Go To Latest Video ReviewsATI HD 4550 vs nVidia 9400 GT Comments
Comments for ATI HD 4550 vs nVidia 9400 GT
ilovethemonkeyhead said on 24th October 2008
Eggburt1969 said on 24th October 2008
I think you'll find the additional connector between the VGA D-Sub and the DVI connectors shown in the images on both graphics cards are not S-Video connectors, but multi port connectors. They normally support (if out only) composite, S-Video and Component. Whether the full functionality of the port is enabled is another thing all together!
Ed said on 24th October 2008
You're quite right, they are multi-port connectors. For the record, they support S-Video natively (i.e. you can just plug a cable straight in) and can also deal with Composite and Component connections with the correct adapters.
Singularity said on 24th October 2008
Nice review, good to compare low cost cards as well. However I think there is a problem with table in the part discussing the 9400GT. Certainly the 9600GT does not have a lower pixel fillrate than the 9400GT. The actual number is 10.4 Gpixels/sec for the 9600GT, so I would assume 4.4 Gpixels/sec is the fillrate for the 9400GT.
Ed said on 24th October 2008
Cheers, I've corrected it now. That'll teach me to write a graphics head to head in a day.
Xiphias said on 24th October 2008
With 22" monitors being pretty much standard on new PC bundles these days is 800x600 appropriate any longer?
Ed said on 24th October 2008
@Xiphias
Well, quite but it's better than nothing. Most cheap computers with integrated Intel graphics simply won't even run any modern games.
Hugo said on 24th October 2008
8x6 is still a good test to do because it makes just about any game CPU limited, so you get a good idea of the scaling all the way from from "GPU under no stress" to "GPU pushed to its limit"
Add Your Comment
Add your comment
You must be logged in to comment. Login or register here.
its funny, because pretty much a year ago, figures like that would have been reversed, with all nvidia cards eating all ati cards.