Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

26 of 26 people found the following review helpful
on February 7, 2007
First let me say that if you plan on playing the latest games in full resolution, this card is not for you. If you plan on just upgrading your on board video so you can play older games and have a DVI and TV out put, this is your card. This card will play Call of Duty, Medal of Honor at almost max quality settings with no problems. It will play Doom 3 with medium settings nicely. Quake 4 so so on low to medium settings. For newer games, you need more powerful card.

Another thing that annoys me with many reviewers here. They don't research the products they buy and therefore are dissapointed when a $79 video card won't play the latest game at maximum resolution. You have to have realistic expectations people. Those games require a very powerful video card. You don't take a Honda Civic to the Indy 500 and complain that the car is a piece of junk.... That being said there are plenty of charts that compare all of the ATI cards and rate them by speed, etc. This card has a memory transfer rate of about 6.4gb/sec. Not that great for newer games. Now spend some more money on say a X800 card and you will get up near 22.4gb/sec. Almost 4 times the difference. The X800 or better is what you should be looking at if new games are your thing.

As for Nvidia being better than ATI, I can't answer that. They both have nice cards. Unless you compare two cards with the same specs it is not fair.

Another thing I like about this card is that it uses the same chipset as the 9600. You can easily overclock this card with ATI tools and achieve 9600 card performance. Again, this is a great entry level card for games that are a few years old. If you want to play Battlefiel 2142 at high resolution, get a more powerful card.
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful
on July 6, 2005
This is a great, fast video card for its price, faster than any nvidia card at this price and stable if you install the drivers correctly.

I gave this 4 stars just because the drivers can be hard to understand sometimes. Like I said this card ultra stable if you install all the driver "correctly".

Also remember to Use AtiTool and overclock the card to make it own even more :) .

My Graphics were 56.2% faster on doom 3 after overclocking it.

Overclocking the card doesn't really hurt it ether, because an ati radeon 9550 is actually an underclocked ati radeon 9600 with "double ram".

Overclocking this makes it better than an ati radeon 9600 priced at 170$, meaning your saving 40$ and geting a better card if you were planning to buy an ati radeon 9600 and bought the 9550 instead.

This is a great card for the value and I reccommend anyone to buy this if they don't want to spend over 130$ on a video card.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful
on March 27, 2006
I purchased this card as an upgrade to my HP pavillion a706n, for the purpose of preparing to run the newest episodes of HALF LIFE 2. I wanted the full directx9.c compatibility, but I didn't want to spend too much money since the newest cards are currently 1) too expensive, and 2) about to become outclassed by the even newer cards anyway. I decided to settle on the RADEON 9550.

It was very easy to install. AGP cards have that nice little hook on one side of the pin assembly, making it next to impossible to install the card backwards. Driver installation was simple, but one has to remember to remove any old drivers from old graphics cards (even if you previously had an NVIDIA card). The manual attempts, I kid you not, to confuse you with lots of recomendations to update BIOS drivers, Motherboard drivers, etc... if you have a fairly new computer, you can ignore these. Once that's done, you have to look up the newest Catylist drivers, which is found on ATI's website.

Now about performance. I went to ATI's website and sound thier demo page, and proceeded to download thier demos and screensavers. They have archived there many different demos from many different cards, from the mobility 9000 cards to the new X1000 cards. All of the demos wordek up to but not including the X series cards. One demo for the RADEON 9700 called "Debevec RNL", which is a realtime High Dynamic Range lighting demo, run like a dream and is my favorite I use to Demo the card's capabilities. Even the famous Gargoyle clock screensaver for the RADEON 9800 ran on this card.

Now about it's performance with Half life 2. I run my games under a separate account on my computer that I've stripped down and streamlined so that as little as possible runs in the background. I have Half Life 2 running on a Sceptre Naga widescreen flat panel monitor, running at the full native resolution of 1280 x 768. The processor is an AMD 3000+ 2.1 gig, frontside bus 400 mhz, memory is 1 gig pc2700 333mhz. Color is set to default 32 bit.

The game settings are as follows: Texture resolution = high; shader detail = low; Model detail = low; water detail = reflect world; shadow detail = high; Antialiasing = x2; filtering mode = anisotropic x2; HDR = Bloom (if available).

Running the video stress test for counter strike: source gave fps of 28.7. With antialiasing disabled, it increased to 31.8. A benchmark from Half Life 2 during "route canal" (dl_canals_06) , showing full water reflections, reflecting world... gives a frame rate of 24-30 FPS.

By contrast, Ravenholm shows a frame rate between 28-52. Overall, very nice. And best of all, there's no skipping of audio!

Half Life 2: Lost coast... Yeah, I thought I'd try to fry the card. I set the HDR effect to full, and left the other settings the same as above. I got an abysmal 13 frames per second. But it's not like I didn't expect it, after all, lost coast is designed to push even high end cards to sparks and smoke.

One caveat is that I've had a bit of trouble getting T&L games to work, but I believe it might be due to the games I tried being beta games rather than full versions.

Overall, if your looking for a graphics card that will give you directx 9 compatibility, give a respectable frame rate and not cost an arm and a leg, you can't go wrong with a RADEON 9550.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
36 of 44 people found the following review helpful
on April 9, 2005
This card provides excellant performance when it is working correctly with the new 'catylast control center' installed. (download from ATI site directly. It doubles the qaulity and performance of the card.

The downside of this product is if you are a hardcore gamer or not technically proficient user because it is quite tempermental to install and operate correctly. Just about every game I install has some comments about work-arounds for ATI cards in the Radeon Family. There is some reason that a 3D 256mg. Video Card is so cheap.

operates multiple units and lots of functionality for the rest of its features.

Gamers stick to NVidia G-Force for smoother install and operations
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
on May 10, 2005
I bought this card to use temporarily with my new pc. I'm fixing to upgrade cards. I just wanted to say that I can run Half Life 2 at full specs with now slowdown and Doom 3 on 1024x768 resolution on high settings. If you buy this card make sure to download the Ati tool for overclocking it, when this card is overclocked it runs even better. [...]
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful
on September 14, 2006
I bought one of these cards at Christmas and my wife bought the 9550XL they look just alike and both are a terrible card for the money we paid. She paid $100.00 at Newegg and I bought mine at zipzzoomfly for $89.99 we both paid to much for these cards. I just upgraded last month to a new Nvidia 6200A. I paid less for the card and it outperforms it in everyway. I would never buy another of these even if all I did was surf the web. They run hot a cause lockups and ATi when I talked with them said they were aware of the problem and recommended a fan. Why did'nt they put one on I asked, and they said it was due to cost. There technical support is the worst I have ever seen. As for gaming my daughter runs a 64MB 4X SIS 315 made by Elite group and it smokes this card. I know this because I used Aquamark to bench test it. Pay less and buy a Nvidia card with a factory fan and be happy. I am ordering another one of the Nvidia 6200A's for my wife.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
on February 5, 2008
This is an AGP card, not PCIe.

I recently got this card because it is very cheap and is mainly to replace my old broken ATI Radeon 9800 pro 256 MB card which lasted since 2004 until 2008. I am getting a new rig but I want to have a video card in my old rig. Instead of replacing the 9800 pro I decided to get an ATI Radeon 9550 because the 9800 pro was prone to overheating problems and the technology is very sensitive, plus the fan is not good quality (mine fused to the metal box which sits over the card to cool it). I never overclocked.

You might ask why not get Nvidia instead? The answer is I will be (my old RIVA TNT2 from 1999 never gave me trouble), but just not with this old box. Instead I will give ATI another chance, but a cheaper model will go in while a cutting edge Nvidia (probably a GeForce 8800) will go into the new box.

I learned a lot about ATI from the 9800 pro model. It played games like no other card in 2004 and even maintained high performance gaming right through to 2007 but by then it emerged that the latest games where really pushing it.

I did try to update the drivers to the latest Catalyst versions (7) however I would not recommend doing this with ATI. When you run ATI you stick with the drivers in the box or else you risk a problematic experience with driver updates. Personally, with ATI, I will never risk driver updates with this 9550 card. The drivers I got with it are the drivers that will always stay with it.

So this card is running with a 2004 Intel P4 3.0 GHz, 1 GB Ram, 600 W PSU (updated from 300W), MSI MOBO with AGP. Anyway this rig was nothing but hell from day one because of the ATI 9800 pro and a 300W PSU. It blew the PSU and probably damaged the video card within 3 months of purchase. I didn't notice that the video card had been damaged and just got a better PSU, 600W and a Zalman heatsink. The fan in the video card had been burnt out but the Zalman seemed to keep the system cool enough for the card to run for a few more years. In 2008 the card finally packed in. So there is my story.

Essentially the 9550 is little less than a 9800 pro without all the problems attached. You can even play games from 2007 with medium to high setting with this such as S.TA.L.K.E.R so I am quite happy with it. However any of the cutting edge games from 2007 onwards are really Directx 10. The 9550 is for DirectX 9.0c.

The 9550 can play games like Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, Doom 3, FarCry and Half-Life 2.

It is a nightmare if you setup your card on a television and then forget to change it back for use with a monitor. So learn a lesson well about these monitor/television compatible cards. Make sure to change the Display Properties to whichever type you are using next because if you don't then you will not see anything and thus can not change it back unless you use the last source type again. The 9550 doesn't make as much noise as the 9800. It sounds less than a 50cfm fan in your box. You do not need a very good environmental setup to keep this card cool.

So if you have the kind of rig mentioned above, or something similar, and are looking to run the top end games released between 2004 and 2007 then the 9550 can do just that. It is also VISTA compatible and can run Aero.

I will keep you updated on if this 9550 lasts.

At the end of the day you are probably happier not chancing overclocking unless you are rich or have access to lots of hardware. I just want a system that works, doesn't overheat, doesn't explode and doesn't give me headaches like the last one did. Hopefully this review will give you some ideas of what the whole industry of PC gaming can be like.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on August 12, 2006
I purchased this AGP to run 3d software occasionally and not really for games. I updated the BIOS, DirectX, and video drivers before installing the card and loading it's support software. The manual was a general manual that wasn't specific to my card. It recommend exiting hardware wizard and running the ATI install. The amount of software that was installed was overwhelming and unnecessary. All you need is Catalyist and the drivers. Not file player, ALL-IN-ONE-WONDER, REMOTE-WONDER, Multimedia Library, unless you plan to watch TV on the PC. (I don't). The card has no fan but a large heat sink. I have a Sempron 3100+ with 1 GB ram, additional cooling fans and 300 Watts. With all that the system was shutting down from overheating. I lessen the resolution and refresh rate to no avail. The card showed rich cooler and the built in 3d configuration, pc check and screen savers worked with no problem. But just doing web surfing, playing quicktime, running 3D screensaver causes overheating. No games. The video payback was choppy. My onboard video that came with the motherboard outperformed the card but can't run 3D. As a test, the card couldn't run even the most basic 3D game demo even in it's lowest detail settings. I returned the card after that. The overheating and shutdowns went away. It maybe a great card for larger systems but for budget system it's a performance killer. It has overheating issues. The support software did little to prevent system crashes.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
on May 3, 2007
Verified Purchase
With two DAC's, this ATI 256mb 9550 card can drive two monitors, each with different a resolution if needed. Using mine with twin 22" LCDs. Also has switch to portrait mode, "built by ATI"'s better components,3 year no hassle warranty, and ulta crisp picture quality.

This card is not for gaming, the 1950 series does that, but highly recommended for dual monitor productivity. As LCD's need native resolution, I've included below what took me a while to find :-)

ATI Radeon9550 256mb Supported Video Modes

Mode 0 : 320x200 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 1 : 320x200 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 2 : 320x200 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 3 : 320x200 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 4 : 320x200 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 5 : 320x200 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 6 : 320x240 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 7 : 320x240 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 8 : 320x240 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 9 : 320x240 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 10 : 320x240 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 11 : 320x240 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 12 : 400x300 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 13 : 400x300 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 14 : 400x300 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 15 : 400x300 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 16 : 400x300 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 17 : 400x300 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 18 : 512x384 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 19 : 512x384 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 20 : 512x384 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 21 : 640x400 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 22 : 640x400 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 23 : 640x400 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 24 : 640x400 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 25 : 640x400 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 26 : 640x400 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 27 : 640x480 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 28 : 640x480 256 colours (8-bit) 72Hz

Mode 29 : 640x480 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 30 : 640x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 31 : 640x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 72Hz

Mode 32 : 640x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 33 : 640x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 34 : 640x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 72Hz

Mode 35 : 640x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 36 : 720x480 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 37 : 720x480 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 38 : 720x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 39 : 720x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 40 : 720x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 41 : 720x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 42 : 720x576 256 colours (8-bit) 59Hz

Mode 43 : 720x576 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 44 : 720x576 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 45 : 720x576 64K HiColour (16-bit) 59Hz

Mode 46 : 720x576 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 47 : 720x576 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 48 : 720x576 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 59Hz

Mode 49 : 720x576 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 50 : 720x576 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 51 : 800x600 256 colours (8-bit) 56Hz

Mode 52 : 800x600 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 53 : 800x600 256 colours (8-bit) 70Hz

Mode 54 : 800x600 256 colours (8-bit) 72Hz

Mode 55 : 800x600 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 56 : 800x600 64K HiColour (16-bit) 56Hz

Mode 57 : 800x600 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 58 : 800x600 64K HiColour (16-bit) 70Hz

Mode 59 : 800x600 64K HiColour (16-bit) 72Hz

Mode 60 : 800x600 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 61 : 800x600 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 56Hz

Mode 62 : 800x600 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 63 : 800x600 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 70Hz

Mode 64 : 800x600 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 72Hz

Mode 65 : 800x600 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 66 : 848x480 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 67 : 848x480 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 68 : 848x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 69 : 848x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 70 : 848x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 71 : 848x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 72 : 1024x480 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 73 : 1024x480 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 74 : 1024x480 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 75 : 1024x768 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 76 : 1024x768 256 colours (8-bit) 70Hz

Mode 77 : 1024x768 256 colours (8-bit) 72Hz

Mode 78 : 1024x768 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 79 : 1024x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 80 : 1024x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 70Hz

Mode 81 : 1024x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 72Hz

Mode 82 : 1024x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 83 : 1024x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 84 : 1024x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 70Hz

Mode 85 : 1024x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 72Hz

Mode 86 : 1024x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 87 : 1152x864 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 88 : 1152x864 256 colours (8-bit) 70Hz

Mode 89 : 1152x864 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 90 : 1152x864 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 91 : 1152x864 64K HiColour (16-bit) 70Hz

Mode 92 : 1152x864 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 93 : 1152x864 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 94 : 1152x864 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 70Hz

Mode 95 : 1152x864 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 96 : 1280x720 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 97 : 1280x720 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 98 : 1280x720 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 99 : 1280x720 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 100 : 1280x720 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 101 : 1280x720 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 102 : 1280x768 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 103 : 1280x768 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 104 : 1280x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 105 : 1280x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 106 : 1280x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 107 : 1280x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 108 : 1280x960 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 109 : 1280x960 256 colours (8-bit) 70Hz

Mode 110 : 1280x960 256 colours (8-bit) 72Hz

Mode 111 : 1280x960 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 112 : 1280x960 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 113 : 1280x960 64K HiColour (16-bit) 70Hz

Mode 114 : 1280x960 64K HiColour (16-bit) 72Hz

Mode 115 : 1280x960 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 116 : 1280x960 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 117 : 1280x960 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 70Hz

Mode 118 : 1280x960 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 72Hz

Mode 119 : 1280x960 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 120 : 1280x1024 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 121 : 1280x1024 256 colours (8-bit) 70Hz

Mode 122 : 1280x1024 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 123 : 1280x1024 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 124 : 1280x1024 64K HiColour (16-bit) 70Hz

Mode 125 : 1280x1024 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 126 : 1280x1024 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 127 : 1280x1024 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 70Hz

Mode 128 : 1280x1024 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 129 : 1360x768 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 130 : 1360x768 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 131 : 1360x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 132 : 1360x768 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 133 : 1360x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 134 : 1360x768 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 135 : 1360x1024 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 136 : 1360x1024 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 137 : 1360x1024 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 138 : 1360x1024 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 139 : 1360x1024 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 140 : 1360x1024 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 141 : 1440x900 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 142 : 1440x900 256 colours (8-bit) 75Hz

Mode 143 : 1440x900 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 144 : 1440x900 64K HiColour (16-bit) 75Hz

Mode 145 : 1440x900 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 146 : 1440x900 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 75Hz

Mode 147 : 1680x1050 256 colours (8-bit) 60Hz

Mode 148 : 1680x1050 64K HiColour (16-bit) 60Hz

Mode 149 : 1680x1050 16M+ TrueColour (32-bit) 60Hz

Mode 150 : 640x480 16 colours (4-bit)

Mode 151 : 800x600 16 colours (4-bit)
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
on October 2, 2005
I built my own computer system with an AMD64 3500+ and decided to use this card for general computer programs: Word, Excel, Stats, Internet, and specifically for CAD and FEA programs. This cards work great with the following software AutoCad 2000Lt, Algor, Solid Works, and Alibre. Images (shaded) rotate without jitter and stay shaded with detail. This is great card for the price.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Please enter a question.
See 1 answered question

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Your Recently Viewed Items and Featured Recommendations 

After viewing product detail pages, look here to find an easy way to navigate back to pages you are interested in.