View Full Version : Albatron Ti4200 Turbo @ $95 or ATI 9600pro @ $172????
harrybearmagnet
11-20-03, 10:42 AM
I am in the market for a video card for a new computer that I am building with Custom Modded case, AMD 1800XP, Crucial 3200, SLK-947U ( I am obviously OCing) and an Abit/Asus board...waiting on Newegg to get a referb in.....
But I can't decide on a video card. I will do play games but mostly games that are more (Morrowwind/Generals/Boulders Gate/Dungeon Siege) type of games. I want to get a card that will play new games of this type in the future. I do play FPS games but they bore me after 1-2 hour even online....
Both cards I am looking at are 128MB and I will be OCing it as well. The Ti4200 has been out for a long... long time but I hear it is still good. But is it too old to be worth getting? The 9600pro is a newer card but is it worth the +$77 (btw I will only buy built by ATi for ATI chips.... bad exp with other companies and their crazy naming bs). You can do so much with $77....
I plan to keep this card for 2 years. Hopefully by then I'll be out in the rat race with a good career building job assuming the economy rebuilds itself a good deal more.
Thanks for your help :D
Kenshiro
11-20-03, 10:56 AM
I manage to find a deal for FX5900 non ultra for $176.99 after rebate. Ti4200 is already a very old card. $95 does sound a little expensive even though it is still a pretty good card. Personally, I won't pay more than $80 for it. Try finding a used one for that model.
I'n not an nvidia freak, but if you can find a FX5900 non ultra for less than $200 after shipping and tax, jump on it.
Or if you can find a 9700 pro or 9800 non pro for around $200, that is also a great deal. However, I will recommend against the powercolor version. I heard a lot of people are complaining about stability issue with that particular manufacturer.
I was lucky that I can across my card when it was on sale. I think it is faster than both FX5700 ultra and 9600pro/xt.
snyper1982
11-20-03, 10:58 AM
well if you plan on keeping it for 2 years, then the 9600 is basicaly a no brainer. the 4200 is awesome for yesterdays games, but lags far behind in dx 9 games. its your choice, but IMHO the 4200 is already far outdated. and before you drop 170 on a 9600 pro, take a look at the 9600xt, you get half life to for free with it. and by the way, look at the sapphire brand, sapphire nd built by ati are the same cards. im not 100% sure, but i believe sapphire builds ati's cards for them.
ajrettke
11-20-03, 11:39 AM
yeah snyper is right about if your gonna be keeping the card for a while. Ti4200 IS a good card, no doubt about it. But when dx9 games start coming out it will start taking a hit. Also 175 is WAY WAY WAY too much for a9600p, you can find em over at anandtech for 135-145, most of em NIB (that little half life coupon wit 9600se's which had 9600p's in the box).
Overclocker550
11-20-03, 04:36 PM
omg $95 for an albatron turbro? thats a crazy deal, many of those overclock to ti4600 speeds. The 9600 pro is not worth close to $175, you can get a 9700 pro for like $200 dude
harrybearmagnet
11-21-03, 04:44 PM
I think $95 for that Albatron Ti4200 turbo is a great deal for now also... but I don't want to shell out another hundred in another year. But I guess that would still be $200 in that 2 year span.
Man it is just so hard to figure out what to get at this midrange.... no really outstanding cards.
Guess I will squat on it till after blackfriday.
Thanks for the help guys
:p
You say you play Morrowind? Well, that's my favorite game, and I used to use a Ti4200 in my system. You cannot use ANY AA with a Ti4200 and Morrowind. With either my 9500 or my 9800, though, I can kick up the AA, and I get a much better playing experience. :) I say try to get a 9600XT, or try to find the 9600 Pro from somewhere else for a bit cheaper.
Overclocker550
11-21-03, 08:16 PM
forget aa/af it didnt do much for me :)
Originally posted by Overclocker550
forget aa/af it didnt do much for me :)
But it does something for everyone except you. Heh...
harryinny3
11-21-03, 09:18 PM
near you? They have the 9600pro for 169 with a 20 dollar MIR so its 149 dollars. Also you now get halflife2 with the 9600pro BBAti cards. So I would say you are getting an awesome deal if you get the 9600pro.
The 4200 is a great card, But I have already seen a couple games yesterday(dont remember name) That were just being put on the shelf that the System Req said and i quote. 100%DX9 compatible Graphics accelerator. So Your out of luck pretty soon for playing the new games if you get the 4200.
Harry
snyper1982
11-21-03, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Overclocker550
forget aa/af it didnt do much for me :)
thats like telling you to forget 3dmark, it doesnt do much for me. honestly man, get over it, we all know your stance on aa/af. you dont have to repeat yourself in every single thread.
harryinny3
11-21-03, 09:27 PM
But in another thread he did say he wants that 75 dollar card on black friday even if its an 9600se so he can see what AA and AF is all about. So he is willing to change to the dark side.
Harry
Originally posted by Overclocker550
omg $95 for an albatron turbro? thats a crazy deal, many of those overclock to ti4600 speeds. The 9600 pro is not worth close to $175, you can get a 9700 pro for like $200 dude
Kind of how I feel. I am in fact running a ti4200 as of this time. The 9800 pro (much less the 9600) did not give me the kind of performance that I was looking for in 2003 and what with pci express (and hopefully a fx chip) I thought it would be a good time to actually make some use of the computer and hang out on the performance end for a while. Maybe look at some case modding.
I presently have no problems running any games/software. With an obvious upgrade in the fairly near future involving a different card format it just seems wise to hang out.
Supertrucker
11-21-03, 09:44 PM
i wouldnt try aa/af on a 9600se, prolly slower than his beloved ti4200.
right this moment (7:41pm pst 11-21) there is a refurb sapphire 9600pro at newegg for 117$. if you dont mind the refurb section you can find 9600 pros for around 120-130 often enough, that would be a much better option than a ti4200 imho.
and right this minute there is also a 9700 nonpro for 159also sapphire, that is a smokin deal and would last a solid year longer than a 9600pro. i would buy it myself if i didnt just pick up a 9800np
dustybyrd
11-21-03, 10:26 PM
The 4200 is a great card, But I have already seen a couple games yesterday(dont remember name) That were just being put on the shelf that the System Req said and i quote. 100%DX9 compatible Graphics accelerator. So Your out of luck pretty soon for playing the new games if you get the 4200.
Harry [/B]
i think that many of these "so called" DX9 games will run on the ti4200...
i get maximumpc magazine and it always has free demo CD's....and many of the games claim you must use a DX9 card...WRONG...i ran all the demos fine with DX8.1 and my ti4200...
on what to get....well if you want to save some $ and don't have to have AA/AF on (even though on many games the ti4200 can still do this decently)....then i would get the ti4200 now for less than $100....
then in 1 year pay $100 for a 9700pro instead of a 9600pro/xt which is actually a slower card than the 4200 without AA/AF on...
in 1 year there may well be some games that require more gpu power and dx9, and at that time you can invest in a 9700pro for A LOT LESS $ than now (200-250now...probably 100-150 then)...and the 9700pro is TWICE as fast as the 9600pro/xt...
then you end up spending $200 total for the same speed now...then in one year TWICE the speed of either card...
Overclocker550
11-22-03, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by harryinny3
But in another thread he did say he wants that 75 dollar card on black friday even if its an 9600se so he can see what AA and AF is all about. So he is willing to change to the dark side.
Harry
dont forget, the HL2 games worth like $50 if its the full verson which I believe it is. so basically I am paying $25 for a 9600 which isnt a bad deal at all. sure beats paying $70 for a ti4200 :D
"100%DX9 compatible Graphics accelerator. So Your out of luck pretty soon for playing the new games if you get the 4200."
I will still try to run it on a ti4200. If the game refuses to run, giving me an error, ill just whip out that fx5200 then which is like 2/3 the speed of a ti4200. ok so ill just lower the res a little.
"i wouldnt try aa/af on a 9600se, prolly slower than his beloved ti4200."
I would and just stand still and look at the walls then compare it against a ti4200. not for the fps, mind you but the IQ. I want to see how bad or good aa/af is on any dx9 radeon. Then id like to see what I am missing on a dx8 ti4200. as slow as a 9600(se) is, at least I can see the IQ differences. also in low res, not much memory bandwith is needed and compounded with my super cpu, games should be playable in 800x600 on a 9600. ti4200s will do like 1280x960 though. dont get me wrong, I wont be selling the ti4200 ever.
"then in 1 year pay $100 for a 9700pro instead of a 9600pro/xt which is actually a slower card than the 4200 without AA/AF on..."
actually I believe the 9600xt matches a ti4200 but costs over double though. I highly doubt a 9700 pro is gonna be $100 anytime soon unless its not working right such as flickering, artifacts, ghosting, overheating, etc. Ive seen those types of 9700 pros on ebay for like $100+ im not kidding people would buy a 9700 pro that artifacts at stock for over $100
dustybyrd
11-22-03, 01:28 AM
actually I believe the 9600xt matches a ti4200 but costs over double though. I highly doubt a 9700 pro is gonna be $100 anytime soon unless its not working right such as flickering, artifacts, ghosting, overheating, etc. Ive seen those types of 9700 pros on ebay for like $100+ im not kidding people would buy a 9700 pro that artifacts at stock for over $100 [/B]
how long do you think it will take for the 9700 pro to drop to $100?
in a year i bet they can be had for $125-150...then on the newegg refurbished for $100...
snyper1982
11-22-03, 01:42 AM
oc550, if you system is so uber, why is barely faster than mine at stock? could it be the video card you have? i think so.
Overclocker550
11-22-03, 04:53 PM
whats your 3dmarks?????
harryinny3
11-22-03, 07:12 PM
Had to shrink the screen shot down to 52kb to upload. Also the game is Dx8.1 With Dx9.0 enhancements.
http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrowse.asp?selected=561816
Also i didnt turn on the solor effects, Forgot to LOL.
Harry
PS dont mind the fish LOL i cought those last month(salmon) And the rods in the cig pic are what they took out of my back 3 weeks ago.
Originally posted by CamH
But it does something for everyone except you. Heh...
AA does do something, but for me it's not drastic enough to really use it. It doesn't make my game experience more enjoyable, not even in the least. I care much more about resolution and texture quality than AA/AF, as does everyone else probably.
Originally posted by Teh
AA does do something, but for me it's not drastic enough to really use it. It doesn't make my game experience more enjoyable, not even in the least. I care much more about resolution and texture quality than AA/AF, as does everyone else probably.
What kind of card do you have? A GeForce 4?
If so, the AA on your card isn't very good, and your card's too slow to run it high enough to actually get rid of jaggies. Sure, a high resolution looks nice, but a lower resolution with high AA looks better. I'd venture to say that 1024x768 with 8xAA looks better than 1600x1200 with no AA, and I think most people will agree with me.
chasingapple
11-23-03, 03:54 AM
I would get that Ti 4200 in a heartbeat, find me a game that wont pimp on it right now that is actually out.
Originally posted by chasingapple
I would get that Ti 4200 in a heartbeat, find me a game that wont pimp on it right now that is actually out.
Halo and the new Tomb Raider. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by CamH
What kind of card do you have? A GeForce 4?
If so, the AA on your card isn't very good, and your card's too slow to run it high enough to actually get rid of jaggies. Sure, a high resolution looks nice, but a lower resolution with high AA looks better. I'd venture to say that 1024x768 with 8xAA looks better than 1600x1200 with no AA, and I think most people will agree with me.
I have a 9500 pro. "I'd venture to say that 1024x768 with 8xAA looks better than 1600x1200 with no AA, and I think most people will agree with me" Why don't you try posting some SS's to compare? After 1024x768, I don't notice too much of a difference than from 1600x1200. Well, the difference doesn't seem as drastic as it would when contrasting 640x480 to 1024x768. But 1024x68 w/out AA would probably look better than 800x600 w/ AA or maybe close to the same. It also depends on how much AA is used.
Originally posted by CamH
Halo and the new Tomb Raider. :rolleyes:
Halo would run fine on a Ti-4200... Remember that it's a port from a console that used a 32MB GF4 Ti + A 733mhz P3 . I don't know and I don't care about Tomb Raider.
harryinny3
11-23-03, 09:30 PM
You all with the 4200 cards cant play call of duty Like i do with all the Candy on. Even the box says minimum Requirements 100% DirectX9.0b compatable Graphics accelerator.
Harry
Originally posted by harryinny3
You all with the 4200 cards cant play call of duty Like i do with all the Candy on. Even the box says minimum Requirements 100% DirectX9.0b compatable Graphics accelerator.
Harry
Nice helpful post there. Why are you so proud of your mainstream 9600p which loses to my 9500p? I doubt there will be hardly any games that will simply not run if you don't have hardware support for DX9. Why? Because not everyone in the world has a DX9 card, and you're not gonna sell many copies. I bet Call of Duty would run fine on a Ti-4200. People are still playing BF1942 just fine with Radeon 7500 PCI's.
harryinny3
11-24-03, 06:10 AM
Whats your malfunction? I didnt say word one about your Card. And as A matter of fact My Mainstream card will do as well if not better in some cases as a 9500 pro. I happen to have one sitting here from my buddya rig that im selling on ebay. Also i had a 9500pro last february. The both cards are even in my rig. The ONLY difference there is Is the IQ. The 9500pro looks better. That Prolly has alot to do with the extra 4 pipes. But as for FPS games The cards are EVEN. SO lets not go there.
Now as for the 4200. Maybe i worded that statement wrong, But the fact remains That In the games ive seen hitting the shelves this past weekend. A 100% DX9 card is going to perform better. That Is just the way it is. A 4200 will whoop a 9600p AND a 9500p Hands down in Any game Useing mostly dx8 and lower. Theres another fact. I like the 4200 in my kids Rig. But in my mind its time for an upgrade. I installed a single player only copy of call of duty in his rig and There is NO compareson in IQ and Playability. The 9600 beats all over it hands down. And i dont think the 200mgz difference in our rigs would make that much difference.
Have a great Day.
Harry
Originally posted by Teh
I have a 9500 pro. "I'd venture to say that 1024x768 with 8xAA looks better than 1600x1200 with no AA, and I think most people will agree with me" Why don't you try posting some SS's to compare? After 1024x768, I don't notice too much of a difference than from 1600x1200. Well, the difference doesn't seem as drastic as it would when contrasting 640x480 to 1024x768. But 1024x68 w/out AA would probably look better than 800x600 w/ AA or maybe close to the same. It also depends on how much AA is used.
Sure, I'd love to post some screen shots. I'm just on the computer for a few minutes in the morning before school. After school, I'll see if I can post a few.
Originally posted by harryinny3
Whats your malfunction? I didnt say word one about your Card. And as A matter of fact My Mainstream card will do as well if not better in some cases as a 9500 pro. I happen to have one sitting here from my buddya rig that im selling on ebay. Also i had a 9500pro last february. The both cards are even in my rig. The ONLY difference there is Is the IQ. The 9500pro looks better. That Prolly has alot to do with the extra 4 pipes. But as for FPS games The cards are EVEN. SO lets not go there.
Now as for the 4200. Maybe i worded that statement wrong, But the fact remains That In the games ive seen hitting the shelves this past weekend. A 100% DX9 card is going to perform better. That Is just the way it is. A 4200 will whoop a 9600p AND a 9500p Hands down in Any game Useing mostly dx8 and lower. Theres another fact. I like the 4200 in my kids Rig. But in my mind its time for an upgrade. I installed a single player only copy of call of duty in his rig and There is NO compareson in IQ and Playability. The 9600 beats all over it hands down. And i dont think the 200mgz difference in our rigs would make that much difference.
Have a great Day.
Harry
...I don't have a malfunction. I was never upset. Anyway, take a look at this:
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/rv360/
That review compares the 9500 Pro vs 9600 Pro vs 9600 XT. Do you have a 9600 Pro or a 9600 XT?
"A 4200 will whoop a 9600p AND a 9500p Hands down in Any game Useing mostly dx8 and lower. "
To my knowledge, a Ti-4200 will never outperform a 9500 Pro or a 9600 Pro in any game.
"A 100% DX9 card is going to perform better. That Is just the way it is." Probably because there's a new strain of technology that comes with that DX9 support. And that's only with relatively powerful cards, I doubt the Geforce 5200 FX will perform better than a Ti-4200...
First off the games you have listed are played on my wifes pc which has similar specs to the one your building and uses a GF3 Ti200 and plays fine. So I think the question is really which card to get for future games.
I have a Ti4200 and it plays everything I throw at it just fine. However in dx9 benchmarks it is alittle behind other people with similar setups that use dx9 cards.
I personally think that with the way the pc market is currently going you would be best off buying the 4200 and spending the money you save to buy a faster cpu or more memory.(you never listed how much you were buying) I think buy doing this the 4200 would last long enough for you.
And btw, I think Tomb Raider is a bad example simply because most of the reviews I have read say the game is buggy to begin with. Ive played it on my Ti4200 and a 9800 and it gave problems on both.
snyper1982
11-24-03, 02:17 PM
or you could spend a little more now, and not have to upgrade as soon, its up to you.
Overclocker550
11-24-03, 03:10 PM
I did spend a little more and now there is no immediate upgrade for me. I could have just gotten a ti200 instead of that ti4200 I have
http://morongames.com/AA/
I think the file names are self explanatory. Knock yerself out. :)
snyper1982
11-24-03, 05:18 PM
thank you cam. now you can easily see that the edges are not as crisp even at a higher res.
First off the 1600x1200 image is closer to the objects than the 1024x768 image. Second, he's using 6xAA. Third the 1600x1200 pic's overall graphics quality seems to have been turned all the way down, further enhancing the 1024x768 image. And again copmaring 1600x1200 to 1024x768 is not as detectable as 640x480 or even 800x600 to 1024x768.
Originally posted by Teh
First off the 1600x1200 image is closer to the objects than the 1024x768 image. Second, he's using 6xAA. Third the 1600x1200 pic's overall graphics quality seems to have been turned all the way down, further enhancing the 1024x768 image. And again copmaring 1600x1200 to 1024x768 is not as detectable as 640x480 or even 800x600 to 1024x768.
The image quality is a bit lower here because I tried to keep the size kind of low while still maintaining the differences between AA and no AA. That's what we're comparing, anyways, the amount of jaggies.
Keep in mind I'm not debating whether AA helps at all or not, I know it does. Anyway, in my opinion 1024x768 is a good baseline as the jaggies get relatively small at 1024x768. Anyway, I'd like to see a comparison of lower res's with 4xAA (a good middle line) compared to a 1024x768 image with no AA.
Sure thing. How about I do a whole range of 1024x768's? All of the AA levels I can run.
http://morongames.com/AA/ :)
Now there's a full range of AA levels for 1024x768. Also, I accidently set 1600x1200 to 2xAA the first time I did the pictures, so I did another shot at 1600x1200... This time with no AA.
Eh, I was asking ~1024x768 res w/ AA vs 1024x768 w/ no AA. But it's not worth continuing now, just forget about it.
There's a 1024x768 image with no AA there. You can compare it to the other images with AA... I guess I don't see what you mean. :\
harryinny3
11-24-03, 09:27 PM
If so isnt that an openGL game?
Harry
Originally posted by harryinny3
If so isnt that an openGL game?
Harry
Yes and yes.
It looks to me as if this thread turned into a debate. But my opinion is get the 9600, it will be a better card in the long run. I personally have the Albatron TI4200 in my wifes comp and used it in mine till I got lucky in my purchase of a 9500np and it modded to a 9700. Even unmodded it looks better and was on par with the 4200 in games. The 9600 is an updated version of the 9500 and would be a great card with the upcoming games for its price.
Overclocker550
11-25-03, 12:11 AM
I still stand by the albatron ti4200, itll totally blow away the 9600 pro for much less $$$$$$$$$
Originally posted by Overclocker550
I still stand by the albatron ti4200, itll totally blow away the 9600 pro for much less $$$$$$$$$
No comment on the images? ;)
Overclocker550
11-25-03, 02:27 AM
id rather have 1600x1200 without anti alising than 1024x768 with, also those albatron ti4200s sometimes overclock to ti4600 speeds.
TruckyJ
11-25-03, 03:56 AM
I think the fact that he's going to be using the card for 2 years merits getting a card thats more future proof than the TI4200. If the PC is going to be used for 2+ years, I honestly think a 9700pro or higher is worth the extra money.
I would take the sapphire 9600xt that can be obtained @ newegg for $165 as a worst case scenario card. If more money can be spotted for a 8 pipeline card, its certainly worth it.
snyper1982
11-25-03, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Overclocker550
I still stand by the albatron ti4200, itll totally blow away the 9600 pro for much less $$$$$$$$$
holly crap, how exactly does the 4200 BLOW away 9600 pro? geez man, stop living in such denial. the 4200 is great for old games, no one can take that from it. but old games are just that, old. im not saying they arent fun, because they are. but when you set there and say that the 4200 blows away a 9600, you show just how much of a fanboy of that card you are. show me one benchmark where the 9600 gets beaten by nearly double the fps. and for every one you show me, i will show you 3 that the 9600 does that to the 4200. but i dont have to worry, the 4200 will never double the framerate of the 9600.
TruckyJ
11-25-03, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by snyper1982
holly crap, how exactly does the 4200 BLOW away 9600 pro? geez man, stop living in such denial. the 4200 is great for old games, no one can take that from it. but old games are just that, old. im not saying they arent fun, because they are. but when you set there and say that the 4200 blows away a 9600, you show just how much of a fanboy of that card you are. show me one benchmark where the 9600 gets beaten by nearly double the fps. and for every one you show me, i will show you 3 that the 9600 does that to the 4200. but i dont have to worry, the 4200 will never double the framerate of the 9600.
There's honestly no point argueing with him. The 9600pro is on average a faster card (even with image quality settings disabled [AA,AF]), so you are correct in your statements snyper.
Oc550 is not living in reality however, and judges cards solely on 3dmark 2k1se scores. He validates everything he says by simply listing off 3dmark scores and then dropping phrases like "owns" and "blows away" to some how prove something. This does not prove anything, and the arguments become circular after a few posts with this guy. I question if Oc even really plays games given the ways in which he judges a graphics card. Oc550 should be ashamed of himself for recommending a TI4200 for a PC that won't have the graphics card replaced for 2 years. This is nothing short of asinine, and he is not doing harrybearmagnet any favors whatsoever.
The point? I don't think it's worth our time trying to prove anything to him because he lives in a world in which what he says means more than any semblance of truth. It seems like every thread this comes up. I've tried showing him reviews with framerates even, but its been pointless. The malarky runs too deep in the veins. I think it's best just to let it go snyper.
dustybyrd
11-25-03, 12:39 PM
The 9600pro is on average a faster card (even with image quality settings disabled [AA,AF]), so you are correct in your statements snyper.
I've tried showing him reviews with framerates even, but its been pointless. [/B]
i don't know about the veracity of those statements...
but here is a review of the 9600pro and ti4200...
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/index.html
with AA/AF disabled...that shows the 9600pro is slower than the ti4200 on 3 of 5 games...and the other two it is very close to the same speed...
i would recommend the ti4200 for someone who wants to save money and in another year wants a video card that will actually be twice as fast as both the ti4200 and 9600pro for about the same money as a 9600pro right now...(likely the 9700pro will be $100-150 in a year...when dx9 games are more commonplace and actually NEED a dx9 card...and perhaps at faster speeds than the 9600pro (and the ti4200) can provide)
i would recommend the 9600pro to someone who wants a video card for 2-3 years and doesn't play the toughest games and won't mind less than optimum framerates on tougher games in a couple of years...because that is what will happen...
i believe the best option for a card for 2-3 years would be the 9700/9800pro...
snyper1982
11-25-03, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by dustybyrd
i don't know about the veracity of those statements...
but here is a review of the 9600pro and ti4200...
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/index.html
with AA/AF disabled...that shows the 9600pro is slower than the ti4200 on 3 of 5 games...and the other two it is very close to the same speed...
i would recommend the ti4200 for someone who wants to save money and in another year wants a video card that will actually be twice as fast as both the ti4200 and 9600pro for about the same money as a 9600pro right now...(likely the 9700pro will be $100-150 in a year...when dx9 games are more commonplace and actually NEED a dx9 card...and perhaps at faster speeds than the 9600pro (and the ti4200) can provide)
i would recommend the 9600pro to someone who wants a video card for 2-3 years and doesn't play the toughest games and won't mind less than optimum framerates on tougher games in a couple of years...because that is what will happen...
i believe the best option for a card for 2-3 years would be the 9700/9800pro...
and here is a review where it shpws the ti4200 getting dominated by the 9600 when aa or af ar enabled. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812
i would trust anand before tom.
dustybyrd
11-25-03, 01:02 PM
and here is a review where it shpws the ti4200 getting dominated by the 9600 when aa or af ar enabled. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812
i would trust anand before tom. [/B]
i would assume both websites are posting correct data...
and the anandtech review states the ti4200 memory is at 222mhz!!! (core at 250)
that's too low...i have never seen anyone run their ti4200 that slowly...
in fact i have never seen a ti4200 that you can buy now with that slow of STOCK memory...
NOTICE that in the Anand review...the ti4600 (at 300/325) beats the 9600pro handly as well as the 9500pro...
and most people run their ti4200 at ti4600 speeds...
snyper1982
11-25-03, 01:42 PM
it doesnt matter what the card does overclocked, it was done at stock. people overclock the 9600 as well. and aparently SOME 4200's DO run at 222 http://secure.newegg.com/app/specification.asp?item=14-145-034
anyways, the point is, the 9600 is a better card with aa or af.
the 4600 does win in a lot of tests, but i dont know of anyone who can tell the difference between 330 and 250 fps. most of the differences are negligible because the 9600 while it may not run it as fast, it runs it plenty fast enough to where you most likely would not know the difference. the only one i saw where you could probably tell was serious sam, the 4600 did quite well in that benchmark. and lets not forget the fact that he wants to keep it for 2 years.
dustybyrd
11-25-03, 01:59 PM
it doesnt matter what the card does overclocked, it was done at stock. people overclock the 9600 as well. and aparently SOME 4200's DO run at 222 http://secure.newegg.com/app/specification.asp?item=14-145-034
anyways, the point is, the 9600 is a better card with aa or af.
it does matter how any card does at its top speed that it runs stabley at...because that's what it does...that goes for the top speeds of the 9600pro as well...
also, while some 4200's might have 222mhz memory...there are some 9600's that have 200mhz memory (9600SE)...they would also be rather slow ;)
the point is this:
i got a ti4200 for $79 shipped from newegg that does 315/350 with stock cooling (that's better than ti4600 speeds)...you can get a 9600pro for $135 shipped from newegg...that will be slower than the ti4200 EXCEPT with AA/AF on...
so the choice is there...
is $55 more worth it for AA/AF? it's up to the user...
but you are paying for that...not more raw speed without AA/AF on
snyper1982
11-25-03, 02:07 PM
what about the performance and IQ in future games? we all know that the 9600 is going to look better in the future games, seeing as it is dx9 and the 4200 is not. which is why i suggested the 9600, for the future games, not for current games.
TruckyJ
11-25-03, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by dustybyrd
i would assume both websites are posting correct data...
most people run their ti4200 at ti4600 speeds...
Both sites are posting correct data....However, when I made my statements I was refering to the anandtech review as a point of reference. I dont think the veracity of what I said was out of line with the anandtech review. If you feel it was unadulterated insolence, I certainly apologize.
As far as people overclocking thier 4200's, keep in mind that the 9600 chipset also overclocks very well. Additionally, the 9600xt can be obtained for only a few bucks more than the pro (newegg is selling the sapphire 9600xt for $165). The XT is really the card to get (if your going to get an ATI 9600 card), and is a better buy than the pro currently.
DustyBird, I think that your statement about the 9700/9800 are right on. If your not going to change the graphics card for 2 years, it will be alot better to get something more powerful. I posted this thought a few posts back actually, and this seems to really be the best option.
To cap it all off...In 2 years time, I would rather have a 9600 card than a TI 4200. To recommend a TI 4200 to a person who will not upgrade thier video card in 2 years seems crazy. A 9600pro is barely making the cut in this situation, but the card responds much better to shaders and is certainly going to be the better card for HL2 and other upcoming games.
dustybyrd
11-25-03, 02:48 PM
Both sites are posting correct data....However, when I made my statements I was refering to the anandtech review as a point of reference. I dont think the veracity of what I said was out of line with the anandtech review. If you feel it was unadulterated insolence, I certainly apologize.
As far as people overclocking thier 4200's, keep in mind that the 9600 chipset also overclocks very well. Additionally, the 9600xt can be obtained for only a few bucks more than the pro (newegg is selling the sapphire 9600xt for $165). The XT is really the card to get (if your going to get an ATI 9600 card), and is a better buy than the pro currently.
DustyBird, I think that your statement about the 9700/9800 are right on. If your not going to change the graphics card for 2 years, it will be alot better to get something more powerful. I posted this thought a few posts back actually, and this seems to really be the best option.
To cap it all off...In 2 years time, I would rather have a 9600 card than a TI 4200. To recommend a TI 4200 to a person who will not upgrade thier video card in 2 years seems crazy. A 9600pro is barely making the cut in this situation, but the card responds much better to shaders and is certainly going to be the better card for HL2 and other upcoming games.
i agree with everything you said...
my thing is this though...if you want a card for 2-3 years and you aren't going to play the most demanding games in that time (and don't care that much about framerates like the initial poster did say)....then the 9600pro/xt is the card for you...
but just be aware that the 9600pro in 2 years might not cut it (just like the 4200 won't either)...and then you might have to upgrade again...and at that time the 9700pro should be available for less than $150...and heck there might be something better out there for a reasonable price then as well...
the 4200 is the card for you if you know you want more than 9600pro speeds in a year...basically for 1 year or less get the 4200 for $80 (and then in 1 year get the 9700pro for 100-150 for a total of $180-230)...unless you want the AA/AF (in which case get the 9600pro) and if you must have a card that will last 2-3 years then the 9700pro is the minimum for "tough" games
for me it's risky to pay a premium for any technology...because it's going to be dated shortly and even if it isn't then it will be less expensive shortly...probably a lot less expensive...
therefore my philosophy is buy what you need to get by happily and no more...then when you aren't happy, then at time buy the minimum again to get you by...
Overclocker550
11-25-03, 04:18 PM
those guys have explained it very well. sniper, you are telling him to go spend $172 on a 9600 pro just for the aa/af and dx9? and yes both cards overclock, but the albatron will clock much, much higher since its alot like a ti4600!!!!!!! nevermind ti4200 vs. 9600 pro its ti4600 vs. 9600 pro!
snyper1982
11-25-03, 04:34 PM
no, im not TELLING him to buy anything, and its snyper. i was making sure he had all the info, unlike you. i dont just post facts that i pulled out of my ass. and like they said, 2 years from now he WOULD be better of with the 9600. and i have not seen a 9600 that costs 172. i would say more like 150. you see the difference between you and me is this, i dont tell him what to buy, i present him with the facts, and let him decide. in 2 years i would rather be on a 9600 because it has much better pixel shaders, dx9, etc, etc. i understand that a 4200 is faster without aa or af, i never disputed that. what i did say was that although it is faster, it mostly negligible because for the most part you will not be able to tell a difference because both cards are in excess of 100 fps. but the 4200 WILL fall to its knees with aa/af. and the 9600 will keep on trucking :)
Kenshiro
11-25-03, 04:40 PM
If you are already planning to spend $172 on the 9600 pro, I will suggest to spend just a little more on a better video card.
$199 for the XFX FX5900 non ultra. I am pretty sure this card is way much better than the 9600pro.
Overclocker550
11-25-03, 06:28 PM
if he doesnt want the ti4200 then at least he should get a 9700 pro used for $200. also keep in mind he can get the ti4200 now and get a new card later on when prices drop
Originally posted by Overclocker550
if he doesnt want the ti4200 then at least he should get a 9700 pro used for $200. also keep in mind he can get the ti4200 now and get a new card later on when prices drop
Yeah, but that's gonna cost him more, unless he decides to go after another sub-$100 card later.
harryinny3
11-25-03, 07:54 PM
OC on my 9600 pro @ 465/330 Isnt that a bummer. Guess it doesnt overclock well huh? Slap me in my new 2.6C at Xmas. Also my new ASUS board will be here by friday,(all set for a prescott in the feuture, was revised to handle it now) And Ill see how well i whoop up on a 4200. Its not going to be pretty ill tell ya.
Dude atleast at minimum get the 9600pro. BUT if you can, get a 9700np 9700P or a 9800NP. Heck there are still 9500pros out there new. But i do not suggest the 5900 card at all. Until Nvidia comes out with something other than the FX line of cards, I will not buy one yet. Use to love the nvidia G4 cards, but they just cant handle the newest of the new games as well as ANY of the 9500-9800 series ATI cards.
END!
Harry
Overclocker550
11-25-03, 08:04 PM
let me give you some advice, dont get the 2.6c, get the 2.8c those oc much better
Originally posted by Overclocker550
let me give you some advice, dont get the 2.6c, get the 2.8c those oc much better
Great way to pull some stuff out of your....
The entire C series P4 overclocks very well. The difference between a 2.6 and a 2.8 is negligable.
Overclocker550
11-25-03, 08:10 PM
I am serious man, do not get the 2.6c, get the 2.8c
harryinny3
11-25-03, 08:37 PM
After i make my credit card payment for my order today, Im gonna be buying me an Xmas persent. Either the 2.6 or 2.8. If there isnt much difference ill get the 2.8 Also have to get my Crucial-Micron PC3200 at the same time. This is gonna be fun all over again. Havent built myself a new rig since last may. Oh got my new Antec Gameing case yesterday. Its huge, and no anoying front light bars like this one now. Was cool then, but cant fold at night cuz it keeps me up LOL!
Harry
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.