Home page » Graphics

Search:

Refine search for Graphics

For testing we ran through our usual set of gaming tests and also measured the power draw of our test bed with each card installed. The test setup is as follows:

Common System Components

• Intel Core 2 Quad QX9770
• Asus P5E3
• 2GB Corsair TWIN3X2048-1333C9 DDR3
• 150GB Western Digital Raptor
• Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit

Cards Tested

• ATI HD 4550
• nVidia GeForce 9400GT

Games Tested

• Crysis
• Race Driver: GRID
• Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
• Call of Duty 4
• Counter-Strike: Source

It's testament to just how much work both nVidia and ATI have been putting into their drivers in the last few years that we experienced absolutely no stability problems when installing and using either of these cards. Both also managed to remain cool and quiet throughout our testing even when under extended periods of heavy work load. Obviously if you opt for one of the passively cooled versions of either of these cards you'll need to ensure there is at least a modicum of airflow to allow hot air to escape but any normal sized desktop PC should provide this.

Unfortunately, when we look at performance the reason for the low price of these cards becomes all too apparent. Both cards struggle to maintain playable framerates even at the relatively lowly resolutions we've tested at. In particular the 9400 GT really stuggled with only Counter-Strike: Source proving playable.

In fairness, in all but Crysis, we did run our tests at the maximum in-game detail settings, which won't have helped framerates. Indeed, by experimenting with resolutions and detail settings we were able to get playable framerates with both cards in all games, even if it meant dropping to 800x600. Obviously the visual experience at that sort of resolution isn't great but it's better than nothing.

As for power, it's not surprising to see that both these cards veritably sip energy. What is interesting, though, is the HD 4550 consumes less power both at idle and when under load even though it outperforms the 9400 GT.

So, it would seem there's a clear winner here today. The HD 4550 is faster and consumes less power than the 9400 GT. However, when you factor in the cost of these two cards, the decision is less clear cut. With the HD 4550 costing around £10 more than some versions of the 9400 GT, there's a good argument for getting either. Conversely, who can't spare an extra £10? I guess the choice is yours.

Verdict

We set out today to see what spending around £40 on a graphics card would get you and it seems that, although a few compromises do have to be made when it comes to what resolution you game at and what detail settings you use, even the most modern games can be played for very little money. Add in the ability to playback back HD quality video with these cards and you have a good reason to plump up for either. If we were to recommend one over the other, though, we'd have to say the ATI HD 4550 is the one to go for.

Add your comment

© 2003-2010 TrustedReviews & IPC Media
About Us | Contact Us | Legal | Privacy | RSS