PDA

View Full Version : Re: How smooth is your AMD Athlon 2200+ with a GeForce4 Ti4200?


White Spirit
July 28th 03, 09:13 PM
wrote:

> Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
> system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
> see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
> http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt ... I am using
> the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.

> In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
> Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
> poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
> is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use 1024x768
> resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (in
> Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses 1152x864 resolution.

I ran Wolfenstain under RH 7.2 using a P4 1.3GHz with 128MB RDRAM and a
64MB NVidia GeForce3 Ti 500 at a resolution of 1280x1024 and it was very
smooth, only dropping slightly at times. I had anisotropic filtering
off and no AA.

> What is the bottleneck?

I noticed you have two different types/speed RAM in your machine.
Trying removing one and see how that works. 256Mb RAM is be enough to
work with Wolfenstein to make a comparison.

> I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
> soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
> wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great and
> ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I also
> had the video card since October 2002.

I have a Ti4600 and it wasn't the huge improvement over the Ti500 that I
expected.

> What do you think? Thank you in advance.

My only are thoughts are to make sure that your settings are optimised
in the BIOS.

Also, make sure your CPU is running at the speed it should be.
Sometimes your BIOS can be a problem, in which case it will need to be
flashed.

PRIVATE1964
July 28th 03, 10:16 PM
I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D with only
2XAA and [email protected] all quality settings maxed out in the game. On the forest
map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house by the
lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the whole game.
I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna gain that
much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your gonna have
to live with lower AA and AF settings

July 29th 03, 06:46 AM
White Spirit > wrote:
> wrote:

> > Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
> > system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
> > see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
> > http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt ... I am using
> > the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.

> > In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
> > Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
> > poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
> > is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use 1024x768
> > resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (in
> > Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses 1152x864 resolution.

> I ran Wolfenstain under RH 7.2 using a P4 1.3GHz with 128MB RDRAM and a
> 64MB NVidia GeForce3 Ti 500 at a resolution of 1280x1024 and it was very
> smooth, only dropping slightly at times. I had anisotropic filtering
> off and no AA.

Is this RTCW:ET or the original? The original was smooth. The newer one (ET)
got a little choppy. This is with 2X AA and 8X Anisotrophic.


> > What is the bottleneck?

> I noticed you have two different types/speed RAM in your machine.
> Trying removing one and see how that works. 256Mb RAM is be enough to
> work with Wolfenstein to make a comparison.

I used to have 512 MB of RAM before adding another 512 MB. It was the same.


> > I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
> > soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
> > wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great and
> > ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I also
> > had the video card since October 2002.

> I have a Ti4600 and it wasn't the huge improvement over the Ti500 that I
> expected.

Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
Faster model than Ti4200?


> > What do you think? Thank you in advance.

> My only are thoughts are to make sure that your settings are optimised
> in the BIOS.

They are with Optimal setting. I don't know about BIOS to tweak it nor
do I want to overclock anything.


> Also, make sure your CPU is running at the speed it should be.
> Sometimes your BIOS can be a problem, in which case it will need to be
> flashed.

I already have the newest BIOS.
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

July 29th 03, 06:47 AM
PRIVATE1964 > wrote:
> I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D with only
> 2XAA and [email protected] all quality settings maxed out in the game. On the forest
> map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house by the
> lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the whole game.
> I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna gain that
> much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your gonna have
> to live with lower AA and AF settings

Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so pixelly
even with a 17" monitor. :)
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

July 29th 03, 07:38 AM
wrote:
> PRIVATE1964 > wrote:
> > I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D with only
> > 2XAA and [email protected] all quality settings maxed out in the game. On the forest
> > map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house by the
> > lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the whole game.
> > I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna gain that
> > much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your gonna have
> > to live with lower AA and AF settings

> Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so pixelly
> even with a 17" monitor. :)

Do you think GeForce FX card will be a big difference?
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

Bigguy
July 29th 03, 08:58 AM
Try with no AF or AA.... should run mighty smooth.

Also try with a fixed size swap file and then defrag....

AF + AA enabled is a major strain on the graphics card - Radeon Pro is a bit
better with full AA?

Guy
wrote:
> Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
> system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
> see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
> http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt ... I am
> using the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.
>
> In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
> Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
> poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
> is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use
> 1024x768 resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy
> Territory (in Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses
> 1152x864 resolution. Even with nothing running in the background for
> both operating systems. Older games like Q3A and their mods are
> smooth, but then they are old games.
>
> What is the bottleneck? I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
> soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
> wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great
> and ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I
> also had the video card since October 2002.
>
> What do you think? Thank you in advance.
>>> o o| | E-mail: or
> \ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
> ( )

HamMan
July 29th 03, 10:52 AM
> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > PRIVATE1964 > wrote:
> > > I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D
with only
> > > 2XAA and [email protected] all quality settings maxed out in the game. On
the forest
> > > map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house
by the
> > > lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the
whole game.
> > > I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna
gain that
> > > much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your
gonna have
> > > to live with lower AA and AF settings
>
> > Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so
pixelly
> > even with a 17" monitor. :)
>
> Do you think GeForce FX card will be a big difference?
> --
> "He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
> /\___/\
> / /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
> | |o o| | E-mail: or
> \ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
> ( )

As long as it isnt an FX5200 there might be a marginal AA improvement
because of the DX9 support (and other features nobody ever finds)

Why do you need the AA so high, i either have it on 2x or off on my MX440
and ET runs fine and looks ok at 1024

White Spirit
July 29th 03, 01:18 PM
wrote:

> Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
> Faster model than Ti4200?

It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.

I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should have.

The Ti4200 should be faster.

PRIVATE1964
July 29th 03, 04:23 PM
I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I can run
the game settings maxed out at 1024x768, 2XAA, 4XAF, but there might be a
couple of places where the framerate might dip below 42fps. I want the graphics
to be the best they can, with a good framerate. To me that is 42fps or higher.
Also the visual difference between 8XAF and 4XAF is slight, but the fps hit is
high. I tested this with screenshots from Wolf3D. Going to a newer FX card
might help with higher AA and AF settings, as someone mentioned but the
increase in framerate won't be all that much. Also I believe wold3d is very cpu
dependent. The only way your gonna see a very high improvement would be to get
one of the latest cards like the 5900 or ATI 9700/9800 radeon, but then your
cpu would be a big bottleneck for cpu dependent games.

TheSingingCat
July 29th 03, 08:46 PM
"White Spirit" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
> > Faster model than Ti4200?
>
> It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
> and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
> noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.
>
> I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should
have.
>
> The Ti4200 should be faster.


If you can even find ti500's around now, they're still (imho) the best bang
for the buck. They're almost the same pace as a 4200 and generally 40%
cheaper. I have a PNY ti500 and just run it stock, quite slick.

Next upgrade will likely be a shift over to the ATI side of things, I
haven't tried their newer line of cards for quite sometime.

Martin Eriksson
July 29th 03, 10:35 PM
> wrote in message
...
> Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
> system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
> see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
> http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt ... I am using
> the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.
>
> In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
> Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
> poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
> is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use 1024x768
> resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (in
> Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses 1152x864 resolution.
> Even with nothing running in the background for both operating systems.
> Older games like Q3A and their mods are smooth, but then they are old
> games.
>
> What is the bottleneck? I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
> soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
> wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great and
> ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I also
> had the video card since October 2002.

It's the 8x aniso. It really drops framerates to 1/3 or so compared with no
aniso. I can't run any more than 2x aniso when I run 2x FSAA, or games gets
real sluggish. I don't see much difference between 2x and 8x (and 4x) anyway
2x is good for me.

Generals is also a polygon-rich game which means it takes a bigger hit when
running FSAA because of the edge-AA-only technology.

Upgrading to Ti4600 won't give you much gain because it's only memory/clock
that is increased. Newer models such as FX has better algorithms for
calculating aniso (and FSAA?) which gives much more than simple memory/gpu
clocking can do. This can be seen in benchmarks, when an FX card can be as
fast as a Ti card in no FSAA/no aniso, but when enabling FSAA/aniso it takes
less of a performance hit.

Having said that, my recent upgrade to an Athlon XP 2100+, Leadtek Ti4200
and Hitachi CML174 is the best I have done ever. All to the low price of $50
for the CPU, $140 for the Leadtek and $420 for the TFT...

/M

July 30th 03, 04:33 AM
> > > > I'm using a 4200 overclocked to 4600 speed and I run Wolf3D
> with only
> > > > 2XAA and [email protected] all quality settings maxed out in the game. On
> the forest
> > > > map where he has to be quiet, right before he gets to the first house
> by the
> > > > lake I test the fps there because it seems to be the worse for the
> whole game.
> > > > I can get around constant 42fps with vsync enabled. Your not gonna
> gain that
> > > > much by going to a 4600, and unless you upgrade to a newer card your
> gonna have
> > > > to live with lower AA and AF settings
> >
> > > Ah. I can't stand any resolutions less than 1024x768. Everything is so
> pixelly
> > > even with a 17" monitor. :)

> As long as it isnt an FX5200 there might be a marginal AA improvement
> because of the DX9 support (and other features nobody ever finds)

> Why do you need the AA so high, i either have it on 2x or off on my MX440
> and ET runs fine and looks ok at 1024

Because the jagged edges and lines annoy me. I am just picky. :)
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

July 30th 03, 04:35 AM
PRIVATE1964 > wrote:
> I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I can run

Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high resolutions at
1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17" CRT
monitor.


> the game settings maxed out at 1024x768, 2XAA, 4XAF, but there might be a
> couple of places where the framerate might dip below 42fps. I want the graphics
> to be the best they can, with a good framerate. To me that is 42fps or higher.
> Also the visual difference between 8XAF and 4XAF is slight, but the fps hit is
> high. I tested this with screenshots from Wolf3D. Going to a newer FX card
> might help with higher AA and AF settings, as someone mentioned but the
> increase in framerate won't be all that much. Also I believe wold3d is very cpu
> dependent. The only way your gonna see a very high improvement would be to get
> one of the latest cards like the 5900 or ATI 9700/9800 radeon, but then your
> cpu would be a big bottleneck for cpu dependent games.

Yeah, I wonder if it is even worth upgrading my video card.
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

July 30th 03, 04:37 AM
Martin Eriksson > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
> > system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
> > see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
> > http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt ... I am using
> > the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.
> >
> > In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
> > Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
> > poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
> > is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use 1024x768
> > resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (in
> > Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses 1152x864 resolution.
> > Even with nothing running in the background for both operating systems.
> > Older games like Q3A and their mods are smooth, but then they are old
> > games.
> >
> > What is the bottleneck? I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
> > soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
> > wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great and
> > ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I also
> > had the video card since October 2002.

> It's the 8x aniso. It really drops framerates to 1/3 or so compared with no
> aniso. I can't run any more than 2x aniso when I run 2x FSAA, or games gets
> real sluggish. I don't see much difference between 2x and 8x (and 4x) anyway
> 2x is good for me.

Really? I see differences with 8X vs. 2X especially in Battlefield 1942 if
I look at a distance.


> Generals is also a polygon-rich game which means it takes a bigger hit when
> running FSAA because of the edge-AA-only technology.

Doesn't it also use anisotropic when looking far away?


> Upgrading to Ti4600 won't give you much gain because it's only memory/clock
> that is increased. Newer models such as FX has better algorithms for
> calculating aniso (and FSAA?) which gives much more than simple memory/gpu
> clocking can do. This can be seen in benchmarks, when an FX card can be as
> fast as a Ti card in no FSAA/no aniso, but when enabling FSAA/aniso it takes
> less of a performance hit.

> Having said that, my recent upgrade to an Athlon XP 2100+, Leadtek Ti4200
> and Hitachi CML174 is the best I have done ever. All to the low price of $50
> for the CPU, $140 for the Leadtek and $420 for the TFT...

What's TFT? I think I paid 250 bucks for LeadTek WinFast A250 VIVO
last year. The new ATI All-In-Wonder is almost 400 bucks. Ouch!
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

k y l e
July 30th 03, 05:13 AM
> wrote in message
...
> PRIVATE1964 > wrote:
> > I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I
can run
>
> Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high
resolutions at
> 1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17"
CRT
> monitor.
>

Heh, i'm the opposite - everything's too small and hard to see on those
resolutions.

Mind you, I only have a 14'' monitor, so 800x600 is pretty much the best I
can do anyway (coupled with the low refresh rate of my monitor).

678
July 30th 03, 07:51 AM
wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>
>>Why do you need the AA so high, i either have it on 2x or off on my MX440
>>and ET runs fine and looks ok at 1024
>
>
> Because the jagged edges and lines annoy me. I am just picky. :)

If you're that picky, you should aim for card at least something like
Radeon 9700 Pro. Anything lower than that you have to compromise. You
get what you pay for.

Martin Eriksson
July 30th 03, 08:31 AM
> wrote in message
...
> Martin Eriksson > wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hello. I am wondering if something is wrong with my AMD Athlon 2200+
> > > system (I don't overclock) when gaming with the newest games. You can
> > > see my primary/gaming system specifications at:
> > > http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt ... I am
using
> > > the latest updates for all my drivers, OS, etc.
> > >
> > > In NVIDIA driver properties, I like to set High Quality (graphics),
> > > Anisotropic to 8X and AA to 2X (sometimes disabled because of BF1942's
> > > poor fonts). However, my newer games are not very smooth. Sometimes it
> > > is sluggish (not too choppy) in C&C: Generals and BF1942. I use
1024x768
> > > resolutions in them. Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (in
> > > Red Hat Linux 7.2 with compiled Kernel 2.4.20) uses 1152x864
resolution.
> > > Even with nothing running in the background for both operating
systems.
> > > Older games like Q3A and their mods are smooth, but then they are old
> > > games.
> > >
> > > What is the bottleneck? I don't really want to upgrade my CPU again so
> > > soon. I only had it since October 2002. Video card is a maybe, but I
> > > wonder if upgrading it to a GeForce4 Ti4600 (I heard FX aren't great
and
> > > ATI has poor Linux driver support) will make a big difference. I also
> > > had the video card since October 2002.
>
> > It's the 8x aniso. It really drops framerates to 1/3 or so compared with
no
> > aniso. I can't run any more than 2x aniso when I run 2x FSAA, or games
gets
> > real sluggish. I don't see much difference between 2x and 8x (and 4x)
anyway
> > 2x is good for me.
>
> Really? I see differences with 8X vs. 2X especially in Battlefield 1942 if
> I look at a distance.

I'm sure you do =) it's just that it doesn't bother me as much as loosing 2x
FSAA for instance. Try 4x AF (anisotropic), might be the "golden middle" you
are looking for.

>
>
> > Generals is also a polygon-rich game which means it takes a bigger hit
when
> > running FSAA because of the edge-AA-only technology.
>
> Doesn't it also use anisotropic when looking far away?

Do you mean "Generals" in general (no phun intended) or the FSAA algorithm?
I don't think FSAA uses anisotropic if you don't force it/use it in some
settings.

> > Upgrading to Ti4600 won't give you much gain because it's only
memory/clock
> > that is increased. Newer models such as FX has better algorithms for
> > calculating aniso (and FSAA?) which gives much more than simple
memory/gpu
> > clocking can do. This can be seen in benchmarks, when an FX card can be
as
> > fast as a Ti card in no FSAA/no aniso, but when enabling FSAA/aniso it
takes
> > less of a performance hit.
>
> > Having said that, my recent upgrade to an Athlon XP 2100+, Leadtek
Ti4200
> > and Hitachi CML174 is the best I have done ever. All to the low price of
$50
> > for the CPU, $140 for the Leadtek and $420 for the TFT...
>
> What's TFT? I think I paid 250 bucks for LeadTek WinFast A250 VIVO
> last year. The new ATI All-In-Wonder is almost 400 bucks. Ouch!

Ah, the Hitachi CML174 is a TFT LCD monitor, really nice. As for the card I
don't use either VI or VO abilities so I got away cheaper (uh well my card
does have a video-out port but most have).

/M

July 30th 03, 10:35 AM
k y l e > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > PRIVATE1964 > wrote:
> > > I can run at 1024x768 with 2XAA and 4XAF, but I prefer 800x600. I
> can run
> >
> > Heh, I can't stand 800x600 unless it good old Diablo. I like high
> resolutions at
> > 1024x768 and 1152x768 depending on the tiny fonts since I only have a 17"
> CRT
> > monitor.
> >

> Heh, i'm the opposite - everything's too small and hard to see on those
> resolutions.

> Mind you, I only have a 14'' monitor, so 800x600 is pretty much the best I
> can do anyway (coupled with the low refresh rate of my monitor).

Ah, 14". Yes, I remember those. You should get a bigger screen. :)
--
"He who dislikes aardvarks was an ant in his former life." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

Dr. J
August 6th 03, 06:03 AM
"TheSingingCat" > wrote in message >...
> "White Spirit" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
> > > Faster model than Ti4200?
> >
> > It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
> > and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
> > noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.
> >
> > I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should
> have.
> >
> > The Ti4200 should be faster.
>
>
> If you can even find ti500's around now, they're still (imho) the best bang
> for the buck. They're almost the same pace as a 4200 and generally 40%
> cheaper. I have a PNY ti500 and just run it stock, quite slick.
>
> Next upgrade will likely be a shift over to the ATI side of things, I
> haven't tried their newer line of cards for quite sometime.

While I am an NVidia hater for their incompatibilities with the early
cards and VIA chipsets, not to mention their horrid treatment of
VooDoo owners, I must say I am impressed with the price/performence of
the PNY Verto ti500 64D. It is even faster than my 8500DV (It is
supposed to be lol) With a powerful enough computer, this card
shines. I am going to try and stick with ATI for their features and
new power, but the GeForce3 still has life if found cheep.

Ron Merts
August 6th 03, 09:08 AM
Yeah, the GeForce3 Ti500 was a screamer, and is still decently (is that even
a word??) fast. It's one of those "special" chips/card combinations that
just works VERY well together. The 4280 (an 8X Ti4200) is a good card for
the bucks and the Ti4600 is better IMHO than the Ti4800 because of the price
difference. The Ti4800SE is just an 8X Ti4400 but the price would make you
think it's something special.

Ron

"Dr. J" > wrote in message
om...
> "TheSingingCat" > wrote in message
>...
> > "White Spirit" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series
scale?
> > > > Faster model than Ti4200?
> > >
> > > It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by
Hercules
> > > and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
> > > noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.
> > >
> > > I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should
> > have.
> > >
> > > The Ti4200 should be faster.
> >
> >
> > If you can even find ti500's around now, they're still (imho) the best
bang
> > for the buck. They're almost the same pace as a 4200 and generally 40%
> > cheaper. I have a PNY ti500 and just run it stock, quite slick.
> >
> > Next upgrade will likely be a shift over to the ATI side of things, I
> > haven't tried their newer line of cards for quite sometime.
>
> While I am an NVidia hater for their incompatibilities with the early
> cards and VIA chipsets, not to mention their horrid treatment of
> VooDoo owners, I must say I am impressed with the price/performence of
> the PNY Verto ti500 64D. It is even faster than my 8500DV (It is
> supposed to be lol) With a powerful enough computer, this card
> shines. I am going to try and stick with ATI for their features and
> new power, but the GeForce3 still has life if found cheep.

Gamer4Life
September 2nd 03, 01:27 AM
You won't get improvement with the ATI 9800. Soem games may actually run
slower. Better off with the top of the line FX cards, which will run the
128bit color version of DOOM III very well. OF course by then the optimized
drivers will be out.
"TheSingingCat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "White Spirit" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
> > > Faster model than Ti4200?
> >
> > It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
> > and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
> > noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.
> >
> > I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should
> have.
> >
> > The Ti4200 should be faster.
>
>
> If you can even find ti500's around now, they're still (imho) the best
bang
> for the buck. They're almost the same pace as a 4200 and generally 40%
> cheaper. I have a PNY ti500 and just run it stock, quite slick.
>
> Next upgrade will likely be a shift over to the ATI side of things, I
> haven't tried their newer line of cards for quite sometime.
>
>
>

September 2nd 03, 05:48 AM
Really? I thought ATI 9800 (actually 9700 due to lack of Linux support in
9800) was faster than GF4 family cards. I heard bad things about the new
GF cards. Like 2 slots, hotter, not much faster, etc. Did I hear it wrong?


Gamer4Life > wrote:
> You won't get improvement with the ATI 9800. Soem games may actually run
> slower. Better off with the top of the line FX cards, which will run the
> 128bit color version of DOOM III very well. OF course by then the optimized
> drivers will be out.
> "TheSingingCat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "White Spirit" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ti500? I have never heard of it. What is that in the Ti series scale?
> > > > Faster model than Ti4200?
> > >
> > > It's the fastest GeForce3 model. My particular one is made by Hercules
> > > and is very good for overclocking. As I said, my Ti4600, although
> > > noticeably better, is not the huge improvement I would have expected.
> > >
> > > I didn't overclock the Ti500 except to test it once. Perhaps I should
> > have.
> > >
> > > The Ti4200 should be faster.
> >
> >
> > If you can even find ti500's around now, they're still (imho) the best
> bang
> > for the buck. They're almost the same pace as a 4200 and generally 40%
> > cheaper. I have a PNY ti500 and just run it stock, quite slick.
> >
> > Next upgrade will likely be a shift over to the ATI side of things, I
> > haven't tried their newer line of cards for quite sometime.
--
"Individually, ants are stupid. Together, they're brilliant." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )

[email protected] writeme.com
September 2nd 03, 07:18 AM
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:48:06 -0500, wrote:

>Really? I thought ATI 9800 (actually 9700 due to lack of Linux support in
>9800) was faster than GF4 family cards. I heard bad things about the new
>GF cards. Like 2 slots, hotter, not much faster, etc. Did I hear it wrong?
>
I went from a GF4 4400 to a 9700 Pro recently and it is a lot faster,
I am very pleased with it.
--
Andrew

September 2nd 03, 07:12 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:48:06 -0500, wrote:

> >Really? I thought ATI 9800 (actually 9700 due to lack of Linux support in
> >9800) was faster than GF4 family cards. I heard bad things about the new
> >GF cards. Like 2 slots, hotter, not much faster, etc. Did I hear it wrong?
> >
> I went from a GF4 4400 to a 9700 Pro recently and it is a lot faster,
> I am very pleased with it.

That is what I am planning to do. :)
--
"Individually, ants are stupid. Together, they're brilliant." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: or
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )