HD 4350 vs Radeon 9700

is there yet an entry level video card thats as fast or faster then the 9700? would ATI allow it? to have an entry level card be better then the card that put them way out in front, and made them truly competitive?

do you mean nvidia or radeon cuz theRadeon 9700 is no where near the 4350.

i said radeon, so yeah ATI. so the hd 4350 is faster the the 9700? wow.

Isnt the 9700 like 7 years old? Thats like ancient by computer standards, even Intel integrated graphics would beat it I would think. Hmm, after looking at the Tomshardware graphics card hierchy charthttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-price,2323-6.htmlit would appear that the 4350 is actualy only slightly better, so there you go, no reason to buy a 4350 though just a waste of money imo.

Your argument against ati not making a better entry level card seems kinda strange to me cuz it's like saying: "would Intel ever make a celeron that's better than it's pentium 1? Of course they would and they have. You could also say "would Ford ever make a better car than the model T? Of course they would and they have so I don't get what you're trying to say, companies need to move forward no use in getting sentimental over a past success when you're doing something new.

the 4350 is only slighty better thats weird but i would still get that one since its abit better. then againit also depends on what you are using them for aswell.

the 4550 is much betetr imho then a radeon 9700 or any of the other entry level cards after it by a significant margin in fact a 9700 cant handle alot of stuff it can.

the 4550 is much betetr imho then a radeon 9700 or any of the other entry level cards after it by a significant margin in fact a 9700 cant handle alot of stuff it can.

aura_enchanted

We said 4350 not 4550...

you can buy a used hd 4650 probably for the price of the hd 4350 when it is new.

The $30-35 difference from the 4670 is ridiculus to prefer a 4350 and yes 4350 is faster than a 9700. But it cant play todays games in anything more than 1024x768 at low settings