast of a CPU, extremely fast. You might consider using a better video card, the 6600 GT is great, but the E8600 can use way better, maybe a 7900 or an X1900 :)
You're 100% right & I'm looking on eBay ( bit obsessed) but promised myself I'd try to use all the graphic cards I own, that I've not even tested before I buy anything else. X1650 pro, X1300, 9800 GT, 550 ti, half a dozen radeons all sitting patiently waiting for me to stop buying & test. Again thanks for that vids & as usual your playlists are my go to listen as I go to sleep aid.
Back in the day I always thought about pairing my E8400 with a GTX 260, it was a pretty good match in 2008. When oc'ed it could also feed a GTX 285 or GTX 460 or similar just fine. For a while I had it paired with a HD 4870 (similar speed to a GTX 260) and later a R7 250X (practically a HD 7770 rebrand)
Depending on what you want to play with it and if you want to oc, I could see the E8600 do just fine with not just a 6600 GT, but also a 8800 GT, a GTX 275, a GTX 460, a HD 3850, a HD 4870, even a HD 5850
Old high end cards will have that nostalgic enthusiast premium, but the midrange cards should be affordable.
Of those cards that you have, the 9800 GT and 550 Ti should both be a great match.
Your video reminded me how I overclocked my mx440se from 250/333 to 380/680
Crazy memory overclock! Was the card stable of long periods of time?
@@MidnightGeek99 Yes, it is still ok.
honestly thisll be useful for good deals. if i dont wanna pay for a ti 4200 i can get a matching or better card thats likely a lot easier to find
Yes!
I also had Radeon 9550. The memory was a disappointment, but I couldn't believe my eyes when the GPU went easily from 250MHz to 400MHz.
For nostalgia, I did aquire one Radeon 9550 few years ago as that one was my first true serious graphics card. Have to check, what kind of memory chips does it have.
These cards were cheap, but for those that did overclock them were a bargain.
Same chip as on the 9600 means it was probably a lot of well working chips that were cut down for market demand. A bit like the 9500, which often could be flashed into a 9700 without issues.
So no doubt that especially on the later cards the chip was fully functional at 400 MHz, but clocked slower to fill a spot in the market.
actually, 9550 always handle 400 mhz.
you can go often more. 430-450 Mhz is achievable.
I upgraded GF4 TI4200 to Radeon 9550 but mine was select from bunch of different cards and did 500MHz core and 600MHz memory + few more MHz for a good measure. Where it comes to GF4 Ti4200 these cards were holding out versus never faster Radeons much better in older games without shaders and heavy muti-texturing eg. Quake3. Some of the newer games showed significant difference between Ti4200 and my Radeon. I know because friend of mine got my previous card and we had similar computers otherwise so GPU was the only differentiating factor.
That's right, the GF4s were very good, maybe Nvidia should've sticked with them, instead of creating the FX.
@@MidnightGeek99 FX cards were using improved GF4Ti architecture. Improved in numerous ways but just not able to compete with R300 with its 8 pixel shader pipeline where each shader was already truecolor. That was the issue with FX - having 16-bit precision arithmetic just like GF4Ti had and then being forced to do 32-bit math by combining two shaders reducing its total number from just 4 to 2. Otherwise in 16bit shaders performance of NV3x's 8 TMU's and 4 pixel shaders was very good. In fact per clock better than NV25 had. GeForce 4 Ti was praised by many and to this day there is this legend around it but in reality its myth is simply because ATi could not be bothered to do lower process node version of R200 and rather choosing to rebrand old 8500's as 9100's and otherwise focus on R300. To add salt to injury comparing Radeon 8500/9100 to GF4Ti in newer more shader-heavy games it wasn't as clear win for GF4Ti series. Either way FX cards were direct descendant from GF4Ti which in straight line goes back to Riva TNT NV4 chip. It is also visible in supporting long irrelevant features like palette texturing and some obscure forms of fog and other old DX5/DX6 features. There would be no reason for Nvidia to bother to implement all that stuff if FX were not the same architecture but with some tweaks. They should just tweak it more or simply put more hardware - that would make FX cards have roughly the same performance as R300 while destroying it in raw rasterization and DX8 and/or any case where DX9 was optimized to use 16-bit shaders - which actually made sense in many places. Then if Nvidia did that we wouldn't talk about FX cards being terrible and treating them as they had nothing to do with GF4Ti but it would rather be that GF4Ti was just foretaste of what this architecture can do :)
The Ti 4200 did extremely well. Especially when limited to DX8 games. Surpassing a FX 5200 and sometimes even a 6200
And the FX cards are pretty great DX8 cards. A bit like how Geforce 8/9 are really great DX9.0c cards (but can actually perform in DX10)
And even the MX 460 isn't a terrible card. It might be limited to DX7, but will perform fine at that.
Yes, I remember overclocking 9550 back in day way beyond specs, adding some ridicolously big cooling.I wandered if OC worked, because I had no stability issues whatsoever and needed to doublecheck it. It was like +50% FPS in games, it even ran Crysis.
I might use a better cooling solution and try even higher frequencies.
I think it would be very usefull to put a link for the resources you are using. For example I've never heard/used ATI Tray Tools and it was a little bit difficult to deduce it's name.
Also, if you've reached the subject, did you use a second videocard when you flashed the BIOS?
I usually don't use links, as you know, links on the internet are shabby :) Maybe I will create a section on my website.
I did not use a second videocard, I made blind attempts :))
9550’s were solid cards. Especially the 128bit variant. All 9550’s i own are 128bit and they are not far away from other 9600 series cards in terms of core and memory config. Only clockspeeds differ.
They were solid because they could be overclocked, stock they were just a beefed-up 9250....250 MHz for the core is really low.
9550 were not 64-bit.
only 9550 se and 9600 se were 64-bit
Slow clocked cards were always super interesting. You saved money on the clock, but could often undo that yourself.
Getting the 9550 to the 400-500 MHz of a 9600 Pro or XT shouldn't be an issue.
I've put my Geforce 3 Ti 200 from 175/400 to 230/235(470) to clocks that surpass the "regular" Geforce 3 and extremely close to the Ti 500
I've got my Geforce 7300 GT from 400/400(800) to 640/440(880), very close to a 7600 GS
And don't worry about the memory clock, there were 9600 Pro cards with 200 MHz/400 MT memory instead of the regular 300 MHz/600 MT
And great to see people who appreciate BIOS modding. If the card runs stable, that is the best way to bake the clocks into the card without having to manually clock when you reinstall.
I would probably play around and try to call the 375/550 MHz model a Radeon 9550 Pro, or a Radeon 9555 or something like that.
That's right, there were a lot of cards back then than were just downclocked cards. I think that the GF4 Ti 4200 was also quite overclockable?
Hmm.
Nice video,gave me some ideas,as to why MAYBE my 9600 is crashing,after the drivers installed.
Maybe, it's a flashed 9550!!
I doubt it, but it is a possibility. Try other drivers, usually there lies the problem.
Can always try downclocking and see if it becomes stable. Considering the age of the card, maybe it just aged badly and isn't stable at those clocks anymore.
Also check the capacitors.
I would like to see a test of the Radeon X1600 Pro AGP
Me too :)) I have one, maybe I will give it a spin!
I remember that DDR2 was slower back then because higher latency. The 128MB 9800Pro with DDR1 outperformed the 256MB 9800Pro with DDR2. A Radeon 9600Pro was my first GPU I bought new. But I remember having a GF4ti 4200 for awhile too. I think the 9600pro broke. But eventually I got a 9800pro and it felt so fast. It was used for years and managed quite well.
That's right, DDR2 video cards were not that good, almost all of them. GDDR3 was really the next upgrade to DDR.
That's true. But difference was not high.
Usually DDR1 at 200 Mhz = DDR2 at 230 Mhz.
There is a better version of 9550 and 9600 with DDR2 and it has a massive performance boost and that's a really good GPU for Win 9x gaming, it's much more powerfull than FX5600 for example. I have 2 of them for very cheap because people who sell it think it's just another 9550 old crap, but DDR2 version is rare.
You can recognize them on first look, better VRAM version has smaller square memory modules.
Ti 4200 is a legend and pretty rare and expensive in these days, but it's definitely the best gaming GPU for this era of late Win 9x gaming. ATI has also better compatibility with older games, with nvidia, you have to install forceware 60 series or older to make AvP and NFS 5 work properly, with ATI, you don't have to care, it just works fine.
oh, you have that better version, I didn't watch it before 😀 You should know that Ti 4200 was that good that nvidia didn't like that people still buy them later after release of FX series, because nobody was buying later FXshit series. 😀 Only card from FX series which is stronger than Ti 4200 is FX5900, maybe FX5800, which is pretty sad, everything from FX5200 to FX5600 is absolute garbage.
Yeah, this is that version :)
You are right, the FX 5200 and FX 5600, and to an extent FX 5700, were bad, the only good cards from the FX series were all the FX 5900 and 5950.
@@MidnightGeek99 I am just testing FX5600 and I am shocked about how bad it is, it's literally just 128bit version of 5200 with slightly higher clock speeds, nothing more.
@@MidnightGeek99 I got some Radeon 9600XT and I found out that some ATI drivers act very weird and also, pretty much everything from 9550+ or GeForce FX5700 is bottlenecked even by 3GHz Pentium 4, you have to test it with C2D to see the difference, it's shocking for me that GPU upgrades were pretty much pointless becuase of CPU bottleneck back in the day.
My radeon 9550 can effortlessly go all the way up to 500 MHz core and 720MHz Vram. It has a dual slot cooler with heatpipe and 2.8ns memory chips.
You don't even have to prove the crazy overclocking protential of the radeon 9550, it became one of the most long-living card in the Chinese pc market thanks to it. Brand new radeon 9550 cards were continued to be produced until 2005 or even later. Cards like mine are made to overclock like crazy and catch up the geforce 6200 for a much lower price.
The Nvidia 6200 could also be overclocked up to around 450 mhz GPU, just like the ATI 9550. Both overclock like crazy.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6And I remember well that with a simple bios flash, the geforce 6200 can have 4 extra pixel pipelines enabled and become a geforce 6600... Amazing time
Wow...I did not go all the way it seems, but time is not lost, I'm planning to do another video, this time using a better CPU, to really see the performance increase.
Thanks!
@@MidnightGeek99 Thanks for the great work! As you have encountered so far. The overclocking capability of the radeon 9550 is limited by the driver, even though the chip itself is perfectly capable of working at higher frequency. Flashing the radeon 9600 pro bios is a solution, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the radeon 9600 pro bios downloads are for cards with DDR memory, yours coming with DDR2 chips won't work. By chance I have a radeon 9600 pro with DDR2(also kinda rare). If you want I could provide the bios file. Anyway it would be safer to take a moderate overclocking. I have many 9550/9600 killed after taking them to the limit.
I loved my 9700 Pro back in the days
I bet, it was the best card :)
Very interesting video. I liked the 9550 a lot because it was very cheap and could be overclocked like crazy. My DDR1 9550 could be overclocked from 250/400 mhz to a maximum 470/420 mhz, almost 100% GPU overclock. The 9550 uses a downclocked 9600PRO GPU after all, 400 to 450 mhz is to be expected.
9500-series, including the 9550 is a downgraded 9700*.
Yes, it was cheap, I remember looking in XtremePC and thinking about buying one.
It uses the same core as the 9600 PRO, but as you know, although they are the same chip, sometimes companies use the lesser-quality chips to build lower end components, the sillicon might not be that good.
@TheRetroRaven Actually no, just the Radeon 9500 is a downgraded 9700, the 9550 is a downgraded 9600.
@@MidnightGeek99 Yup, you're right - I had to look it up, I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
Radeon 9500 R300
Could you please test it again with OC and CPU like P4 3ghz or atglon 64
If I had a better cooler (that fit), I'd at least try mine at Radeon 9600 clocks (Asus Radeon 9550GE's cooler is tiny). Would have to be in my late Socket A PC as I occasionally some odd artifacts on older boards. Wouldn't use it beyond testing however as I have a 6600GT as my main card (and my mum's system has an FX 5700) - and it has better DOS compatibility while also allowing me to crank the settings at 1024x768 (gone back to using the 15" 85Hz LCD TV/monitor that I used with my second PC).
Performance difference between the 9550 and 9200 (both reference spec, Asus and Tul/Power Colour Respectively) is very similar unless a game is shader intensive. Single vertex shader unit vs two.
Yes, the 9550 and 9200 128-bit are similar, but the 9550 can oc like crazy. Also, I love the FX 5700, I don't have one myself but i'm looking!
@@MidnightGeek99 With the Sempron 2800+ and the Inno3D FX 5700 (even my Aopen 5700LE), I was able to play Oblivion outside at minimum settings (no .ini tweaks - all within the menus).
Found that the FX 5700 didn't actually improve performance much due to the CPU bottleneck in. Best quality (AGP) card that I've been able to acquire after the 6600GT (Leadtek 20th anniversary edition). Second most expensive as well.
wasn't this around the same time nvidia was doing weird driver-level quality tricks to get higher FPS? i vaguely also remember some benchmark "cheating" too but i don't remember if it involved this generation of GPUs. great video and very fantastic overclock!
I think that you're taking about the FX series :)
The direct comparison in a few games between 9550 and 4200 is apples and oranges as the 9550 is running the dx9 code path while the ti4200 is running the dx8 path. You would want to force the dx8 renderer on the 9550 to get comparable benchmarks.
MDK2 and Quake III use OpenGL, and I think that they have instructions similar to DirectX 7, Far Cry does not have a DirectX 8 path so you could you.
@@MidnightGeek99 Yes Q3A and MDK2 are both fixed function pipelines with no shaders. However Farcry does use DX9 by default and same is probably true for underground as well (not sure).
@@soumyajitdeb3943 The differences in Far Cry, UT 2004 and Underground, are that there are some effects / shaders etc. that are rendered by the Radeon, but not by the GF4.
@@MidnightGeek99Yes it's a harder/tougher workload for the DX9 card compared to the DX8 card.
The question is, through how many hoops do we have to jump for a "fair" comparison.
And how many of us would buy a 9550 or 9600 and force games to run DX8? I mean, we're not talking about playing competitive CS:S on dxlevel80 here.
So I feel like testing the cards how they come, perhaps with oc and a manual choice of driver (besides the absolutely latest one) seems like what 95% of people would do with the cards.
I was really wanting to see the performance increase in underground
I'm sorry, next time :)
am reusit la fel ca si tine, update bios, 330 GPU cu 260x2 VRAM dar, avand racire pasiva, dupa vreo 10 min apar artefacte. 3DM2001SE a depasit 10.000. tre sa-i pun un cooler, neaparat :) mersi atat de mult pt pont. 3DM2000 in jur de 13500. am exact aceeasi PV ca si tine numai ca am artefacte din cauza unui chip VRAM, cele bune, doua la numar, au raciri pasive
Super! Daca te uiti, si chipurile mele au racire...deloc :)
Vezi sa nu o prajesti totusi, nu cred ca astea au protectie de temperatura.
I got strange card, it's Radeon 9550 GPU but in GPU-Z it's Radeon X1050 with GPU 400 MHZ and Memory 300 MHz
Someone make flash bios this card like you in your video?
I think the cards are related and they share the same name, no need to worry :)
I never knew there was a radeon 9550 with gddr2 memory. I own that one with ddr1 im happy to say it play all games i throw at it i even forgot i set in driver control panel 2x AA and x4 AF in games i max out settings at 1280x1024 to 1024x768 if i want that 85hz went i use my only working crt. Got to say card was beast. Only games i not try be unreal tournament 04.
There was, but I don't understand the reasoning behind, it was slower than the DDR version.
@@MidnightGeek99Crazy finda a shame if its no better then ddr version.
Its time to retest my p4 3.2 with radeon 9550, and remod it again, coz i returned it to stock, i don't know why :D
Have fun, but try not to fry the card :)
@@MidnightGeek99 🤣🤣 luckily I have zalman "flower" cooler on it with funny looking glued passive ones, it survived even bioshock then, biggest problem is to find time for that 🤣🤣 EDIT: I'm liar, it's primecooler 😁
teste noi cu OC CPU la 1980MHz, DDR440 1T CL3 3 3 8, 330 GPU cu 260x2 VRAM, restul la fel: 3DM2000: 13842; 3DM2001: 10128. de cand am pus un vent de 80 la 1000rpm sa bata pe PV... stabila, niciun artefact (pana acum cel putin)
Da, racirea activa e mereu bine venita, stai sa vezi cum racesc eu o placa video in urmatorul video :))
@@MidnightGeek99 ha ha, abia astept!
la fix !!! stii ce-o sa fac acum, nu? o sa-ti spun ce rezultate am obt si eu in 3d mark-uri. am o mare pb in a gasi jocurile pe care le ai tu :)
Chiar te rog, astept :)
Doar Underground nu il gasesti, restul sunt pe GoG.
@@MidnightGeek99 vezi c-am mai scris un comm mai sus, cu rezultatele, ca sa fie mai multe :). am uitat sa-ti spun ca sis e bazat pe A64 2800+ default skt754 cu 1x512MB DDR400 1T W2K drivere PV 4.3 (gasite pe un CD din archive pct com). 3DM-urile rulate default
So you finally decided to overclock your card. I asked you to do that about one year ago. Better later than never. :D
Hehe, yeah...what can I say, no time for all the things that I want to do :)
My GeCube Radeon 9600 Pro was the worst 9600pro version ever.
Gpu 400mhz
vram ddr 400mhz (5ns) 😢
Vram OC max 460Mhz
That was a scam....
Wow, that was basically a Radeon 9600!
yeah, only the core is "pro" @@MidnightGeek99
Didn't you have 256 MB version? They often had lower clocks.
@@lukasz_st yes, that was the 256MB version sadly
Ah yes, the 9600 Pro "LZ" versions with 200 MHz/400 MT memory. Those were around. I have one. Can't get the memory to run on 300 MHz/600 MT. But I don't really need to, I don't have any system where I need the difference. My Pentium 3 will be the limit long before the VRAM is an issue, and neither my P4 nor my Core 2 Sys have AGP. In fact, I switched it for a Geforce 3 Ti 200 for table fog and 8-bit paletted textures.
And if I want to enjoy DX8 tesselation, I can use my 8500
4:39
Bro
Your Radeon9550 doesnt have DDR2 memory. It's GDDR2!!! GDDR2 are not same as DDR2. Those are completly different memories. DDR2 are much faster.
It's ok.
Radeon 9550 a fost o placa video foarte proasta, cu memorie de 6.4 GB/s, construita pe un ditamai cablajul si ambalata in ditamai cutia, plina cu accesorii de 2 bani: CD, manual, adaptor dvi-vga, cablu s-video si multe promisiuni de update-uri la driver de parca ar fi facut-o cea mai buna placa din lume. Singurul lucru pt. fraieri a fost entuziazmul de overclocking al GPU-ului care in mod aleator putea fi de la 260 Mhz, pana pe la 290 Mhz, lucru care avea efect de maximum 5-10 fps-uri in jocuri.
Haha, tin minte cutiile alea absurde de zici ca luai placa de baza, asa era si la FX 5800 Ultra.
Ce vrei, marketing, trebuiau sa manance si ei, nu? :))
Bro, 4200 ti CANNOT have 512 MHz memory.
And Radeon 9550 DDR2 has 400 Mhz memory. But you have GDDR2 version. Not DDR2.
You are combinining rated speed with real clock. Such tests and such amateur mistakes, decreases relevancy of tests to minimum.
It's ok, the tests are good.
Bro Radeon 9600 Pro cannot have 600 Mhz Memory.
LOL, again. It's 600 Mt/s, not 600 MHz. It's 300 MHz!!!
The Radeon 9600 Pro has 600 MHz, you're just 20 years too late.
@@MidnightGeek99 No, Radeon 9600 Pro doesn't have 600 Mhz.
It's memory speed. Look even on video, in ati tray tools... It doesn't say CLOCK, or CLOCK RATE. It's just "memory speed" .
It's not measured in MHz!!!!
MHz is clock unit. 9600 pro has 300 Mhz. Check even specs, wikipedia, it's 300 ,not 600 !!!
my radeon 9600 pro overclocks like a beast from what i remember also
It can, yes, but I don't have one unfortunately :(
@@MidnightGeek99 yes I will watch video properly soon