GeForce 4 is it worth the money

[King Zielke]

I am planning on buying a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 i was wondering is it worth the money they charge or do they have a better card


-King Zielke

 

[plague]

personally, i think I'm gonna wait for the 4200 and overclock the hell out of it. you can probably reach at least 4400 speeds, and it should be under $200.

 

[Arcane]

i think it is worth it, especially if you are a big gamer....the extra muscle will give you more fps which is good if you're playing on-line games...you will have eliminated one out of two major concerns, low fps and lag...i like it so much that after i killed my first one, i got another one...(not to mention the fact that i was able to get the second one free )

 

[King Zielke]

Thanx for the input id still like more input but il proably buy one eventually

-King Zielke

 

[Krusty]

I'd say it depends on how much $350 is to you and what video card you currently have. For me, $350 is a ton of money (a months rent). Plus, I already have a geforce3 in my puter.

If $350 is just part of your spending cash that you have no use for, then go for it. If you are upgrading from a voodoo3 and don't plan on doing another upgrade for a while, then go for it. If you're a poor guy with a gf3, gf2 ultra, or radeon 7500-8500, there is no reason in the world to upgrade now.

 

[GoldenTiger]

It is definitely worth it. Here's part of a post I posted on another forum when someone was talking about a GF3 Ti200 compared to the GF4 Ti4600:

The GF4 Ti4600 is FAR, FAR faster than a Ti200, in raw clock speeds even it is about twice as fast on the core and 70% faster on the memory. Factor in that the more efficient core provides about 20% more speed at the same clock speeds when you underclock the Ti4600 and compare to a GF3, and that the anti-aliasing engine of the Ti4600 is far better and gives a large amount more performance (about 50-60% at same clock speeds, about 110-120% over a Ti200 with both at stock), and you can easily see why the card wouldn't be the limiting factor when even on the older GF3 we were starting to see CPU limitations in some games.

I think you can tell my feelings on the matter... I just went from a GF3 to a Ti4600 GF4 and LOVE it.

 

[customrig]

oh yea worth every penny

 

[explorer]

I only get about 1500 more marks in 3dmark 2k1 then with my gf3 ti 200(257/541). I borrowed my friend's gf4 4600, I could not notice a difference when running q3 and ut at full resolution and detail. I would wait until a.price comes down and b.games become more resource hungry.

 

[GoldenTiger]

3dmark is very CPU-limited. Try something that is more demanding and has a higher resolution or FSAA/anisotropy. UT and Q3 are a few years old... try MOHAA with some FSAA and tell me what you get . May as well do Dungeon Siege, Warcraft III, or Jedi Knight 2 as well, while you're at it. I have all of those games (well, Warcraft III is a copy played on bnetd, but I don't consider it warez since the game isn't even out yet) and the difference is quite noticable in framerate.

 

[CryptokiD]

3dmark isnt cpu limited, its video card limited.

my system, 1.60ghz t-bird , 384mb ddr 8872222 [email protected] 160mhz fsb and a [email protected] 200/383 gets beat by my friends 1.2ghz duron and way overclocked gf2ti, hes even using sdram.....

even with my gf2 overclocked to almost ultra specs, i get beat by his ti overclocked past ultra specs, even though im running a t-bird compared to his duron, and i got alot of mhz on him.

if anyhting, 3dmark is video limited.

i get about 5000 3dmarks on 3dmark 2001se.
he gets 5150.

i smack his *** around in sandra benches though, ESp on the ram speed.

sence hes running almost 80hz lower fsb than i am, and hes using sdram.

 

[touser]

GoldenTiger can i ask about how many fps u average in MOHAA with all settings on high at 1024x768x32? thanks in advance!

 

[Tracert]

3dmark is very CPU-limited. Try something that is more demanding and has a higher resolution or FSAA/anisotropy. UT and Q3 are a few years old... try MOHAA with some FSAA and tell me what you get . May as well do Dungeon Siege, Warcraft III, or Jedi Knight 2 as well, while you're at it. I have all of those games (well, Warcraft III is a copy played on bnetd, but I don't consider it warez since the game isn't even out yet) and the difference is quite noticable in framerate.

As far as I knew, 2000 was CPU limited, however 2001 was specifically made to see what the Video Card could do. Of course the CPU will have a dramatic influence on this score, it always will. But this BM was designed to test Video Cards, not CPU's.

There is a good article explaining the making of the BM on Madonions site. Check it out. Very enlightening.