radeon hd 4550 vs gt 220

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

  1. Posts : 82
    MS Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
    Thread Starter
       #11

    but they both nearly have same clock speed .. nearly same GPU ... what is the difference

    and i am saying i have the 4550 so are these FPS i mentioned before usual with this card?


    that's better?
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 4,280
    Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit / XP Home sp3
       #12

    Check out this review on Tomshardware and it should help you with your decision. The main difference is the memory interface on the HD4550 is 64 bit and the gt 220 is 128 bit, much higher stream processors, ROP units and 4 times the texturing filtering units. And thanks for reposting. Fabe The Competition: Radeon HDs And GeForces : GeForce GT 220 And 210: DirectX 10.1 And 40nm Under $80
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 82
    MS Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
    Thread Starter
       #13

    in hds the Processor Clock (Shader Units) is N/A does that mean it doesnt have or what?
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 4,280
    Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit / XP Home sp3
       #14

    I can't find any information on the clock shader other than it has the clock shader model 4.1 and the clock shader and the core clock are usually linked together.
    It also may have something to do with the architecture of the Nvidia and ATI cards being so different.
    I have always only used Nvidia so possibly a member more familiar with ATI can answer that for you.
    I would probably hold out and save up and buy a better card from either ATI or Nvidia in order to really see a change in performance. But that's just my opinion. Fabe
    Last edited by thefabe; 24 Aug 2010 at 22:21.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 82
    MS Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
    Thread Starter
       #15

    so as i can see (i cant understand most of the things ) the gt 220 is better (in some things) ... right
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 4,280
    Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit / XP Home sp3
       #16

    Yes but like I stated, especially after checking your system specs. I would save up and get a card that can take advantage of your system.
    Although I purchased a gt220 for a friend and he's using a AMD Phenom II and he is quite happy with it playing GTAIV, and other games I don't recall which ones as well as he does a lot of graphics work with photoshop so it's really up to you how much improvement your expecting.
    I can only suggest doing as much research on them as you can and then decide. Fabe
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 6,879
    Win 7 Ultimate x64
       #17

    Yes the performance you are getting from that 4550 is normal, it was the second lowest HD 4xxx series card. And yes the GT 220 is faster than the 4550,

    techPowerUp :: Zotac GeForce GT 220 1 GB Review :: Page 1 / 34

    and you would probably still be disappointed with a GT 220. As mentioned you need to look at a minimum of the GT 240 or 250 (better the 250) or from the HD 5670 on the ATI side, and go up from there.

    And don't be blinded by clock speed and amount of memory, a lot of low end cards have faster clocks than the higher end cards, but it would take 3 or 4 of them running together to get close to the performance of the higher end cards.
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 82
    MS Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
    Thread Starter
       #18

    u say that clock speed and memory are not everything so how are "high end cards " high end ?
    i mean what makes them better?
    thanks
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 6,879
    Win 7 Ultimate x64
       #19

    Which of these,

    Video Card Comparison - GPUReview.com

    is faster? If you only go by clock speed then you would think the GT 220 is, but it can't hold a candle to the GTX 260. Take it a step further and despite being slightly higher clocked the GT 220 is close to 3x slower (or more depending on the game),

    techPowerUp :: Zotac GeForce GT 220 1 GB Review :: Page 6 / 34

    There is also number of shader cores, texture units, memory bus width among others. And the difference in clock speeds means even less when comparing ATI to Nvidia as the architecture of the cards is so different; the end result may be the same on the screen for like-range cards, but how they get there isn't.

    Also more memory on the card doesn't make it faster. On the GT 220 anything more than 512 MB or memory is like putting lipstick on a pig; looks good on paper, but the card isn't fast enough to make use of it.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 1,018
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1
       #20

    Like pretty much everyone else here has said, the GT 220 is nice as an upgrade card if say, you previously had a GeForce 7600 or Radeon X600 but if you have an HD 4550, you won't really notice a truly noticeable difference. It is faster but if you do want an upgrade that would only be parallel to what you have, you would need to step up to at the very least a GT 240; a GTS 250 would be a better step though and if you have the money, a GTX 260.
      My Computer


 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40.
Find Us