radeon hd 4550 vs gt 220

[kld2010]

hi which is bttr a ati radeon hd 4550 1 gb or nvidia gt 220 1 gb

 

[Lemur]

4550 slightly better. Bump up to nvidia gts 240 or 250.

 

[Darician]

The GT 220 is better than the 4550.

 

[Lordbob75]

The answer is yes.
Pick the card according to preference and computer set up and cost.

Also: http://www.sevenforums.com/graphic-cards/105068-what-graphics-card.html

~Lordbob

EDIT: There is NO need WHATSOEVER to double post a thread in 2 different forums
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/106587-radeon-hd-4550-vs-gt-220-a.html

 

[kld2010]

what does the part "the answer is yes " mean ... in ur opinion which is bttr .. not talkin about a certain pc jst the card itself

"srry 4 double post"

 

[Lordbob75]

what does the part "the answer is yes " mean ... in ur opinion which is bttr .. not talkin about a certain pc jst the card itself

"srry 4 double post"

It means that they will both be fine, it is more a matter of personal preference.
Either card will suit your needs.

~Lordbob

 

[kld2010]

k i hav the radeon HD 4550
is it usual that it runs at 20/30 FPS in battlefield BC2 on low settings
and like 7 FPS in splinter cell conviction on low settings and it freezez for like 6/8 sec every 8/10 mins


ma pc specs r down there in the specs section

 

[Darician]

Again, the GT 220 would be better than the 4550 but if you want truly improved performance, you'd have to get a GT 240 or GTS 250.

 

[kld2010]

bt they both nearly hav same clock speed .. nearly same GPU

and im sayin i hav the 4550 so r these FPS i mentioned b4 usual wth ths card?

 

[thefabe]

@kid2010 Please use proper spelling and gramer when posting. You'll find out a lot of members won't even respond to a thread when your posting as if you are texting. Thank You Fabe

 

[kld2010]

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?

 

[thefabe]

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

 

[kld2010]

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

 

[thefabe]

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

 

[kld2010]

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

 

[thefabe]

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

 

[stormy13]

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.

 

[kld2010]

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

 

[stormy13]

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.

 

[Darician]

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.