-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Albatron Ti4200 Turbo @ $95 or ATI 9600pro @ $172????
- Thread starter harrybearmagnet
- Start date
Teh said:
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.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Location
- Las Vegas Nevada
I would get that Ti 4200 in a heartbeat, find me a game that wont pimp on it right now that is actually out.
Teh
Disabled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
CamH said:
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.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2003
- Location
- New York
Bet
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
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
Teh
Disabled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
Re: Bet
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 said:
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.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2003
- Location
- New York
DUDE?
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
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
Teh
Disabled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
Re: DUDE?
...I don't have a malfunction. I was never upset. Anyway, take a look at this:
[edit (fix link)]http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/rv360/[/edit]
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...
harryinny3 said:
...I don't have a malfunction. I was never upset. Anyway, take a look at this:
[edit (fix link)]http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/rv360/[/edit]
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...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Location
- Lost in life
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.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2001
or you could spend a little more now, and not have to upgrade as soon, its up to you.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
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
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2001
thank you cam. now you can easily see that the edges are not as crisp even at a higher res.
Teh
Disabled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
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.
Teh
Disabled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
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.
