Does ATI Radeon 9550's impressive 256MB memory offer Impressive Performance?

I saw this ATI Radeon 9550 at BestBuy and Circuit City sometime last year selling at $99.99, but I was never interested in it. Recently, I found one (new in original sealed shrink wrap) on eBay selling for $27.00 plus $10 shipping, and my old ATI Radeon 9700 Pro All-in-Wonder 128MB seems to run a bit hotter than it used to and I thought perhaps I should replace it with this Radeon 9550 at 256MB of DDR memory. At such a bargain price, I bought the ATI Radeon 9550 immediately. I knew I wasn't expecting much, but I was hoping that its 256MB would impress me; and its fanless passive heatsink should also help reduce operation noise.

Retail box:

ATI Radeon 9550 AGP 8x/4x DDR 256MB
Software/Driver CD-ROM
Hardware installation manual

The CD-ROM comes complete with driver and software suite that includes Catalyst, Hydravision, Multimedia Center and Remote Wonder Software. The product is warranted through ATI for three full years.

ATI Radeon 9550: Where it stands among its predecessors and siblings

The ATI Radeon 9550 256MB AGP seems an impressive graphics card for those who (like myself) still hang on to AGP based system as supposed to PCI Express. Its model series also seems impressive for the fact that it ranks a tad higher than the well-known and respected ATI Radeon 9500. But in terms of serial number ranking, the Radeon 9550 is not better than the Radeon 9500 for the same reason that Radeon 9600SE is not better than Radeon 9500. It seems that ATI runs out of series number for the Radeon model.

Well, the Radeon 9550 256MB is definitely aiming at general consumers who might be drawn to it by its impressive 256MB of double-data rate (DDR) memory. If you are running Windows Vista, you ought to get a graphics card with as high configured memory as possible... and the 128MB or 256MB should be the norm nowadays, whether it is AGP or PCI-Express. The Radeon 9550 is also available in 128MB; but I believe the 256MB is the only one still available from ATI.

Except its 256MB memory, at close inspection, the Radeon 9550 is basically a Radeon 9600SE clone, with its fanless heatsink, green colored board, etc. Its board is basically plain, just like the Radeon 9600SE. In fact, the Radeon 9550 is lower than the Radeon 9600SE for the reason that its got a 250MHz engine clock compared to Radeon 9600SE with a 325MHz engine clock.

Hardware/Software Support and Technology that goes with it
As mentioned above, Radeon 9550 uses a 250MHz graphics processing unit (GPU) at 200MHz on memory. It supports VGA, DVI and S-video. All three are available through its connector ports. It offers full support for MS DirectX 9.0 and OpenGL, SmartShader 2.0/2.1 with 128-bit per pixel floating point color formats, operating at 4 parallel pixel pipelines with this 128-bit dual-channel DDR memory interface. In other words, it's got all the new technology to enhance visual graphics display for gaming or just “computing”.

For hardware/motherboard compatibility, the Radeon 9550 can operate on any motherboard that supports AGP 2x (3.3v), 4x (1.5v), 8x (0.8v), Universal AGP 3.0 bus (2x/4x/8x) or AGP Pro 50. In other words, this card should run on virtually any motherboard with a working AGP slot.

Operating System
For system software support, this card will run on Windows Vista/XP/2000/ME. The CD-ROM comes with Windows XP/2k/ME driver. However, Windows Vista will automatically configure the card to operate properly on the platform. Driver for Vista is also available at ATI web site.

This card is supported under Linux platform. Any Linux distro should and will support and automatically configure the graphics display properly to the standard resolution on the monitor at 24-bit color. I have tested it on Fedora Core 6/7, Ubuntu 6.06/6.10/7.04, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3/4/5, and all work without a problem.

Installation: Hardware and Software

Installing a graphics card is the same as adding a peripheral card (sound, USB, video capture PCI card), but care must be taken to ensure the correct process. If the Radeon 9550 is replacing an existing card, the driver of the old card should be removed (or uninstalled) from the system first, especially for Windows system.

I use this card to replace my old ATI Radeon 9700 Pro AIW 128MB, and I had to uninstall all the necessary software from my machine, shut it down, then perform the swapping process; that is, take out the old card and plug in the new one. To double check correct configuration, I went into the system's BIOS to confirm correct detection.

First boot-up process was successful, as expected, and after log-in, my Windows XP immediately recognizes a new device, and prompts for a driver. The CD-ROM can be inserted and auto run will commence. The installation process involves driver, Hydravision, and other software. I selected the Express Install option that includes many of these without custom configuration. Once installation is complete, the system requires a reboot. On the next boot-up, ATI recommends registration, but I opted out. The software suite includes SmartGart in the driver package that can help select the optimum AGP bus speed for stability and performance on the motherboard.

My machine has a triple boot configuration with Windows XP/Vista and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4. Vista recognizes the card and configures it properly without the necessary driver. Linux does the same thing. It basically asks if I want to keep the old configuration and perform an additional configuration on this new device. Since the system can always configure a graphics display any time, I simply have it remove the old configuration and configure the graphics display for Radeon 9550, with standard resolution at 1280x1024 and 24-bit color.

Performance

During its first boot-up and into the configuration process, I was scanning for any visual graphics that would be different (in terms of clarity, color, etc.) from my trusted Radeon 9700 Pro AIW.... nothing new here. Its display seems very sharp and great color, as expect from ATI. One thing clear with the ATI Radeon 9550 is that it can run virtually on any motherboard supporting AGP. I tested this card on a number of motherboards that include Tyan S2885 (AGP Pro at 8x), Tyan S2466MPX (AGP 4x), IBM Intellistation (AGP 4x), Biostar N325A7 (AGP 8x); all of them detected the card properly, including a fresh install of operating system with the card pre-installed.

The Radeon 9550 is installed on my workstation for photo and video editing applications. I am not into gamings, but video editing is similar with respect to high and intensive graphics, and photo editing that requires a true color rendition. Any artifacts from the device will be visible in the process. In other words, I can use my video and photo editing software to extend the graphics performance of this card that could be expected in a gaming environment, in some respect that is.

Actually, the clue of its engine clock at 250MHz is already hinting at how this card performs, when compared with its Radeon siblings (that are long discountinued). Its 256MB memory running on a dual-channel DDR buffer is quite impressive, with every display screen pops up at an incredibly responsive rate. On my LCD monitor displaying at its native resolution (1280x1024) is quite good; but nothing I haven't seem on my old Radeon 9600XT and 9700 Pro AIW.

However, its fanless heatsink offers a good noise reduction compared to my Radeon 9700 that not only has a fan of its own but also requires an additional power (that annoys me every time I open the system case). The Radeon 9550 operates at quite a low temperature with its passive GPU heatsink. For a low 250MHz engine clock, it doesn't seem to require an active heatsink at all...

Benchmark: 3DMark 2001SE
Without any hard evidence on visual detection, I went ahead to perform a benchmark test and compare the results with my other ATI cards (Radeon 9600XT, 9700 Pro and Pro AIW). The result below is a benchmark conducted under Windows XP, motherboard Tyan S2885, using 3DMark2001SE, running at resolution 1024x768x32. While the detailed results are technical in nature, one can just look at the numbers (scores as well as frames per second – fps) and interpret that the higher the number the better the performance of the graphics card.

3DMark Score: 8511 (higher is better)

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail : 94.3 fps
High Detail: 51.4 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail: 123.5 fps
High Detail: 69.9 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail: 141.4 fps
High Detail: 79.5 fps
Game 4: Nature: 41.2 fps
Fill Rate (Single-texturing): 667.3 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing): 993.5 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 light): 36.6 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 lights): 6.5 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping: 142.8 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping: 88.4 fps
Vertex Shader: 93.9 fps
Pixel Shader: 137.4 fps
Adv. Pixel shader: 69.5 fps
Point Sprites: 10.4 Msprites/s

For comparison, I include 3DMark2001SE score conducted on ATI Radeon 9600XT 128MB running at 8x AGP, Windows XP on the same motherboard. Here is the 3DMark score: 10903.

While my human eyes cannot tell the difference, the scores provided by 3DMark2001SE can surely separate the two cards apart. Obviously, for gaming, the ATI Radeon 9600XT 128MB (even though is aged a bit now) cannot be replaced by the Radeon 9500 regardless of its high 256MB memory.

As can be seen, large memory interface at 256MB DDR does not really boost performance that much after all, compared to Radeon 9600XT 128MB. The apparent difference in performance is actually due to the high engine clock on the 9600XT at 500MHz with a memory interface of 300MHz compared to 250MHz engine clock and memory interface of 200MHz on Radeon 9550. I am a bit disappointed with the Radeon 9550, but I was expecting that anyway.

Vista?
It seems that 3DMark yields a lower score under Vista on the same motherboard. With proper driver installation downloaded at ATI web site for Radeon 9550, 3DMark gives 7084 compared to 8511 under XP. Either 3DMark2001SE still prefers XP over Vista or that simply XP in general is still a good system software to house gaming or general graphics applications.

Overclockable?
Depending on the type of motherboard and its BIOS (or if you have the right software for it), it may be possible to overclock Radeon 9550. The 3DMark score performed on my Tyan S2885 motherboard was at stock frequency. This motherboard has AGP configuration in its BIOS to boost the clock speed up to 600MHz, but must be linked (or in sync) with the HyperTransport Bus. This is my workstation system and I do not want to mess around with its hardware configuration, nor do I want or need to overclock it.

However, my Biostar N325A7 motherboard has excellent BIOS that supports general overclock features. So I set it up to perform a few runs to see how Radeon 9550 handles overclocking schemes. Below details a few runs.

CPU FSB: 200MHz (stock speed that yields 2.2GHz, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 754-pin)
3DMark: 8477

CPU FSB: 220MHz (overclocked, 2x4x220MHz FSB/HT bus)
3DMark: 8560

CPU FSB: 240MHz (overclocked, 2x4x240MHz FSB/HT bus)
3DMark: 8599

As can be seen, the card responses quite well to the overclock schemes, but it seriously does not improve that much. Another concerning point to note is that it does not have a suitable heatsink to compensate the increase in heat resulting from overclocking. I have run several more tests, and benchmark results did not seem consistent. When I first tested it when it was cold, and at overclock in response to CPU operating at FSB 230MHz, 3DMark gave an impressive 9911 score. After the device gets warmer, its performance declines significantly.

Conclusion

The ATI Radeon 9550 256MB 8x AGP performed well at handling most of my graphics applications, even though I'm not that impressed about it. For under $40, it's quite a bargain, if you could find one at this price, that is. In terms of 3DMark score, I don't think this is the type of card for gamings, that is, for those who demand high performance graphics rendering. This is not a performance graphics card; its 3DMark score already manifests that.

This card is quite stable on my workstation, without a single crash so far. This is one thing I like about Radeon 9550 compared to Radeon 9600XT that my Tyan S2885 does not seem to work well with and sporadically crashes, but that's another different story. As for my Radeon 9700 Pro, it's just getting too hot and its additional power is sometimes a nag. Overall, I am content with the Radeon 9550, at least for now. It would be a good card to replace a slow existing one in a machine that runs under Windows Vista. For such general-purpose applications, this card can well fit the budget and the needs quite well. After all, it's just an entry-level graphics card.

For stability, compatibility and support on display, I give 5 stars. For performance, I give 3 stars. Average = 4.