256mb 9200?

[WoLFe]

http://www.savastore.com/include2/in...0268176&pid=44

thats the max amount of money i can spend. £70. what you think? as long as its better than my geforce 2 mx...

[Rabs]

Read...

http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/v...9200/pg3.shtml

nuff said... buy a ti4200 from ebuyer for about that amount...

[WoLFe]

256mb 9200 or a 64mb 4200? surely the 9200 is better?

[Rabs]

ok but without anti-aliasing and 1600x1200 which a 9200 couldn't handle at a decent frame rate whats the point in having so much gfx ram?

Sorry to be a killjoy but I honestly think you should get a gf4 ti and get a dx9 card next year when equivalent Ati 9700/9800 gfx cards are about £100-150.

[WoLFe]

na, i might as well pay the extra £20 an get a 9700 next year

[Rabs]

Upto you mate your money, you asked for advice, theres mine

Take care...

[Austin]

256MB is a waste on the high end cards like 9800pro & FX5900ultra let alone the budget cards. 128MB is certainly worthwhile and not just for high res with AA (which budget cards can't handle). There's LOADS more to a gfx card than the amount of gfx RAM it has. A GF4TI4200 64MB easily kills a Rad9200 with 256MB in every instance, the hit from running out of gfx RAM would not be anywhere near enough to push a 4200 down below a 9200. The 9200 is sucky anyway, way slower thana Rad8500, heck look to the FX5200 which is also sucky but far better (and not because of DX9). For £80 or so you should easily find a 4200 with 128MB and that card is as fast as the new mid range £140 cards only let down by not having DX9 (no biggie) and 'only' being able to run with 2xAA+4xAF enabled (again not bad at all). Seriously forget the 9200 it sucks, look to the 4200.

I personally would seriously avoid Ebuyer, check out www.dabs.com or www.komplett.co.uk IMHO.

http://www.dabs.com/products/prod-se...p=&up=&mc=&sc=

4200_64MB £76.50 and 4200-8X_128MB £87.50.

[Rabs]

Austin: I bow to you my friend

[Austin]

Hey man you covered it first anyway ... I bow to you ... just watch we don't bump heads!

[Rabs]

lol ok - Rabs hands Austin a can of Miss Stella Artois...

[SilentDeath]

r9600np/p r good and clock v far beating the fx5600u iirc.
there is no point in getting a card worse than a 9600 unless its almost free atm esp as cards are droping in price.

as said above 256mb cards are just marketing hype to make them sell more cards, it wont help performance at all esp on a budget card

9600 is ~100 now

[Austin]

The 9600 (nonPRO) and FX5600 (non Ultra) do have poor stock perf but prices are pretty decent and you do get full DX9 and good AA+AF. They're a fair bit slower than the GF4TI4200 but there you are stuck with DX8 and low AA+AF ability. The 4200 is known to o/c past 4400/4800SE speeds and is as fast as the Rad9600PRO and FX5600ultra even without o/c'ing. The 9600pro's are meant to o/c well, not overly far from 9700 (nonPRO) perf, I'd imagine the 5600ultra can do the same.

It would be interesting to know how the cheaper 9600 (nonPRO) and FX5600 (non ultra) o/c. Looking at the specs it's hard to imagine they could get near the PRO or ultra cards though...

9600 . . . 325/400 128bitDDR 4pipes 6.4GB/s 1.3Gp/s
9600PRO 400/600 128bitDDR 4pipes 9.6GB/s 1.6Gp/s

5600 . . . 325/600 128bitDDR 4pipes 9.6GB/s 1.3Gp/s
5600ultra 350/700 128bitDDR 4pipes 11.2GB/s 1.4Gp/s
5600ultraV2 400/800 128bitDDR 4pipes 12.8GB/s 1.6Gp/s

I think those numbers are right .. and things are pretty even including o/c'ing.

The 9600 should easily hit 400mhz core (so long as it isn't passively cooled) and 500mhz isn't unlikely as specs state it's still based on the all important 0.13mu process. However the RAM which is already very low is unlikely to hit 600mhz as 5ns will comply with the spec and even 4.5ns RAM is going to struggle past 450mhz ... 9600pro generally use 3.2ns. The core is very important to these 4 piped cards but RAM is still important too.

The 5600 should also hit 400mhz core but again the RAM is a diff story. I'd expect 5600 to use 3.2ns RAM which should be good close to 640mhz, not far off ultra V1 but still a way off V2 which is the one that's comparable to the 9600pro.

[WoLFe]

How will a geforce 4 ti 4200 64 ddr handle the following games on 1024x768 16bit and 32bit colour (FPS Count)

Quake 3 arena

Vietcong

MOHAA

RTCW

Enemy Territory

UT2003

DOOM 3

HALF LIFE 2


*note* Running doom 3 isnt essential, and i only want to play 1024x768 or 800x600 if i had to....no AA crap for me
Also i would be prepared to OC if i had to, i hear on these forums that the 4200 i am purchasing is the best over clocker. the 4200 is £45. could i take it up to 4400 levels?

[Rabs]

Originally posted by WoLFe
How will a geforce 4 ti 4200 64 ddr handle the following games on 1024x768 16bit and 32bit colour (FPS Count)

Quake 3 arena

Vietcong

MOHAA

RTCW

Enemy Territory

UT2003

DOOM 3

HALF LIFE 2


*note* Running doom 3 isnt essential, and i only want to play 1024x768 or 800x600 if i had to....no AA crap for me
Also i would be prepared to OC if i had to, i hear on these forums that the 4200 i am purchasing is the best over clocker. the 4200 is £45. could i take it up to 4400 levels?

The fps depends on the rest of your system, I have no problems with my ti4200 on all of the above except Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (which aren't out yet)

I play all my games at 1024x768, some games 1280x1024 32Bit colour. I dont bother with AA either because I dont get time to look at the visuals when im shooting people/aliens/other thingimabobs

Overclocking wise, you should be able to get to and surpass ti4400 levels quite comfortably (all depends on your setups cooling etc).

[WoLFe]

i have a

AMD Athlon 1.4ghz ddr
512 ddr ram
a nice asus 4x mobo
19 inch moniter
5.1 surround

my cpu have a seriously big arse fan thing on it, i have 2 big fans at the back. and a fan on the bottom of the case, creating a cool air flow. not a bad cooling system overall. also the card i'm getting comes with a decent cooling set up as well

[Austin]

May I ask where you're getting that card from? From the price it's surely 2nd hand. The Athlon 1.4ghz is actually a better performer than the AthlonXP1500+ so it isn't as 'bad' as it may sound, however it would be ideal to have a faster CPU as you gain more frm the higher end gfx cards the faster you are.

Based on your system you should expect these FPS at 1024x768x32:

Serious Sam 2 = 85-90
Jedi Knight 2 = 90
Commanche 4 = 35
QuakeIII Arena = 210-220
Ret To Castle Wolf = 140-145
Aquanox = 70+
Dungeon Siege = 60+
UT2003 Antalus = 85+
UT2003 Asbestos 800x600x32 = 190-200
3Dmark2001SE = 8000marks

Forget 16bit rendering as it's not like it was in the Voodoo days, modern cards (even GF2) can actually yield lower perf when forced into 16bit. Games, drivers and gfx cards are all designed with 32bit in mind now.