PDA

View Full Version : Upgrade from Ti4200


stu
November 20th 03, 11:27 PM
I've currently got a Ti 4200 128Mb and I'm fairly happy with it, but I want
to treat myself to a new graphics card this Xmas, I was considering the
Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb as I can get it for 195, what Nvidia cards could I
get for around that price and how do they compare to the Radeon 9800 Pro?

TIA.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003

John Lewis
November 21st 03, 02:37 AM
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:27:46 -0000, "stu" > wrote:

>I've currently got a Ti 4200 128Mb and I'm fairly happy with it, but I want
>to treat myself to a new graphics card this Xmas, I was considering the
>Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb as I can get it for 195, what Nvidia cards could I
>get for around that price and how do they compare to the Radeon 9800 Pro?
>

.... in what way ?

.....an electric toaster ?
.....a doorstop ?
..... able to run MS Office ?
.....good at overloading/smoking power-supplies ?
.... able to run legacy software ?
.... able to run current games ?
..... prospects for running future games ?

Read the reviews on Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, etc. As always, the
informed PC user makes a best-effort hardware choice based on his/her

budget and the types of software that is likely to be most frequently
used on the target machine.

The NVidia cards in the same price range are likely to be
the FX5900 (128Meg, non-Ultra) and the FX5700 Ultra (256Meg).
No comments on suitability........... have no idea of your intended
application(s)............

However, whether you intended it or not, you have just invited the
trolls to come out of from under their bridges...........

John Lewis

>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003
>
>

Dark Avenger
November 21st 03, 04:43 AM
"stu" > wrote in message >...
> I've currently got a Ti 4200 128Mb and I'm fairly happy with it, but I want
> to treat myself to a new graphics card this Xmas, I was considering the
> Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb as I can get it for 195, what Nvidia cards could I
> get for around that price and how do they compare to the Radeon 9800 Pro?
>
> TIA.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003

mmmm...you could try to seek a FX5950 Ultra ... that is currently
nvidia's topcard!

Should also be around the same price.

The FX5950 is a tad slower as the Radeon 9800 Pro ..... because of
design failures. It's a fast card, can do DX9 ...but... only if they
go below the DX9 standard.

So if you wish a TRUE DX9 card, go for the ATI.

If you wish a card every game has no problems with to recognize, go
with the nvidia.

Ati cards need patches ones in a while because of poorly programmed
games :-(

jeffc
November 21st 03, 05:13 AM
"John Lewis" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:27:46 -0000, "stu" > wrote:
>
> >I've currently got a Ti 4200 128Mb and I'm fairly happy with it, but I
want
> >to treat myself to a new graphics card this Xmas, I was considering the
> >Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb as I can get it for 195, what Nvidia cards could I
> >get for around that price and how do they compare to the Radeon 9800 Pro?
> >
> ... in what way ?
>
> ....an electric toaster ?
> ....a doorstop ?
> .... able to run MS Office ?

Yeah John, I'm sure he meant those.

> Read the reviews on Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, etc. As always, the
> informed PC user makes a best-effort hardware choice based on his/her
> budget and the types of software that is likely to be most frequently
> used on the target machine.

Duh! That's obviously why he's here, asking to be informed.

John Lewis
November 21st 03, 06:17 AM
On 20 Nov 2003 19:43:16 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
wrote:

>"stu" > wrote in message >...
>> I've currently got a Ti 4200 128Mb and I'm fairly happy with it, but I want
>> to treat myself to a new graphics card this Xmas, I was considering the
>> Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb as I can get it for 195, what Nvidia cards could I
>> get for around that price and how do they compare to the Radeon 9800 Pro?
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003
>
>mmmm...you could try to seek a FX5950 Ultra ... that is currently
>nvidia's topcard!
>
>Should also be around the same price.
>

Nope. Not that it matters, since a 5900/128 base can generally be
overclocked with very little temp rise to at least 5900Ultra speed.

>The FX5950 is a tad slower as the Radeon 9800 Pro ..... because of
>design failures.

Ah, a troll has indeed appeared...........a little cold and damp
under your bridge ?

Counter-troll on the subject of design failures..........

Question: How can you tell that you are overclocking
your Ati card....?

Answer: By the black screen and the smell of burning
circuit board..........

The Ati GPUs have zero on-chip ( or on-board ) temperature
monitoring/shut-down sensors. A truly gross design failure in the
tradition of AMD and Athlon -- now rectified by the Opteron and
Athlon 64. Chronic chip-temps in excess of 80 degrees C are
guaranteed to radically shorten the life of the GPU. When
overclocking an ATi board, you are playing $$Russian
Roulette$$......

> It's a fast card, can do DX9 ...but... only if they
>go below the DX9 standard.
>
>So if you wish a TRUE DX9 card,

There is no such animal. DX9 is a still-evolving spec, much as M$$
and certain hardware vendors would like you to think differently.

> go for the ATI.
>
>If you wish a card every game has no problems with to recognize, go
>with the nvidia.
>
>Ati cards need patches ones in a while because of poorly programmed
>games :-(

er.... typo surely..... you mean drivers of course............ ?

Some of us can do a little counter-trolling............

Now then, which way is the shortest back to my bridge ?

John Lewis

Dark Avenger
November 21st 03, 01:30 PM
(John Lewis) wrote in message >...
> On 20 Nov 2003 19:43:16 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
> wrote:
>
Good morning John Lewis,

Hell I like nvidia cards.. and ati cards.

But the 9800 XT or Pro is simply bleeting fast and ... wins in several
occasions of the FX5950 Ultra.

And since many of nvidia drivers have to cheat to get up that level,
it would be fair to say that if ATI would make cheat drivers, lower
rendering precision under DX9 standards, only do brilinear filtering,
Use Prerendered Clipping Frames in benchmarks, then ati cards would
leave the FX series 80 miles in the dust.

Theoraticly if ATI cheated like Nvidia is cheating now, you can expect
atleast 40% higher "performance"

IF both are set in a non-cheating area ... the FX loses... loses
EASILY.

Ya know I hope nvidia comes with good cards again, cards that don't
have to cheat.. use mixed mode... lower precision....and use
prerendered clipping frames.

After all... benchmarks are just benchmarks not.. and GAMES that is
where it gets important. And guess what... the design failure ( weak
vertex/pixel shaders ) is just ONE of the things that will be
extensively used in future games.

So even though games NOW are vigilant enough to use mixed precision or
mixed mode paths thus giving performance to the FX series. There comes
a time where games programmers don't.... and then owning an FX is not
a good plan!

Atleast not if you are a gamer!

And you can call me a troll.. sure.. go ahead.. enjoy your FX card for
all it's worth, they are good cards...with a small design failure.
Once true DX9 games hit the shells though.... and the Nv40 is
there...is nvidia still willingly to build those "optimatilisations"
to run DX9 games good.

I guess that once the nv40 is there... they do everything to forget
the FX period.

And with every month after the Nv40...they do less work on
"optimalisations" for your FX card. How vigilant do you think game
programmers are to keep supporting the "optimalisations" needed.. and
invest time in programming them.

The FX series FORCES programmers of CURRENT games to build a path
especially for the cards. Why...because of a design failure. If the
game runs bad on the costumers 400 Dollar card who do you guess get
the complaints over them... not nvidia... no..the gamedevelopers!

Remember the driver story. 52.16 with very nice 3dmark2003 scores,
3dmark2003 comes with a 340 patch and it craps down on the FX series,
then 52.70 comes and the scores are back again. Looks like a cheat to
me.....Then again...we know nvidia has to cheat to stay in the game.

In current games and upcoming games you can expect the FX series to
have a nice performance, how though the performance will be in the
future...depends on how much time the nvidia driver department wishes
to spend on "optimalisations"

stu
November 21st 03, 05:33 PM
> ... in what way ?
>
> ....an electric toaster ?
> ....a doorstop ?
> .... able to run MS Office ?
> ....good at overloading/smoking power-supplies ?
> ... able to run legacy software ?
> ... able to run current games ?
> .... prospects for running future games ?

You've got issues.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003

Robert Pendell
November 22nd 03, 10:51 PM
Yep, part of the reason that they are getting such high scores is because
they are translating DX9 commands to DX8.1 commands and that results in
higher scores. The 340 patch of 3dmark03 was supposed to work around that
so that true performance of the nvidia fx cards could be revealed but nope.
Nvidia had to cheat again by fixing their drivers to make the scores get
racked up again. For those of you that need another test (and I hope more
review sites might start using this) is GL Excess. It is a generic OpenGL
test that checks your graphics performance. It is at
http://www.glexcess.com/

--
Robert Pendell