Is this BF2 material ?(Graphics Card)

Can this run BF2 ,if yes ,on Low, Medium....?

Diamond S120 Radeon 9550 / 256MB DDR / AGP 8x / DVI / VGA / TV Out / Video Card

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2145957&Sku=D10-2090

I dont believe so. No chance for medium, you may get lucky to run it on all low at 800x600. BlackStalker

[QUOTE="BlackStalker"]I dont believe so. No chance for medium, you may get lucky to run it on all low at 800x600. el_carl

Well there you go... i doubt he could pull off medium settings tho.. Low-Medium @ 800x600 sounds reasonable..

I used to have that card, I would say high (yea I said it) depending on the rest of your system. If you have two gigs of RAM and fairly descent processor, a game like BF2 should run fine at medium-high settings. Ran HL2 on high settings 1024x768.firefly026

Haha silly me I thought he mentioned BF 2142... Um well only way to know is through experience so i guess that'll be a good enough card.

[QUOTE="firefly026"]I used to have that card, I would say high (yea I said it) depending on the rest of your system. If you have two gigs of RAM and fairly descent processor, a game like BF2 should run fine at medium-high settings. Ran HL2 on high settings 1024x768.BlackStalker

Haha silly me I thought he mentioned BF 2142... Um well only way to know is through experience so i guess that'll be a good enough card.

Can this run BF2 ,if yes ,on Low, Medium....?

Diamond S120 Radeon 9550 / 256MB DDR / AGP 8x / DVI / VGA / TV Out / Video Card

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2145957&Sku=D10-2090

insidious13

man, i told you to get the x1650.....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102085

Well I have AMD 2200+ , and 512Ram but im planning on upgrading that to 1gig. Untill then can i atleast run it on low-med or just low?insidious13

With only 512 MB you'll have to play on low settings regardless of the video card. With that card an 1 GB you could play BF2 on mostly medium settings.

Can this run BF2 ,if yes ,on Low, Medium....?

Diamond S120 Radeon 9550 / 256MB DDR / AGP 8x / DVI / VGA / TV Out / Video Card

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2145957&Sku=D10-2090

insidious13

yes it will i use one and run BF2 on medium with only slight slow down at some points but it's super smooth on low i run it with a sempron 3000+ and 512mb DDR

I used to have that card, I would say high (yea I said it) depending on the rest of your system. If you have two gigs of RAM and fairly descent processor, a game like BF2 should run fine at medium-high settings. Ran HL2 on high settings 1024x768.firefly026

I doubt high!

My mate had it and run on all low..

It should run ok I'm running a 7300 GT at 1152.jpazhman

There's a *WORLD* of difference between a 7300 GT and a 9600 SE that has been first ported to PCI-e and renamed X300, then reverse ported back to AGP, while still being the same old and slow core silicon! However, the BF2 requirements are so relaxed that nearly anything from the past couple of video generations is going to run.

It's always a mistake to narrow your vision down to only the $50 price point (you can get 9550s cheaper than that, of course, but that's all they are worth, not what a brick and mortar will try to charge!) Generally speaking, the cheapest price point to be shopping at is the $100 bracket for PCI-e ($120 for AGP). You want an "honest 600" performance number, and the Radeon 9600 design predates the standardization of names and numbers. They should've been called 9400s.

P. S. I now see that not only were you unsatisfied with one message thread about the same subject, but you had already asked and been answered about the exact same POS crap video card! That is covered in the forum rules, and is against them.

that CPU bottlenecks most cards man. get a new CPU and card. filmography

While it is a serious waste of money to invest a dime into any system that old and slow, the CPU won't even *START* creating any bottlenecking until a wannabe gamer tries moving past the mid-level area. A 7600 GT is relatively fast for mid-level, but unless that XP 2200 is also stuck with decoding all of the audio (yes, it might well have that chore as well), it would take an X800 Pro and upward to run ahead of the CPU, not merely a "600" anything.

That 9550 he asked about is so slow that a Duron 600 couldn't bottleneck that POS. His budget is really nothing. Incidentally, it would be even more of a waste of money to shop for a faster s462 processor. Those have gotten so rare that the pricing is inflated all the way into C2D territory! {Another incidental, I use AMD XP-level PC gear for several things, including a file server and print server on the LAN, and I just replaced an XP 1400 system that blew up with an XP 2200 in the past few days. It has the capability, with an X800 in it (yes, some bottlenecking if I did that), to play a majority of today's games, still (it happens to have only a Radeon 9800 Pro in it now, which I removed from the expired older machine).}

ifyour budget allows for 120$, cant you get the 7600GT for that PC?353535355353535

The reason I started this forum too was because the other one seemed to be unresponsive. Well I havea couplecards to choose from now thank you if you helped here is the list.

SAPPHIRE 100197L Radeon X1650 256MB 128-bit GDDR2 AGP 4X/8X (I saw that it will need external power which i will have no idea where to connect will there be some kind of a guide)

Diamond S120 Radeon 9550 / 256MB DDR / AGP 8x

EVGA 256-A8-N542-T2 GeForce 7600GS 256MB 128-bit GDDR2 AGP 4X/8X (and this one)

Im highly considering the x1650 , but if there is aBIG Jump of performance to the 7600GS then I will try to shoot for that one.

the x1650 is better but honestly your CPU will bottleneck that, I have that CPU and a geforce 5500 and it bottlenecks i get 20 FPS when i'm lucky, plenty of times it drops to 10 FPS and i cant even move anymore. To that other guy okay myabe it wont bottleneck his current card but any later ones most certainly will.

the x1650 is better but honestly your CPU will bottleneck that, I have that CPU and a geforce 5500 and it bottlenecks i get 20 FPS when i'm lucky, plenty of times it drops to 10 FPS and i cant even move anymore. To that other guy okay myabe it wont bottleneck his current card but any later ones most certainly will.

filmography

You are confused about what bottlenecking is. An FX 5500 is trash. Worse trrash than the awful Radeon 9550. All of the FXes are pure dreck. Instead of SM2 functions, as prescribed in Direct3D for Dx9, nVidia invented something else that just doesn't work properly. Only in OpenGL will the FXes do much of anything.

I have tested Oblivion and NWN2 with FX 5600 Ultras, FX 5700 Vanillas, and an FX 5900. Nothing doing. All failed big time. An FX 5500, however, even in OpenGL, couldn't be bottlenecked by a 500 MHz P-III from ten years ago, that's how slow it actually is.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25676345&msg_id=289481129#289481129Kiwi_1

WOW...

the x1650 is better but honestly your CPU will bottleneck that, I have that CPU and a geforce 5500 and it bottlenecks i get 20 FPS when i'm lucky, plenty of times it drops to 10 FPS and i cant even move anymore. To that other guy okay myabe it wont bottleneck his current card but any later ones most certainly will.

filmography

In the order of influence on perceived game responsiveness, the four major influences are

1. Video cards first

2. RAM total on the system (not on the video card), up to 1 1/2 GBs -- less important past that

3. CPU efficiency (didn't say core speed!)

4. Storage system read speed

There are so many potential factors that affect animation speed that unless you are well grounded in trouble shooting, you are only going to be taking WAGs at what is happening. For instance, when a game will run in either Win2000 or WinXP, it's very likely to be able to run 10-15 % faster in Win2000.

Drivers can make a huge difference. Those are often overlooked. More than almost anything else, the overall cleanliness of each system makes the most difference. When multiple background processes are running, that's what kills games (such as some of the biggest names in Anti-Virus products -- McAfee and Nortons both can thorughly HOSE systems!)

It now seems I would not have been able to test that XP 2200 of mine with any X800 video card after all. There was a big electrical storm, and it seems that the UPS, the modem, and the PC all took damage here (different UPS from the one that protected this better system I'm answering you with).

Always look to the performance number in the card name as a first hint of what to expect, but do realize that the temporary situation wherein both ATI and nVidia seem to use the numbers the same way is still new, only having existed since the nVidia 6xxx cards and the ATI X000 series. Prior to that, only the top level Radeons matched up (9700, 9800). The 9500 and 9600 Radeons were out of performance order. The 9600 really should've been 9400s, and the 9500s really were really the 9600s.

I used to have a radeon 9600 pro. I struggled at medium quite a bit w/ 3.2 p4 and 1 gig ram.

I used to have a radeon 9600 pro. I struggled at medium quite a bit w/ 3.2 p4 and 1 gig ram.

Phabiuo3

When the Radeon 9600 series was new, ATI was using the numbers differently, and only their 9700, 9800 cards actually sat at the point we expect now for cards with a 700 or 800 in the name. The 9500 cards were actually closer in performance to the 9700 than any 9600, other than the single exception, the 9600 XT, which could match or beat the Vanilla 9500 Radeon.

All in all, the 9600 card names really should've been 9400, to fit in with where the performance actually ended up. What had happened was that the 9500-9700-9800 cards were all such a quantum jump ahead in capability, that their power was not yet required by a majority of game players, and the heat they put out was a lot more than many poorly designed PC boxes could handle.

Additionally, many branded PCs didn't come with PSUs that could handle the high performance Radeon 9xxxes, which all (I never handled a 9500 Vanilla, can't say for sure about it) had the requirement of an added Molex plug for more current than the AGP slot offered. The 9600 cards were late releases, lower powered, cooler running, and none of them needed that plug to add more current from the PSU. They came along so late, and the PCI-e changeover was so close, that at the same time, ATI also created the first X300, the X550, and two versions of the X600, using the Radeon 9600 silicon.