SPARK Gefore4 Ti4200!

[SySteM]

anyone know this video card? :D
($310 NZD) :D :D :D

[SilverPriest]

Looks mighty generic!
Pray tell where on earth that is $310 NZ?

[SySteM]

i got from thailand site :D

[SySteM]

here other detail

[SySteM]

next

[SySteM]

default 3dmark 250mhz core 444mhz ram
mainboard ASUS p4b266
cpu intel p4 1.6A@2320MHz.[145x16]
vga Spark Geforce 4 ti4200
Driver DetonatorXP 28.32
DDR ram crucial 256 mb. cl2.5
harddisk IBM IC35 41 Gb.
oc Windows me

[SySteM]

not bad for price huh? :D

[SilverPriest]

Well, any more details?
Showing a supposed $310 GF4 Ti-4200 and leaving me like this is just plain rude :p
Website?
Any more info?

[Sydog]

Nah theres no point giving anymore details, duznt look like anyones interested in em

[Humantuckshop]

Needs a bit of modding tho SP - no RAM sinks. :eek:

[SySteM]

for got ram :P

[SySteM]

http://www.overclockzone.com/report/vga/spark/ti4200/index.html
here web site ( if you can read thai hehe)
Oh ps: i just see and come to tell that is didn't mean to sale it or anything :)

[Humantuckshop]

BAH - the RAM is only 5ns. :eek:

Wasn't 4ns the Nvidia specification? :rolleyes:

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Humantuckshop
BAH - the RAM is only 5ns. :eek:

Wasn't 4ns the Nvidia specification? :rolleyes:

4ns for the 64MB cards - I think it's 4.5ns for the 128MB cards.

WOW, that really IS generic. That 5ns RAM is rated for 200MHz DDR ( 400MHz effective ), but it's running at 444MHz!! :eek:

What's the bet you can't even get 64MB Ti4200 speeds out of that one..... :confused:

( shame too, cos that price had me going for a while.... :( )

[Viper_NZ]

I don't think you guys are seeing this quite right....

As long as the image quality isn't a problem........

$310!!!!!! I paid an extra $200 JUST TO GET 1 extra measly ns out of the ram!!! $310 will get you an MX440..... It's a damn good price and a damn good deal..

If it was 4ns ram it would be incredible... But surely something had to go...

[Genesis]

Have you got anymore in stock there and willing to hold one? *Has lots of debts to pay off and cant afford one quiet yet :P*

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that since the release of the GF4s the number of OEM graphics card manufacturers has trippled? :eek:

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by Viper_NZ
I don't think you guys are seeing this quite right....

As long as the image quality isn't a problem........

$310!!!!!! I paid an extra $200 JUST TO GET 1 extra measly ns out of the ram!!! $310 will get you an MX440..... It's a damn good price and a damn good deal..

If it was 4ns ram it would be incredible... But surely something had to go...



You've got a very good point there Viper - but personally I couldn't buy that card, it's just not right. I mean the RAM is running below Nvidia specs, ffs. I know it's only $310 - but still, you usually get what you pay for and I would rather pay for a Gainward or Leadtek and rest assured of the quality and performance.
I wonder if the TV-OUT or DVI features actually work? Anyone found a review yet?

[SySteM]

here other spark Gefore4 Mx420
($120 NZD)

[SySteM]

next

[SySteM]

next
here is link :)
http://www.overclockzone.com/report/vga/spark/mx420/index.html

[SySteM]

last

[KingJackal]

Is that $310 NZD including GST and postage here to NZ? Cos international postage bites.... :(

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by KingJackal
Is that $310 NZD including GST and postage here to NZ? Cos international postage bites.... :(


Hell yeah - It cost me $26 to get my old IBM HDD to Singapore for RMA. The box was only slightly bigger than the HDD itself, and it only weighed about 700 grams. :eek:

[SySteM]

i don't think so kingjackel :(

[KingJackal]

OK, so if we add GST ( cos it's over $300 ) and postage we'll get....

...more like $380 ish?

Well now. It's a still a good $120 off a better brand here, but that's only 1/3rd off. And with that 1/3rd off you get:

Poor overclocking ( crap RAM )
Possible short life-span ( the RAM is already run past spec, so it's effectively OCd, and no RAM sinks )
Extremely hard to warranty ( heh, you try talking to a Thai firm )
TEH namz0r != teh 1337 ( :D had to say it )

....regardless of the fact I'm poor and STILL saving for a Ti4200, I think I'll stick with a Leadtek one from a store here in ChCh....

( but an interesting thought provoker none the less, SySteM ;) )

[SilverPriest]

Some of those PCB's look disturbingly bare.....

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by KingJackal
OK, so if we add GST ( cos it's over $300 ) and postage we'll get....

...more like $380 ish?




Yeah it should be something like that, but that $26 is what it cost me to send something (to Singapore) - I wonder how much it costs to send a parcel to NZ from Thailand?

[S.T.U.]

i jsut bought a geforce4 mx 440 for $199 of dragon today.... cheap brand and the ram is on 5ns... but it overclecks quite well... extra 80-90 mhz....

[Elle T]

What a waste of $200 might as well of bought a GF2 for $100 there the same

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by S.T.U.
i jsut bought a geforce4 mx 440 for $199 of dragon today.... cheap brand and the ram is on 5ns... but it overclecks quite well... extra 80-90 mhz....


Was that the Pixelview?

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Elle T
What a waste of $200 might as well of bought a GF2 for $100 there the same

Have you EVER read a benchmark? I find it very hard to see how you find the MX440 a waste of money. MX440's can outpace Ti200's in some cases. Let alone pathetic GeForce2 cards ( $100 will only buy you an MX200 new, bwahahahaaa ). So let me give you how I'd look at an MX440 compared to even a Ti200:

The GeForce4 MX440 vs the GeForce3 Ti200

The GeForce 4 MX440 offers possibly some of the best bang for your buck on the market. It is NOT necissarily slower than a Ti200 - just less feature rich regarding DirectX 8. Especially with FSAA in use, the MX440's will often lead the Ti200's.

For example, in GeForce4 cards ( all of them ), Quincunx FSAA ACTUALLY is what nVIDIA had hoped it would become - '4X quality at 2X performance'. The quincunx implementation on the GeForce4 cards is actually different to that on the GeForce3 cards, and it no longer blurs textures so badly ( the one drawback it held initially - and one of the main reasons for use of anisotropic filtering ). Furthermore, framerate comparisons between Quincunx and 2X on GeForce 4 cards so no difference in framerate ( within uncertainties ), while there was a hit with GeForce3 cards and below.

The GeForce4 may seem guttless on paper ( which caused many to baulk at it as a possibility ), but it brings much to the table to make the Ti200 look like a BAD move.

( please let me explain :) )

Dual Out

Just like the GeForce2 MX cards of yore, the GeForce4 MX cards support dual out. But EVEN BETTER - both RAMDACs are onboard ( nVIDIA determined, not 3rd party determined, quality ), and INDEPENDANT. Can you say 'two 19"s at high-res no distortion'? While not all MX cards out there ship with both outputs, the chipset does have that possibility.

And independant RAMDACs is something that was previously the domain of Matrox.... and we all know how good their dual-out is ;).

DVD Acceleration

A wholy overlooked feature, which I can't figure out. Having recently tried a GeForce4 MX ( and being a DVD w[H]0r3 ;) ), I can say that the MPEG acceleration offered is top class.

Previously ( i740, TNT2, GF2 MX, GF2 Ti cards tested ) my rig whould stutter on action sequences in James Bond DVDs. Don't get me wrong - NO other DVD I have watched did this, just a few of the Jimbo's :confused:. My rig ain't exactly slow ( TBird @ 145 x 9.5, 512MB Reg. ECC PC2100 @ 2-2-2-5 ), so I always assumed it was my 6X DVD drive. But testing with a 16X defeated that theory.

....and then I plugged in the MX440 ( dadadaDAAA - enter the hero :D ). Sweet. NO jerkies. EVERY MOFO frame where it should be. Tried cranking my CPU down to 100x10 just to acid test it. Sweet. NP again....

...the MPEG acceleration on that card is worth all it's hype and then some.

Lightspeed Memory Architecture

At first glance ( both the Ti200 and MX440 run a 400MHz standard mem clock ), the Ti200 looks to have the edge ( 4 rendering pipelines vs. 2 ). However, nVIDA's LMA is actually worth the hype it doesn't get.

To anybody that has considered the memory bandwidth limited nature of all GeForce2 cards, and the not memory limited nature of all later cards, it is evident that LMA works ( ATi's Hyper-Z does a similar job ).

This is one of the key features that lets the MX440 out-grunt the Ti200 in several benchmarks, despite having half the pipelines.

Price

Oh yeah, AND it's cheaper....

....what you waiting for? Go and buy one already - I doubt you could be dissapointed with an MX440 ( unless you're rich enough to be used to a Ti500 ;) ).

But wait!!

"...I thought the the Ti200 has vertex and pixel shaders, and the MX440 doesn't? Hah - so the Ti200 is the more future proof card!"

OK, let me ask you some questions:
How many games require pixel shaders?
0
How many games coming out in the next 6 months will require pixel shaders?
0
OK, so how many games coming out in the next YEAR will require pixel shaders?
0

Even DOOMIII will work on an MX440 - so why is the Ti200 more 'future proof'. Yes, it does offer better realism through pixel shaders - but exactly how many games do you play that use that? 3DMark, BTW, is NOT a game - even the Pro version.

And in 18 to 24 months time when they DO become a necessity, guess what? The dude that bought the MX440 will have that cash left over from savings ( they're cheaper, remember ) - so he can go upgrade to a cheap Ti4200 or something....


Sure, but that's MX440 vs Ti200 you say. Well - you said the MX440 is practically a GeForce2. I just showed the MX440 is better than a Ti200. So now you get to show that GeForce2's 0wn Ti200's......

$0.04 :D ;)

[swiftynz]

omg...

PH34R 7H3 R4N7 5KI11Z 0F T3H KJ!!

:D

[SilverPriest]

^^^
What he said.
We need a compression utility to make those rants smaller...
.KJ perhaps?
U got a point KJ.
But i am proud to say, the owner of my old GF2 Ti managed to squeeze 6099 3dmarks in 2k1SE out of it :D
Heavily oced P4 Northwood and ti@300/535 or more, i forget.
heeheehee.
On a somewhat related note about vid card longevity, anyone have any concrete info as to the specs to run Doom3?
Even mildly jello-ish specs would be good :D

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by SilverPriest
[B
Even mildly jello-ish specs would be good :D [/B]



All I've heard is that Doom 3 is optimised for GF3 cards. There will be a Linux version aswell - that's all I know about requirements tho......

The background music has been created by Trent Zeznor (Nine Inch Nails) so the music should rock hard.



Oh, and KJ: DAMN - now that's a rant. :p

[KingJackal]

:o What? :p

Doom III will run on a GeForce2. It will probably render frames on an MX200 - but I doubt the min. specs will be anything like that. Here are my ( completely guessed specs ) - feel free to join in the guessing game :D:

Min Specs

nVIDIA GeForce2 GTS, GeForce4 MX440, ATi Radeon DDR
Intel PIII-800, Celeron 900, AMD Athlon 800, Duron 900
196MB of RAM

Reccomended Specs
nVIDIA GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, ATi Radeon 8500LE
Intel PIII-1GHz, Celeron 1.1GHz, AMD Athlon 1GHz, Duron 1.1GHz
256MB of RAM

High-End Specs
nVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600, ATi Radeon 8500
Intel P4, AMD Athlon XP
512MB of RAM

:confused: :confused:

[S.T.U.]

Yea thats the Pixelview card... it only cost me $100 as i sold my old MX for $100....

i got another 1500 3dmarks stragith away with no overclocking so thats no to bad for a celeron system. Would ahve got alot more with a P4 or DDR amd system..... but it does what i need.

IMHO it was $100 well spent....

[Hans]

Yeah, KJ, I agree with u on that GF4MX and Ti issue. That's why u don't see me slaming on GF4MX cards in the reviews, although MX-460 isn't worth the money.

MX-440 would provide enough power for most of the home owners. Remember that not eveyone own a 19"+ monitor. The majority of the users have a 17" or less monitor. For that size, the "optimal" resolution would be 1024*768 or less.

The MX-440 would prob be fine for that sort of resolution. Also, a Ti-4200 costs 50% more than a MX-440. Not everyone could afford that.

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

I agree KJ from all Interviews I have read with the id team they are all pointing in that direction as far as specs.

As for GF3 vs GF4 MX...

As far as Doom3 is concerned I think we have all read the John Carmack rant (scratch I mean interview). Of course the MX is going to beat the Ti 200 in alot of ways if it didn't who would get one? As for the the missing features it's like KJ says, who can use them, it also the same with 128MB ram, maybe it future proofing maybe it's a waste of money.... it's a gamble we all take when buying hardware. I'm getting a Ti 200 not because I believe it ownz MXs but because I am getting it from SySteM, since he has upgraded to a GF4 Ti. I think it should certainly do me for a while at least until the GF4 Ti's come down in price.

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Hans
Yeah, KJ, I agree with u on that GF4MX and Ti issue. That's why u don't see me slaming on GF4MX cards in the reviews, although MX-460 isn't worth the money.


GeForce4 MX440 - $270-$300 ish
GeForce4 MX460 - $380-$400 ish
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB - $430-$450 ish

Yeah - the MX460 cards seem a little strange. They're obviously faster than the MX440's, but not by a lot. They DO however cost a lot more. VERY almost Ti4200 prices.

While those on a budget can't afford the extra 30%-40% between MX440 and Ti4200, they almost certainely can afford the 10% ( or less :eek: ) difference between an MX460 and a 64MB Ti4200 - and they should do so ( obviously if they're in that budget bracket ).

Those on a budget that can't stretch to a Ti4200 64MB would be far, far better off buying an MX440 and spending the $100 change on a good game to show off their new card ;).

It makes even less sense to us overclockers that realise that the speed difference between the overclocked cards will be less still..... :confused:

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by KingJackal
:o What? :p

Doom III will run on a GeForce2. It will probably render frames on an MX200 - but I doubt the min. specs will be anything like that. Here are my ( completely guessed specs ) - feel free to join in the guessing game :D:





Yeah, it will run on a GF2 (I never said it wouldn't) but it is optimised for a GF3 apparently.

I got my Doom 3 info from: http://d3network.daddeln.de/index_eng.php?site=faq_eng

[DexTeRiTy]

Originally posted by Viper_NZ
I don't think you guys are seeing this quite right....

As long as the image quality isn't a problem........

$310!!!!!! I paid an extra $200 JUST TO GET 1 extra measly ns out of the ram!!! $310 will get you an MX440..... It's a damn good price and a damn good deal..

If it was 4ns ram it would be incredible... But surely something had to go...

too true man
it would be well worth it for $310. i jus got the gainward 64mb ti4200 and it pretty dam mint! :D

[Geek4Life]

Nice rant KJ. :cool:

On a somewhat related note about vid card longevity, anyone have any concrete info as to the specs to run Doom3?
I dunno, but the other day I tried JK2 on this box. A celery 900 with 128MB of ram (8 of that shared for video :(). I could hardly navigate a menu, let alone play the game. ;)

[Geek4Life]

Originally posted by KingJackal


GeForce4 MX440 - $270-$300 ish
GeForce4 MX460 - $380-$400 ish
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB - $430-$450 ish

Yeah - the MX460 cards seem a little strange. They're obviously faster than the MX440's, but not by a lot. They DO however cost a lot more. VERY almost Ti4200 prices.

While those on a budget can't afford the extra 30%-40% between MX440 and Ti4200, they almost certainely can afford the 10% ( or less :eek: ) difference between an MX460 and a 64MB Ti4200 - and they should do so ( obviously if they're in that budget bracket ).

Those on a budget that can't stretch to a Ti4200 64MB would be far, far better off buying an MX440 and spending the $100 change on a good game to show off their new card ;).

It makes even less sense to us overclockers that realise that the speed difference between the overclocked cards will be less still..... :confused:

Micro Star GeForce4 MX460, 64MB, DDR, TV-Out, Dual Head (Retail Box) for $312.75 here (http://www.e-one.co.nz/New&Special.htm).

[Lycan]

64MB has 3.5ns
128MB has 4ns

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Geek4Life
Micro Star GeForce4 MX460, 64MB, DDR, TV-Out, Dual Head (Retail Box) for $312.75 here (http://www.e-one.co.nz/New&Special.htm).

FFS!!!!

Will you people STOP quoting EX GST figures? Geeezzz..... :rolleyes:

That card is $312 EX GST
+ $14 freight
= $326.75
+ 12.5% GST
= $368

Call it $370 - and ooo look, it's almost within the price range I specified ( even as a special ). :eek:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Geek4Life]

Originally posted by KingJackal


FFS!!!!

Will you people STOP quoting EX GST figures? Geeezzz..... :rolleyes:

That card is $312 EX GST
+ $14 freight
= $326.75
+ 12.5% GST
= $368

Call it $370 - and ooo look, it's almost within the price range I specified ( even as a special ). :eek:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
ummm KJ "Micro Star GeForce4 MX460, 64MB, DDR, TV-Out, Dual Head (Retail Box) $278 + GST"

I already added the GST to it because it is a pain in the arse when prices are GST exclusive. But I did not think of the shipping, I shall try and remember next time, oh great one.

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by KingJackal


That card is $312 EX GST
+ $14 freight
= $326.75
+ 12.5% GST
= $368




*Pedantic*
I think it's more like this:
$312 + GST
= $351
+ $14 freight
= $365


When I've had things shipped to me before that's how the price was worked out anyway.
*Pedantic*

[KingJackal]

woops - sorry. But yeah, freight is GST exclusive as well.

That's almost getting close to a reasonable price. But I hardly think a sale price counts when my above quoted prices were ALL standard retail.

After all, if you can find that cheaper, then I should be able to find an MX440 and a Ti4200 cheaper....

[Humantuckshop]

Let's get back to the real question tho, which is of course: Who the hell would actually buy a SPARK?


Can't find any reviews on them, the RAM is 5ns.... [insert rant]

I think I would go for teh Leadtek personally........

[Ragnor]

In response to the rants earlier......

1) If you're broke at the moment..
and 2) You have a TNT M64 or SDR GF2-mx 200 or worse
and 3) You urgently need to play a new game like Jedi Knight..

Then and only then you might consider a gf4-mx or gf3 ti200...Radeon 8500le too (edit or a dodgy non name gf4 ti4200 with 5ns ram)

Unless that's your situation you're a fool to be even thinking of getting a gf4-mx or gf3 ti200.. you should be saving up and complaining about how you don't have enough money for a GF4 Ti 4200 yet..!

Anyway I agree with KJ on most of his points about the GF4-MX

However... I still believe the Gf3 Ti200 is superior due to it's overclockability (gainward's oc beyond Ti500 level) and future proofing, you forgot hardware bump mapping and unreal tournament 2003 is coming out this year, not too mention games like Serious Sam II which has been out for months uses the advanced features. There are more but I can't be damned making a list

A gf3 Ti 200 is going to perform better then a gf4-mx in DoomIII and an unreal2003.. of course gf3's cost more and hell you shouldn't be considering such an intermediary step unless you're got a a really crap current card and are completely broke.

But GF4-MX vs GF3 Ti200 is all irelevant....Now that the GF4 TI4200 is out dammit

[Geek4Life]

Yeah, I'd go for the leadtek as well.

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

ditto

I prefer a brand which has been around more than 2 seconds. lol

[SySteM]

it inclu GST already :)

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Ragnor
In response to the rants earlier......

1) If you're broke at the moment..
and 2) You have a TNT M64 or SDR GF2-mx 200 or worse
and 3) You urgently need to play a new game like Jedi Knight..

Then and only then you might consider a gf4-mx or gf3 ti200...Radeon 8500le too (edit or a dodgy non name gf4 ti4200 with 5ns ram)

Thing is, there are an awfull lot of people in exactly that boat. I've already bought two GeForce4 MX440's for mates - cos they were both in exactly that boat. Hell, I almost bought one myself ( and would do if I didn't think I could get the cash for a Ti4200 ).

In my case the rest of my system is OK ( 1.4ish TBird, 512MB DDR ) - so I'm just GPU limited, and can spend every last cent on a video card, and still get the best bang for my buck. But a dual-out MX440 had me veeerrry tempted. Only NOBODY in New Zealand appears to sell the darn things :confused: :(. So I eventually gave up in the face of international postage.

Still, the MX440 cards I bought for mates have impressed me immensely. Especially given their price bracket is as close to a GeForce2 Ti as it is to a GeForce3 Ti200.

....and BTW, re: Ti200 OCs, I've seen a LOT of very impressive % OCs on MX440s.... ;)

[Volodkovich]

ohh stop going on about pathetic Nvidia cards, everyone knows r8500's whoop dem...and just wait til the r300s come out...remmeber the Doom ]|[ demo at E3 was run on one...
I think thats it is funny how a r8500 can keep up with a ti4600 in games like JediKnight 2. All considering they were designed to compete with the GF3s. There drivers have come up alot now. Shame they couldnt have done that when it mattered, and the GF4's werent out. If you look now, they absolutely maim GF3's. They should in the specs be able to maim most GF4's.
I like ATi because they come up with alot more inovative hardware. I wont mention there ****ty drivers tho:D. A GF4 is basically a GF3 on steroids and what Nvidia do it come up with faster clocked chips, but generally dont try n e thing new...im getting a 128mb r8500 soon, because i know that they will get faster, and i think they will eb better for games such as DOOM ]|[.

bwahahaha, my thoughts n e way..wot u think? n e of u guys like the r8500? i betta not be the only one here rooting for them....

[Humantuckshop]

Sure the 8500 is a respectable card, but if given the choice between that and say, a Leadtek GF4 Ti4600 I would take the Ti4600 without a second thought, you'd have to be a fool not to.
I doubt that the 8500 will be better than GF4's for DOOM 3. I don't really understand your 'A GF4 is basically a GF3 on steroids' call either........ I could say then that a GF3 is a GF2 on steroids............

[TooMuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by KingJackal


<snip>

But wait!!

"...I thought the the Ti200 has vertex and pixel shaders, and the MX440 doesn't? Hah - so the Ti200 is the more future proof card!"

OK, let me ask you some questions:
How many games require pixel shaders?
0
How many games coming out in the next 6 months will require pixel shaders?
0
OK, so how many games coming out in the next YEAR will require pixel shaders?
0
<snip>
Hi KingJackal, I am playing morrowind right now and it supports pixel shading (even if my card cannot!)
http://idrinktoomuchespressoand.ismoketoomuch.com/pixel_shading_today.jpg
I haven't seen it talked about a lot in NZ, so I thought I'd jump in here and recommend you all check it out if you have not yet heard of it. (see my thread in the games forum (http://forums.overclockers.co.nz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190))
Its a great way to push that high performance system to the limit.

:D

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

Originally posted by Volodkovich
ohh stop going on about pathetic Nvidia cards, everyone knows r8500's whoop dem...and just wait til the r300s come out...remmeber the Doom ]|[ demo at E3 was run on one...
I think thats it is funny how a r8500 can keep up with a ti4600 in games like JediKnight 2. All considering they were designed to compete with the GF3s. There drivers have come up alot now. Shame they couldnt have done that when it mattered, and the GF4's werent out. If you look now, they absolutely maim GF3's. They should in the specs be able to maim most GF4's.
I like ATi because they come up with alot more inovative hardware. I wont mention there ****ty drivers tho:D. A GF4 is basically a GF3 on steroids and what Nvidia do it come up with faster clocked chips, but generally dont try n e thing new...im getting a 128mb r8500 soon, because i know that they will get faster, and i think they will eb better for games such as DOOM ]|[.

bwahahaha, my thoughts n e way..wot u think? n e of u guys like the r8500? i betta not be the only one here rooting for them....

I'd personally like a link showing that they used a r8500 for the demo at E3.
I take it you have read John Carmacks interview a couple of months ago in which he stated his preference for nVidia cards, with better drivers (he had problems with the 8500 ones), better support from the dev team. From what he was saying it seemed very clear that the D3 engine has been fully optimised for the nVidia chips.
This is however not to say that the ATI cards are not good, because they are good. Unfortunately they (ATI) are not at present keeping up with nVidia, although they do seem to be slowly closing the gap with each release of new cards. It's a pity that it is taking them so long to release the r300/r350 range, as the longer it takes the harder it is to gain market share (peolpe are already buying GF4 Ti's).

[MrThc]

I had a Radeon 8500, it absolutlely rocked in 3DMark2001, and Q3 timedemo.. but when it came to playing any games it always lagged out. 20-30 fps in MOH vs 200+ fps with my G3 Ti200, and most other games were unplayable.. I had nothing but problems with it, so I moved on to a Ti200 which ran sweet in every game.. im currently running a Gainward Ti4200 64Mb until I get my new Leadtek Ti4400 on wednesday :D

[Kryten]

The demo at E3 ran on a P4 and ATI's next generation card, not the 8500. And, they've admitted, "raw" drivers (as in, built for Doom 3, not Windows :) )

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by MrThc
I had a Radeon 8500, it absolutlely rocked in 3DMark2001, and Q3 timedemo.. but when it came to playing any games it always lagged out. 20-30 fps in MOH vs 200+ fps with my G3 Ti200, and most other games were unplayable.. I had nothing but problems with it, so I moved on to a Ti200 which ran sweet in every game.. im currently running a Gainward Ti4200 64Mb until I get my new Leadtek Ti4400 on wednesday :D


Damn that's pathetic! What drivers were you using?

[Gh0s7 L3mUr]

Originally posted by Kryten
The demo at E3 ran on a P4 and ATI's next generation card, not the 8500. And, they've admitted, "raw" drivers (as in, built for Doom 3, not Windows :) )

I wonder how much ATI paid for that privilege?
Has anyone heard any release dates for the next gen ATI cards?

[Sydog]

Whats the point getting a Ati when you can pay less and get better performance.

[KingJackal]

Hi KingJackal, I am playing morrowind right now and it supports pixel shading (even if my card cannot!)

Hi! :) Yes, though you may not have noticed that I was asking about games that REQUIRE pixel shaders. Not games that just use them to make water and hills a little prettier. So the tallies still stand at 0:0:0 ;).

ohh stop going on about pathetic Nvidia cards, everyone knows r8500's whoop dem...and just wait til the r300s come out...remmeber the Doom ]|[ demo at E3 was run on one...
I think thats it is funny how a r8500 can keep up with a ti4600 in games like JediKnight 2. All considering they were designed to compete with the GF3s. There drivers have come up alot now. Shame they couldnt have done that when it mattered, and the GF4's werent out. If you look now, they absolutely maim GF3's. They should in the specs be able to maim most GF4's.
I like ATi because they come up with alot more inovative hardware. I wont mention there ****ty drivers tho. A GF4 is basically a GF3 on steroids and what Nvidia do it come up with faster clocked chips, but generally dont try n e thing new...im getting a 128mb r8500 soon, because i know that they will get faster, and i think they will eb better for games such as DOOM ]|[.

OMG!! HAHAHAHAHAAA - where to start?

R300 vs NV30?

The DoomIII demo was run on an ATi R300 card because it was the best thing they could get. However, note that at the time, they hadn't tried an NV30 card ( nVIDIA haven't been working on their card as long as ATi ). So the ATi R300 card was only faster because it could beat a GeForce4 Ti - and I would hope so!

This is backed up by this slightly older quote from John Carmack:
It [The ATI card used] was compared against a very high speed GF4. It shouldn't be surprising that a next-generation card is faster than a current generation card. What will be very interesting is comparing the next gen cards (and the supporting drivers) from both vendors head to head when they are both in production.

Everyone working on DOOM still uses GF4-Ti cards at the moment, and if someone needs to buy a new video card today, that is what I tell them to get.

Radeon 8500 vs GeForce4 Ti in Doom III

Consider this very recent quote from John Carmack:

Other people have outlined the issues in detail in comments already, but the crux is that, even with driver quality removed from the discussion (not counting conformance issues, running at fill limited resolutions), GF4 hardware is still faster than 8500 hardware on basically everything I tested. The 8500 SHOULD have been faster on paper, but isn't in real life.
And as for where else nVIDIA's drivers mean ATi aren't even in the running:
Unrelated linux note: yes, there will almost certainly be a linux binary for the game. It will probably only work on the nvidia drivers initially, but I will assist any project attempting to get the necessary driver support on on other cards.
:rolleyes: nVIDIA 0wnz again :rolleyes:

JK2 Benchmarks

So - the R8500 keeps up with the Ti4600's aye? ONLY WITH A SLOWER CPU.

You see, JK2 is incredibly CPU limited. Hell - the Ti500's do a good job keeping up with the Ti4600's in that game. I know this page doesn't show an R8500 - but look at the scores!! Even the Ti4200 and Ti500 are within a frame of the Ti4600:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1619&p=9

...also note how Anand mentions the fact that this benchmark is CPU limited.

So if you want to talk about how fast an R8500 is, I suggest you choose a measure of performance that looks at the CARD, not the CPU ;).

Oh yeah - and those incredible CPU limited score were done on a slow, old, growing moldy AMD Athlon XP 2100+!! :eek:

[Volodkovich]

ok, i never said a r8500 is faster than a GF4, i said they should be!...and also i said a GF4 is basically a GF3 on steriods because if you look at the technology in them, theres nothing really new...just an upped clock...and another vertex shader - heres some proof from tomshardware


Actually, the GeForce4 Ti isn't really a new design either, technologically speaking. It builds on the strengths of the GeForce3 design (code name NV20), adding a second vertex shader and implementing numerous design tweaks. The largest part of its performance gain over the GeForce3 stems from higher memory and chip clock speeds.


Also, i never said they were using a r8500 in Doom]|[ at E3, i said they were using a r300, and yes, they will be equal to a NV30, but have u seen a working NV30? hmm, i think not...

Also, i said im gonna get one soon coz they will be fast in the future, and they also OC pretty well...think easy volt mods...
I said they will be fast in Doom ]|[ because of how many pixels per clock they can do - 64 vs. 20 of the GF4. Because of the they should be faster than GF4. Im not saying they are like everyone thinks i was...
Half of the problem with forums is ppl assume things and blame me for what i didnt say!

[SilverPriest]

heres some proof from tomshardware
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm sorry, bout take everything THG says with a large bucket of salt.
There are very large design differences between the gf3 and gf4.
The gf4's have way better memory controllers, and so many design changes it aint funny.
They are improving on an existing design yes, but so does everything else in the computing world.
Bah, i am ranting again.
The proof, will be in the pudding boys and girls.
It's fun to speculate on the reqs for Doom3, but i for one am not going to bother ;)

[Volodkovich]

exactly, all they are is a beefed up GF3. The memory controllers and design are beefed up aswell.

[KingJackal]

So do I now get to say that I KNOW a GeForce4 is a speed bumped GeForce3 ( apart from new FSAA implementations, more shader units, dual RAMDACs, onboard RAMDACs, etc etc ), I KNOW the R8500 can do more texels, and I KNOW they SHOULD be faster - and would you stop assuming things and blaming me for what i didnt say!

hehehhee :D

Yeah - I know, my post was also half directed at a few other people. A few people thought you said an R8500 was used in DOOMIII, which you clearly didn't say, etc, etc.

Just a few points though:

I don't think the R8500 does render that many pixels per clock compared to the GeForce4. I think you mean TEXELS - cos the R8500 supports 7 textures per pass, while I think the GeForce4 does 3 off the top of my head.

The Radeon SHOULD be faster yes, but SHOULD means nothing. OK, so ATi's drivers are improving - but so are nVIDIA's. I have yet to find a SINGLE game in which the GeForce4's I've used have so much as ONE even niggling issue.

They're fast - every time.
They render everything properly - every time.
They, just.... work - every time.

Radeon's seem to require a lot more tweaking. You've gotta dig deaper into optimisations and hacks to get things to fly as sweetly. And even with [H]ard tweaking, you're still running ATi drivers - and the GeForce4 cards still win out. Not to mention their tendancy to be fast in only 3DMark and Quake3...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Benchmark w[H]0ring anyone?

LOL - and would you believe my rig has a Radeon 7500 ATM? :D Haha - so am I an ATi w[H]0r3? hehehehe :D :D :cool:

[Volodkovich]

well, im getting a r8500 and seeing how high i can get it with a few pelts...i think i'll be able to get it pretty high, but im still not exactly sure, i mean i can get a ti4400 for the same price as a 128mb r8500...and im still contemplating what to get..

[MrThc]

Originally posted by Humantuckshop



Damn that's pathetic! What drivers were you using?


It didnt matter what drivers I used, 6011, 6014, 6015, 6018, 6025, 6032 all ran equally as crap as each other.. the benchmarks I ran all gave excellent scores, but visual quality didnt seem that great.. and as I said before, actual gaming just sucked :(.. BTW. it was a genuine ATI card not a Gigabyte, Joytech or other OEM brand

[TooMuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by KingJackal


Hi! :) Yes, though you may not have noticed that I was asking about games that REQUIRE pixel shaders.


Righto... my bad.
Can you see a software developer backing themselves into a corner and pushing out a pixel shader only title ? I don't think so.
Its only going to limit their potential market, Sure it could be done, but they will be better off offering a title that supports it as opposed to requiring it. (or at least have the ability run without pixel shading for the vast majority of casual gamers that have cards not capable of pixel shading)

also, MORROWIND MORROWIND MORROWIND. :D

[Genesis]

Originally posted by MrThc
I had a Radeon 8500, it absolutlely rocked in 3DMark2001, and Q3 timedemo.. but when it came to playing any games it always lagged out. 20-30 fps in MOH vs 200+ fps with my G3 Ti200, and most other games were unplayable.. I had nothing but problems with it, so I moved on to a Ti200 which ran sweet in every game.. im currently running a Gainward Ti4200 64Mb until I get my new Leadtek Ti4400 on wednesday :D

Sounds like tome that you've got money to burn bro :o

[paul rhee]

MrThc.. the most improved ATI driver is 6071.. sadly u missed it.. i've been through from the very first w98 driver for radeon throught now.. and i definitly can say that this is the one! sadly u turned into the dark side.. (not!) and not to mention that ATI needs some taming.. lets get back to the topic, i guess we will see more of those generic-tic ti4200. and if the price goes down a bit, then i think it would be worthwhile purchase.. just imagine their picture quality tho!

[Viper_NZ]

There were those articles going through the likes of HardOCP where ATi where killing visual quality in Quake 3 to increase their frame rates... Sounds from the above posts that they're still doing it...

After my experiences with ATi's drivers, there is no way you will catch me with an ATi card in my rig until they sort their stuff out. Hell, they're like S3 but with good hardware ;)

[Volodkovich]

yea, that was in the older drivers tho, now they have apparently sorted it out....i think ATi need a MAJOR upgrade in the Driver department...u wouldda thought a company as big as ATi would be able to have satisfactory drivers....

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by Viper_NZ
There were those articles going through the likes of HardOCP where ATi where killing visual quality in Quake 3 to increase their frame rates... Sounds from the above posts that they're still doing it...

Thankfully it was exposed and PUMPED, because no company likes that much pressure bad press.

Within a VERY short time frame ( a week or so, IIRC ), ATi released new drivers that sorted those texture filtering issues. AND provided slightly better performance. So it turns out they didn't NEED the boost, though it certainely was an embarassing mistake.

And yes, anisotropic texture filtering implementation is still very different between ATi and nVIDIA cards. Though both are easily acceptable, so it's stayed out of the limelight.

[Ragnor]

Originally posted by KingJackal
Hi! :) Yes, though you may not have noticed that I was asking about games that REQUIRE pixel shaders. Not games that just use them to make water and hills a little prettier. So the tallies still stand at 0:0:0 ;).

Well of course no game is going to REQUIRE pixel shaders.. not many games REQUIRE 32bit color depth, hardware TNL.. etc either... but they look a hell of alot better with those features..

Trust me, in morrowind you spend alot of time running from here to there (running in morrowind is painfully slow), you're gonna see alot of water and hills and damn they look good pixel shaded.

There's a growing list of games, that might not REQUIRE these features.. but they take a step up in quality when they are used..