Best buy sold out of geforce4s!

I do alright limping along with my VE. I was thinking of getting a 8500 LE just because I was board with my current and I like the idea of paying $150.00 for something that performs close to a $300.00 card.

Ice Breaker 489 said:

unneeded luxuries...

Click to expand...

unless you are rich which im not, so ill stick to a geforce2mx

funnyperson1 said:

well i dunno, i cant tell a difference past 1280x1024 i think even AA is really not worth it....of course thats just imho.......also tearing is hard to describe, looks like the screen is segmented like when i move little lines show up on the screen....quite annoying.......also once again how many monitors can use 2048 res? mine only goes up to 1280.....im not saying the G4 isn tgreat..its just too much money imho......and its features will not bein use for quite some time.....i also am not aware of any games that have res of higher than 1600x1200.......

Click to expand...

quake3 has an option for 2048x1536 and I have run it in that mode before and its quite playable. I get about 25fps. thats on a geforce2mx in 16 bit man it looks sooooooooooooo good in that mode. no more jaggies smoooooooth as a babys bottom! even 1600x1200 isnt bad and I get 43fps(more if I overclock the ram) any faster card would be overkill for quake3, but not for newer games. quake3 is what? almost 3 years old? quake3 can run on any card faster than a virge! as for your monitor, sorry to hear. you can get a 19" from best buy for about 200 bux or overclock your monitor

dlind4 said:

I say it's a waist of money right now. Wait til the Geforce 4 ti 4600 comes out then buy a Geforce 3 Ti500 for alot less. It will run anything out there right now. 400 bucks for a video card is way too much. If you need bragging rights and have the money to blow go for it. But I'm going to stick with my Geforce 3 Ti 200 for now.

And Nvidia is phasing out the geforce 3's so in a couple of months they should be pretty cheap.

My 2 cents.

Click to expand...

someone else said geforce3's will cost more once they become "rare" but I say no. just look at ebay!

Overclocker550 said:

the geforce4 will also run todays games, but faster!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

BAH at some point you are getting no benefit over decent current cards such as a G2 Ti200, G3 or 7500 for example.

10 fps is squat to be honest once a card hits once a card hits the 100 fps rate

waste your cash if you have it hahaha, me I would buy a faster cpu

cisco kid

Just wait a few months for the prices to come down. ATI will be releasing a new card in 6 weeks or so. New cards always make the older cards become cheaper.

Sundance said:

Just wait a few months for the prices to come down. ATI will be releasing a new card in 6 weeks or so. New cards always make the older cards become cheaper.

Click to expand...

radeon 9500? they have the radeon , radeonLE, radeonVE, radeon7000, radeon7200, radeon7500, radeon8500LE, radeon8500OEM, radeon8500 and now radeon9000, radeon9500 is logical

so many flavors!

GeforceSDR, Geforceddr, Geforce2mx200, Geforce2mx, Geforce2mx400, Geforce2GTS, Geforce2pro, Geforce2ti, Geforce2u, Geforce3, Geforce3ti200, Geforce3ti500, Geforce4mx420, Geforce4mx440, Geforce4mx460, Geforce4ti4200, Geforce4ti4400, Geforce4ti4600. man so many to choose from

Overclocker550 said:

quake3 has an option for 2048x1536 and I have run it in that mode before and its quite playable. I get about 25fps. thats on a geforce2mx in 16 bit man it looks sooooooooooooo good in that mode. no more jaggies smoooooooth as a babys bottom! even 1600x1200 isnt bad and I get 43fps(more if I overclock the ram) any faster card would be overkill for quake3, but not for newer games. quake3 is what? almost 3 years old? quake3 can run on any card faster than a virge! as for your monitor, sorry to hear. you can get a 19" from best buy for about 200 bux or overclock your monitor

Click to expand...

A GF2MX getting 25 FPS @ 2048x1536 ?

Hard to believe.

My geforce 2mx can get like 50fps at the highest res in unreal tournament and thats in 32-bit, i can get like 70 in 16 but why would i do that

First off, there is a lot of BS hitting the ceiling in this post.

Cisco Kid: Your bitchin about people "wastin" money buying a GF4. To some people $400 isnt alot of money, like to me. And I dont mind having the latest greatest, neither do alot of other people on this forum. A GF4 runs my Unreal 2 demo great. While maxing out most features nonethe less. An 8500 and a GF3 Ti500 are already showing their weaknesses on this new game to be released soon. Some people like myself want our video cards to play ALL the games maxed out, not 95 percent of them maxed out. SO quit harpin on a card because you may or may not be able to afford it yourself. Opinions are one thing but bitchin about people having the best equipment is another. ANd I have seen you post COUNTLESS threads about people wasting their money on having the best card on the market. SOunds to me like you're envious of the people with the best gear. Look at my rig stats below, do you really think $399 to me matters??? Judge the video card for what it is, not what its priced at. The minute you ***** about price, you ***** about your own financial status.

Funnyperson: OK do I really need to get into how rediculous of a comment you made about the "monitor being a bottleneck"???? Come on, please dont make me go there! I play all my games on an LCD monitor at 1280x1024 at 60hz, there is no bottle neck in ANY monitor.

Sundance: Like who really cares about ATI releasing another "Beta" product. In fact the Radeon 8500 is STILL in beta stages in their drivers!!!! Like I stated months ago the 8500 would never reach its potential,(which isnt that great as people thought from the specs to begin with)and already Nvidia has released a product that is far superior. Personally I dont need to see another half baked product from ATI again for awhile. As for that BS about releasing official drivers every 3 weeks garbage. They finally just released a few beta drivers on their website, yet its been since Novemember since they released a fully balanced official driver, their recent Beta drivers only optimize the card for specific applications, not improve on the current ones. ATI='sGARBAGE, wonder if they ever did get the Rage Fury to work right after 2 years............

Another thing, the GF4's feature set can be fully realized right away, its nothing really revolutionary, they basically retooled the AA function and T&L engine have been improved, widened the BUS bandwidth,added RAM and implemented a great dual display feature. That is why performance can be anywhere from 10-50 percent better than a current Ti500, and after playing with this card for the past week, it shows! The GF4 basically improves on all the Ti500's weaknesses and then turbocharges it. It really doesnt do anything new though, and that is a good thing! Leave the Beta BS to ATI to f*ck up on!

Zuck Gou :) said:

A GF2MX getting 25 FPS @ 2048x1536 ?

Hard to believe.

Click to expand...

beleive this: a geforce3ti500 would get 100fps in 1600x1200x32 in quake3 or 2048x1536x16! now thats smokin'! overkill at the most. say.......where do I get that unreal2 demo and does it have benchmarks? id like to see how many fps it gets on a geforce2mx and a 550MHz celeron

Here's why I pre-ordered a Ti4600.

I have a GF2. I skipped the GF3 and GF3 Ti, because all my games played just fine with the GF2. However, I have recently begun playing games like Serious Sam II, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Medal of Honor Allied Assault. While these games are still "playable" there are times when it is obvious the video card is the bottleneck.

I also want a true multiple monitor card. While Matrox has had these cards for a while the 3d acceleration leaves a LOT to be desired. ATI, on the other hand, has some nice dual display cards, but their driver team is behind the curve more often than not. (Not to mention that Linux drivers are virtually nonexistent.)

Lastly, when I decide to upgrade I want to get the best. I know that may sound a bit elitist, but I've learned that getting what you want the first time usually saves money in the long run.

Is it me or did it just get warmer in here?

Richard said:

Here's why I pre-ordered a Ti4600.

I have a GF2. I skipped the GF3 and GF3 Ti, because all my games played just fine with the GF2. However, I have recently begun playing games like Serious Sam II, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Medal of Honor Allied Assault. While these games are still "playable" there are times when it is obvious the video card is the bottleneck.

I also want a true multiple monitor card. While Matrox has had these cards for a while the 3d acceleration leaves a LOT to be desired. ATI, on the other hand, has some nice dual display cards, but their driver team is behind the curve more often than not. (Not to mention that Linux drivers are virtually nonexistent.)

Lastly, when I decide to upgrade I want to get the best. I know that may sound a bit elitist, but I've learned that getting what you want the first time usually saves money in the long run.

Click to expand...

those are all good reasons. Personally I wouldn't buy the 4600 because u could get the 4400 for $100 less for very close to the same performance. But if you have the money then more power to you I for one cannot afford the 4600 but i'd love to have the card.

When will the GF4 Ti4200 be available? I want the nfinite 2 engine and i dont mind paying $250 or so for all the extras theTi series has over the mx. Toms benchmarks looked pretty promising as well

dreamtfk said:

When will the GF4 Ti4200 be available? I want the nfinite 2 engine and i dont mind paying $250 or so for all the extras theTi series has over the mx. Toms benchmarks looked pretty promising as well

Click to expand...

Reports show probably mid march and they will only be $200 retail which to me looks very promising.

]-[itman said:

Reports show probably mid march and they will only be $200 retail which to me looks very promising.

Click to expand...

yes but they will only be as fast as the geforce3 ti500!

Overclocker550 said:

yes but they will only be as fast as the geforce3 ti500!

Click to expand...

not neccisarily. I think that they will most likely be faster than the Ti500's. Of course i have no proof on this yet because they aren't out yet but even if they are not they have improved features and more memory allowing for higher fps at higher resolutions and larger textures not to mention better AA support which IMO makes games look incredible. Even if they are the same speed the Ti4200 will be able to look a lot better in games.

Since we already have a Ti4600 to play with, I can tell you YES, it is alot faster in quite a few games already, many games though it isnt noticeable, but this card is everything the Ti500 wasnt. Nvidia got all the pieces right on this one.

Ritteri&Bubbles said:

Since we already have a Ti4600 to play with, I can tell you YES, it is alot faster in quite a few games already, many games though it isnt noticeable, but this card is everything the Ti500 wasnt. Nvidia got all the pieces right on this one.

Click to expand...

Man you are lucky to get one of these to play with! If I move to New England will you higher me Anyway most people are saying well there's only a 15% difference in speed and so on but the thing i like is that they jump ahead at higher resolutions! If you don't have a monitor that can support atleast 1280X1024 then i see no reason to upgrade over a GF3 but these cards smoke at higher resolutions. I mean c'mon the can play games with AA enabled at 1600X1200 res!!! IMO That will make games look stunning to say the least! Yes they'll have about the same FPS as a GF3 in games but they will look like a whole new game