]-[itman
02-06-02, 10:43 PM
Well for those of you that don't get "The Screen Savers" or didn't watch it tonight they did a review on the new Ti4600 and the new Radeon8500! They had kyle from t[h]e ot[h]er place on the show giving his results(basically the guy from The screen savers agreed with everything kyle said). For those wondering they basically said this
the gf4mx's are a souped up gf2(what we alreaady knew) and that the new radeon8500 is almost no better than the old 8500 except increased resolustions and textures sizes BUT will be selling for only $200. They said that they only tested the Ti4600 and that it was the fastest card so far. Kyle also said that the Ti4600 would (this is an exact quote) "Ti's(4600) going to crush it(the new 8500)!" And the guy from the show agreed. and also that the Nvidia drivers had absolutely no problems running winXP and a VIA Kt266A(the 27.10 and above drivers)! The prices for the Ti4XXX series were $400 for the Ti4600, $300 for the Ti4400, and $200 for the Ti4200. they hadn't got a chance to test the Ti4400 or the Ti4200 but they said that there was a 50%-70% increase from the new 8500 to the Ti4600 at 1600X1200 resolution. They also said that if you have a monitor that has a max resolution of 1024X768 there's no reason to get either of these cards and if you have something lower than about a 1.3ghz processor system then you probably won't notice a difference between the GF4's and the GF3's. The new GF4's(mx's and ti's alike) have dual monitor support. Also, the GF4's have a somewhat new 4xAntiAliasing algorithm that offers a little less performance hit when running AntiAliasing.
Even though this is leaning towards the GF4 it's not meant to say that Nvidia is better. It's just that the GF4's had more new features and things to talk about over the GF3's than the new 8500 had over the old 8500.
Completely IMO and what i gather from this I'd say the new 8500 and the Ti4200 will be about even maybe the Ti4200 pulling out a little in MadOnion and such but not a neccisarily a better card. I think the Ti4400 and Ti4600 will be better cards but for how much difference you get for $100 to $200 more i'd say it's not worth it. I don't see any need for these cards for a while to come. We haven't even seen a NEED for a GeForce3 card yet. There are only one or two that even start to use what the GF or Radeon has to offer. If I had money in my pocket just waiting to be spent and an already good system (1.3mhz AMD system with DDRRAM or better) then I'd buy the 4400 or the 4600. Honestly i really really want this card(4600) and love it but from the view that there are no games even coming that are going to use these cards and the price is just too high for me so i see these cards as MAYBE next's years investment. For those of you that want the best there is then here's your chance. The 4600 is the best card out there bottom line but you will be paying a high price for it.
here's (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/showtell/story/0,24330,3371045,00.html) a link the the show's article and here's (http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/nvidia/gf234/index.html) on to the ot[h]er place.
the gf4mx's are a souped up gf2(what we alreaady knew) and that the new radeon8500 is almost no better than the old 8500 except increased resolustions and textures sizes BUT will be selling for only $200. They said that they only tested the Ti4600 and that it was the fastest card so far. Kyle also said that the Ti4600 would (this is an exact quote) "Ti's(4600) going to crush it(the new 8500)!" And the guy from the show agreed. and also that the Nvidia drivers had absolutely no problems running winXP and a VIA Kt266A(the 27.10 and above drivers)! The prices for the Ti4XXX series were $400 for the Ti4600, $300 for the Ti4400, and $200 for the Ti4200. they hadn't got a chance to test the Ti4400 or the Ti4200 but they said that there was a 50%-70% increase from the new 8500 to the Ti4600 at 1600X1200 resolution. They also said that if you have a monitor that has a max resolution of 1024X768 there's no reason to get either of these cards and if you have something lower than about a 1.3ghz processor system then you probably won't notice a difference between the GF4's and the GF3's. The new GF4's(mx's and ti's alike) have dual monitor support. Also, the GF4's have a somewhat new 4xAntiAliasing algorithm that offers a little less performance hit when running AntiAliasing.
Even though this is leaning towards the GF4 it's not meant to say that Nvidia is better. It's just that the GF4's had more new features and things to talk about over the GF3's than the new 8500 had over the old 8500.
Completely IMO and what i gather from this I'd say the new 8500 and the Ti4200 will be about even maybe the Ti4200 pulling out a little in MadOnion and such but not a neccisarily a better card. I think the Ti4400 and Ti4600 will be better cards but for how much difference you get for $100 to $200 more i'd say it's not worth it. I don't see any need for these cards for a while to come. We haven't even seen a NEED for a GeForce3 card yet. There are only one or two that even start to use what the GF or Radeon has to offer. If I had money in my pocket just waiting to be spent and an already good system (1.3mhz AMD system with DDRRAM or better) then I'd buy the 4400 or the 4600. Honestly i really really want this card(4600) and love it but from the view that there are no games even coming that are going to use these cards and the price is just too high for me so i see these cards as MAYBE next's years investment. For those of you that want the best there is then here's your chance. The 4600 is the best card out there bottom line but you will be paying a high price for it.
here's (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/showtell/story/0,24330,3371045,00.html) a link the the show's article and here's (http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/nvidia/gf234/index.html) on to the ot[h]er place.