Albatron Ti4200 Turbo @ $95 or ATI 9600pro @ $172????

[CamH]

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.

 

[Teh]

Eh, I was asking ~1024x768 res w/ AA vs 1024x768 w/ no AA. But it's not worth continuing now, just forget about it.

 

[CamH]

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]

Is that RTCW?

If so isnt that an openGL game?

Harry

 

[CamH]

Re: Is that RTCW?

If so isnt that an openGL game?

Harry

Yes and yes.

 

[TUK101]

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]

I still stand by the albatron ti4200, itll totally blow away the 9600 pro for much less $$$$$$$$$

 

[CamH]

I still stand by the albatron ti4200, itll totally blow away the 9600 pro for much less $$$$$$$$$

No comment on the images?

 

[Overclocker550]

id rather have 1600x1200 without anti alising than 1024x768 with, also those albatron ti4200s sometimes overclock to ti4600 speeds.

 

[TruckyJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...