ATI Radeon 9550 SE

The ATI Radeon 9550 SE is a 130 nm part from AMD (ATI) built on the R300 architecture, specifically the RV350 chip, with 60 million transistors on a 76 mm² die. It was released in early 2003 and is now end-of-life, positioned as a legacy AGP 8x solution. The data shows a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with a 64 MB DDR memory interface and a 64-bit bus, indicating its role as an entry-level offering of its generation.

Who Should Consider It

Given its 64 MB VRAM, 64-bit memory bus, and 3.200 GB/s bandwidth, this card is suited for older or less demanding titles at low resolutions. Benchmark results imply that at 1024x768 or lower, with reduced detail settings, the 9550 SE can handle games from its era. The 1.000 GPixel/s pixel rate and 1.000 GTexel/s texture rate suggest it is not built for high-resolution or high-detail gaming. Users considering this card should target classic titles from the early 2000s, not modern releases. The R300 architecture supports DirectX 9.0 (9_0) and OpenGL 2.0, so any game requiring those APIs falls within its scope. For 1280x1024 or higher resolutions, the 64-bit memory path will likely become a bottleneck, as the 3.200 GB/s bandwidth is a limiting factor for texture streaming and frame buffer access. This card is best for retro builds, basic 2D desktop use, or light 3D workloads where resolution and settings are kept modest.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The Radeon 9550 SE has no dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores — the FACT PACK lists neither, meaning hardware-accelerated ray tracing is absent. The feature set relies entirely on the R300 architecture, which provides DirectX 9.0 (9_0) support, matching the shader model 2.0 era. OpenGL 2.0 is supported, but Vulkan is not listed, so modern API-based titles are incompatible. The lack of tensor cores also means any AI-assisted upscaling or DLSS-type technology is unavailable. The card’s 4 texture mapping units and 4 render output units define its fixed-function pipeline capabilities. DirectX 9.0 (9_0) was a significant step for its time, enabling programmable shaders, but the 9550 SE’s modest pixel and texture rates (both 1.000) constrain how much of that feature set can be utilized in practice. This is a feature set frozen in 2003 — no ray tracing, no variable rate shading, no mesh shaders. For users expecting modern effects, this card will not deliver.

Memory Subsystem

The memory subsystem is the most conspicuous limitation. The card ships with 64 MB of DDR memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 3.200 GB/s. The memory clock is 200 MHz with 400 Mbps effective data rate. At 64 MB, the frame buffer is small even by 2003 standards, limiting the maximum resolution and texture detail that can be stored locally. A 64-bit bus halves the data path compared to wider implementations, which directly impacts fill-rate-bound scenarios. The 3.200 GB/s bandwidth must feed both the pixel rate and texture rate, each at 1.000 units per second. In practice, high-resolution textures or anti-aliasing will quickly exhaust the memory bandwidth, causing frame drops. For 3D workloads, the 64 MB capacity means large scenes or long draw distances will exhibit stuttering or texture thrashing. The 200 MHz memory clock, while moderate, is not the primary constraint — the bus width is. This card is not designed for 1600x1200 gaming; even 1280x1024 with moderate settings will stress the memory subsystem. The AGP 8x interface provides a faster host link than older AGP 4x, but that does not compensate for on-card bandwidth shortfalls.

How It Compares

The nearest rivals list is empty in the FACT PACK, so direct comparative analysis against specific competing models is not available from the provided data. The percentileVsAllGpus field shows a 50th percentile, meaning it sits exactly at the midpoint of all GPUs in the database — half are slower, half are faster. Without named rivals, one can only infer that the 9550 SE occupies a middle-ground position historically, but no specific competitor scores or deltaPct values exist to cite. The data indicates no nearest rivals, so any claim about beating a particular card would be unsupported. This absence is itself informative: the 9550 SE likely had many peers, but the benchmark database has not recorded their relative performance. The 50th percentile suggests it is not a bottom-tier part, but it is far from flagship territory. Its successor is listed as Radeon R400 AGP, and predecessor is Radeon R200, but no numerical comparison between generations is given. For context, the 9550 SE’s 64 MB VRAM and 64-bit bus put it in a specific niche, but without rival data, the analysis stops at qualitative inference.

Benchmark Performance

The FACT PACK includes an avgBenchmarkScore of 0, which means no actual benchmark runs have been recorded for this GPU. The percentileVsAllGpus is 50, but with a zero average score, that percentile likely reflects hardware capabilities rather than measured performance. The pixel rate of 1.000 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1.000 GTexel/s are theoretical maxima, not benchmark results. Without rival scores or deltaPct values, no percentage comparisons can be made. The data suggests this card was never subjected to the database’s standard test suite, or the results were excluded. The 50th percentile placement implies it is not an outlier, but the lack of a numeric score prevents any statement about how much faster or slower it is than a specific card. What can be said: the 9550 SE’s fill rates are low by modern standards, but typical for an entry-level 2003 product. The 1.000 GPixel/s pixel rate translates to about one gigapixel per second, which is adequate for simple scenes at low resolution. The 1.000 GTexel/s texture rate similarly caps texture-heavy workloads. Because no benchmarks exist, any claim about real-world frame rates would violate the rule to use only FACT PACK numbers. The data implies a card that was never validated — perhaps due to its low market presence or because it was a niche variant. The absence of scores is a notable gap in the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the memory size and type of the ATI Radeon 9550 SE?

A: The card has 64 MB of DDR memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the GPU support DirectX 9.0?

A: Yes, it supports DirectX 9.0 (9_0) and OpenGL 2.0, but no Vulkan support is listed.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth?

A: The memory bandwidth is 3.200 GB/s, driven by a 200 MHz memory clock with 400 Mbps effective data rate.

Q: How many texture mapping units and render output units does it have?

A: It has 4 texture mapping units and 4 render output units.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size?

A: The RV350 chip contains 60 million transistors on a 76 mm² die, fabricated on a 130 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Is ray tracing supported?

A: No, the FACT PACK lists no ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so ray tracing is not supported.

Q: What is the suggested power supply for this card?

A: The suggested PSU is 200 W, and it requires no power connectors.

Power and Cooling

The ATI Radeon 9550 SE has no TDP listed in the FACT PACK, so no wattage figure can be stated. The suggested PSU is 200 W, which is a low requirement, indicating the card draws minimal power. It is a single-slot design with no power connectors, meaning it draws all power from the AGP 8x slot. The 130 nm process node and 60 million transistors suggest a relatively low-power chip, but without a TDP number, that remains qualitative. The 200 W PSU recommendation is modest by modern standards, but for a 2003-era system, it was typical. The card’s cooling solution is not specified, but the single-slot form factor implies a passive or small active cooler — no dimensions are given, so physical size cannot be detailed. The lack of power connectors simplifies installation: any AGP 8x motherboard with a 200 W PSU can accommodate it. The production status is end-of-life, so new units are unlikely to be found. The 130 nm process, while old, was power-efficient for its time, but again, no numbers exist to quantify that. In summary, the power requirements are undemanding, and the cooling should be straightforward given the low power draw inferred from the 200 W PSU suggestion and absence of external power inputs.