PDA

View Full Version : Pricing Differences Between GeForce Generations


Damaeus
February 24th 04, 09:32 PM
I've decided to upgrade my video card from my current GeForce 2 Ultra model to
something newer. But I have noticed in some benchmark tests that the GeForce
2 Ultra actually scored barely under or even better than some GeForce 4 MX
models. Plus, I notice that a GeForce 4 Ti 4800 is $129, while a GeForce FX
3200 64MB is only $51. One would think that a GeForce FX, being the
generation after GeForce 4, would be better, faster, more powerful. But it
has a lower price.

I want something significantly better than what I have now without breaking
the bank. But maybe a the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 8x AGP ($138) is better than the
GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB ($93). How can one tell? Is there some website
that has a bar chart showing an overall comparison of the different nVidia
models?

I currently have the Abit NF7 motherboard which has the nVidia nForce chipset,
and an AMD Athlon T-Bird 1333, and 768 MB of DDR400 SDRAM. I don't mind going
for some overkill on the graphics card to make it "too much for the CPU"
because I'll be upgrading the CPU next. I just had to do an emergency rebuild
of my computer when my old KT7A-RAID was toasted by a faulty power supply and
I was short on cash at the time and couldn't afford a faster CPU (my KT7A-RAID
had a 1200 MHz T-Bird). I plan to upgrade to one of the Athlon XP models --
probably an XP3200 since it appears to be the last XP model they'll come out
with now that Athlon 64 is out. Or if my NF7 can take the 64-bit AMD
processor, I'll get one of those, but I doubt it will. I just don't know for
sure yet.

Damaeus

Yves Leclerc
February 24th 04, 09:52 PM
First, do not compare the FX 5200 (not 3200) with the GF4 Ti4800. Not the
same level. FX 5200 is entry level video and Ti4800 is top level. Compare
GF4 Ti4800 with the FX 5900(5950).

FX 5200 is a base DirectX9 video card, so compare it with the GF4 MX models.


Check for the pricing on the FX 5700s. It is a enhanced version of the
5600s but apparently without the bugs.

Any GF 4 Ti does not handle any DirectX 9 controls in the hardware. Most FX
card do!

Y.

"Damaeus" > wrote in message
...
> I've decided to upgrade my video card from my current GeForce 2 Ultra
model to
> something newer. But I have noticed in some benchmark tests that the
GeForce
> 2 Ultra actually scored barely under or even better than some GeForce 4 MX
> models. Plus, I notice that a GeForce 4 Ti 4800 is $129, while a GeForce
FX
> 3200 64MB is only $51. One would think that a GeForce FX, being the
> generation after GeForce 4, would be better, faster, more powerful. But
it
> has a lower price.
>
> I want something significantly better than what I have now without
breaking
> the bank. But maybe a the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 8x AGP ($138) is better than
the
> GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB ($93). How can one tell? Is there some
website
> that has a bar chart showing an overall comparison of the different nVidia
> models?
>
> I currently have the Abit NF7 motherboard which has the nVidia nForce
chipset,
> and an AMD Athlon T-Bird 1333, and 768 MB of DDR400 SDRAM. I don't mind
going
> for some overkill on the graphics card to make it "too much for the CPU"
> because I'll be upgrading the CPU next. I just had to do an emergency
rebuild
> of my computer when my old KT7A-RAID was toasted by a faulty power supply
and
> I was short on cash at the time and couldn't afford a faster CPU (my
KT7A-RAID
> had a 1200 MHz T-Bird). I plan to upgrade to one of the Athlon XP
models --
> probably an XP3200 since it appears to be the last XP model they'll come
out
> with now that Athlon 64 is out. Or if my NF7 can take the 64-bit AMD
> processor, I'll get one of those, but I doubt it will. I just don't know
for
> sure yet.
>
> Damaeus

Derek Wildstar
February 25th 04, 04:28 AM
"Damaeus" > wrote in message
...

> Damaeus

A lot of pondering for someone completely clueless about what's current and
why. Don't be insulted, just get yourself the GeForce FX 5900XT for $200 at
NewEgg.Com and don't question me.

No need for thanks, I'm very busy. :)

Yeremein
February 25th 04, 04:35 AM
> One would think that a GeForce FX, being the
> generation after GeForce 4, would be better, faster, more powerful. But it
> has a lower price.

The GF4 Ti costs more than the FX5200 because it's faster. It's all
part of NVIDIA's market segmentation. FX5200 is targeted at the low end
(budget/OEM), while GF4 Ti was a high end part whose market position is
now taken by the FX5700.

> I want something significantly better than what I have now without breaking
> the bank. But maybe a the GeForce 4 Ti 4600 8x AGP ($138) is better than the
> GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB ($93). How can one tell?

Usually the price is a pretty good indicator--you get what you pay for.
But it's hard to define "better", since that depends on what
applications you're running, screen resolution, antialiasing/AF
settings, and/or preference for quality over speed or vice versa.

The Ti4600 can probably push polygons faster than the FX5600, but it
doesn't support DX9 pixel shaders (for special effects in newer games),
and it takes a bigger performance hit when using antialiasing.

> Is there some website
> that has a bar chart showing an overall comparison of the different nVidia
> models?

Tom's Hardware's VGA Charts are a good reference. They don't include
older cards in their benchmarks, though, presumably because you can't
buy them new anymore. Personally, I think that's a shame, because it
makes it difficult for users looking to upgrade to see what kind of a
change they'll get.

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

> Or if my NF7 can take the 64-bit AMD
> processor, I'll get one of those, but I doubt it will. I just don't know for
> sure yet.

Um, no, different socket.

Damaeus
February 25th 04, 08:29 AM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:28:11 GMT, "Derek Wildstar" > posted a
message in news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia which read:

>
> "Damaeus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Damaeus
>
> A lot of pondering for someone completely clueless about what's current and
> why. Don't be insulted, just get yourself the GeForce FX 5900XT for $200 at
> NewEgg.Com and don't question me.

I know what's current. I just hadn't yet figured out why some FX cards are
slower than GeForce 4 cards. Or why some Geforce 4 cards are slower than my
GeForce 2 Ultra. I'm going to the next message now.

Damaeus

Damaeus
February 25th 04, 08:32 AM
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:35:14 -0700, Yeremein > posted
a message in news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia which read:

> The Ti4600 can probably push polygons faster than the FX5600, but it
> doesn't support DX9 pixel shaders (for special effects in newer games),
> and it takes a bigger performance hit when using antialiasing.

Well, one of the games I'm wanting to play is the new Deus Ex game which
requires pixel shaders, so I'll need an FX5600 or better.

> > Is there some website
> > that has a bar chart showing an overall comparison of the different nVidia
> > models?
>
> Tom's Hardware's VGA Charts are a good reference. They don't include
> older cards in their benchmarks, though, presumably because you can't
> buy them new anymore. Personally, I think that's a shame, because it
> makes it difficult for users looking to upgrade to see what kind of a
> change they'll get.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

Well, thanks for the reference. I visit that site pretty frequently. :-)

Damaeus

Damaeus
February 25th 04, 12:11 PM
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:52:39 -0500, "Yves Leclerc" >
posted a message in news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia which read:

> First, do not compare the FX 5200 (not 3200) with the GF4 Ti4800.

Sorry about the 3200. Some neurons crossfired because I was simultaneously
shopping the AMD processors.

> Not the same level. FX 5200 is entry level video and Ti4800 is
> top level. Compare GF4 Ti4800 with the FX 5900(5950).
>
> FX 5200 is a base DirectX9 video card, so compare it with the GF4
> MX models.
>
>
> Check for the pricing on the FX 5700s. It is a enhanced version
> of the 5600s but apparently without the bugs.
>
> Any GF 4 Ti does not handle any DirectX 9 controls in the
> hardware. Most FX card do!

Thanks for the tips. I may just save until I have $500 to spend and then get
the best video card that nVidia has out when I have my money together. In the
meantime, I have some non-3D games to play (Pool of Radiance, Stronghold), and
even Sim City 3000 or 4000. No, they're not so taxing on the hardware, but my
cooling fan is out on my GF2 Ultra. Still handles 2D RPG's fine, though. May
handle 3D games, too, but I don't want to risk frying it altogether and have
nothing, at which point I'll be forced to use what I already have saved to buy
a less than stupendous card.

My local computer store has the FX 5700 Ultra w. 128MB for $199. Pricewatch
has no listing for that particular card. But having 256 megabytes on the card
is what really jacks the price up, I noticed. An FX5900 with 128MB is $183,
but a FX5900 with 256MB is $303.

Well, now that I know I want something from high end FX line, I'm off to find
some comparison charts on each card's capabilities.

And yes, I become knowledgeable when I'm in the market for some hardware, but
once I'm happy, I tend to stray away from the latest news. It's just taking a
while to get caught up.

Damaeus