Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Ti or FX 2
- Thread starter jsevilla
- Start date
I have both cards and can easily tell you that the FX cards are just better equiped to take on future gaming demands...however the TI cards are easily able to handle anything you through at 'em, now!...but will not take advantage of the present and many future gaming developments.
Personally I buy the biggest bang for the fewest bucks as everything computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it. Software, however takes awhile before it can utilize all the advances being made!
Cheers
Personally I buy the biggest bang for the fewest bucks as everything computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it. Software, however takes awhile before it can utilize all the advances being made!
Cheers
Obviously depends on which Ti and FX cards you are talking about?
Ti's have horsepower and will give you better frame rates compared to the same priced FX card (say a FX5600 compared to a 4200Ti) the Ti fitted to a Nforce2 motherboard and running an XP2.4+ will give you something like 10,500 points in 3DBenchmark 2001SE but the FX5600 will be struggling around 7,000.
On the strenghth of these figures, these similarly priced cards, the Ti has it.
But as jontmke says the older card is not DX9 compatible so won't look as good playing a DX9 game (good frame rates though!!!)
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Ti's have horsepower and will give you better frame rates compared to the same priced FX card (say a FX5600 compared to a 4200Ti) the Ti fitted to a Nforce2 motherboard and running an XP2.4+ will give you something like 10,500 points in 3DBenchmark 2001SE but the FX5600 will be struggling around 7,000.
On the strenghth of these figures, these similarly priced cards, the Ti has it.
But as jontmke says the older card is not DX9 compatible so won't look as good playing a DX9 game (good frame rates though!!!)
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
-
2
- #5
Buy ATI cards, the GeForceFX line is a pile of crap when it comes to DirectX 9 performance.
And I've got an FX5600 so I'm not unfairly biased towards ATI, I just wish I had waited a little bit longer before buying my card.
The new DirectX 9 games developed, Half Life 2, Tomb Raider AOD, and new benchmark software such as AquaMark show extreme faults in the FX chips, so much so that even an Radeon 9600 runs circles around the FX5900 Ultra.
This is just information that's been released in the past week, very bad for nVidia. Bottom line, the FX line is definately not prepared for next generation games.
Here's some reading material:
And I've got an FX5600 so I'm not unfairly biased towards ATI, I just wish I had waited a little bit longer before buying my card.
The new DirectX 9 games developed, Half Life 2, Tomb Raider AOD, and new benchmark software such as AquaMark show extreme faults in the FX chips, so much so that even an Radeon 9600 runs circles around the FX5900 Ultra.
This is just information that's been released in the past week, very bad for nVidia. Bottom line, the FX line is definately not prepared for next generation games.
Here's some reading material:
- Thread starter
- #6
thank you so much for all your insights guys.now i'm seriously looking at getting an ati based vid card after checking out the links provided by dakota81.it's not that i did not enjoy geforce based cards,but just for the sake of trying out ati.
my next inquiry would be: what's the advantage (if there are any,noticable) of a high mem vid card like fx5600 with 256ddr compared to maybe ati 9600pro 128ddr?
my next inquiry would be: what's the advantage (if there are any,noticable) of a high mem vid card like fx5600 with 256ddr compared to maybe ati 9600pro 128ddr?
It's not just the hardware defiencencies that are coming out with nVidia, rumors are also coming out about exactly how nVidia "works with game developers to ensure the games work optimally on nVidia cards."
It's now looking as if that statement means instead, "give money to game developers to ensure the games run poorly on ATI hardware."
Example, if you've ever seen the Tigar Woods 2003 screenshots that show ATI cards improperly rendering the water, that's not a problem with ATI hardware, rather the actual game is built to improperly render the water. I wish I knew where I saw the link talking about it, but can't remember. Basically went like this: you can "fool" the software into thinking there's an nVidia card in the system, and the water looks great on an ATI card. Conversly, you can fool the software into thinking there's an ATI card in the system, and wouldn't you know it the water looked like crap on an nVidia card.
It's now looking as if that statement means instead, "give money to game developers to ensure the games run poorly on ATI hardware."
Example, if you've ever seen the Tigar Woods 2003 screenshots that show ATI cards improperly rendering the water, that's not a problem with ATI hardware, rather the actual game is built to improperly render the water. I wish I knew where I saw the link talking about it, but can't remember. Basically went like this: you can "fool" the software into thinking there's an nVidia card in the system, and the water looks great on an ATI card. Conversly, you can fool the software into thinking there's an ATI card in the system, and wouldn't you know it the water looked like crap on an nVidia card.
There was a test a while ago on digit-life, between 64 and 128 megs ti cards.
Running Unreal Tournament 2003 at maximum details in 1600x1200 4x antialiasing and 8x aniso filtering, the 64 meg cards were FASTER.
That's because, usually, the cards with more ram have slower ram, to keep prices similar.
Therefore there is no need in today's games for 128 megs, let alone 256. Maybe half life2 /doom3 will use that, but since the absolute best graphic card today barely hits the 70 fps mark @1024/768 in hl2, we will have to wait for the next generation to see if they will need that much ram in high resolutions.
Running Unreal Tournament 2003 at maximum details in 1600x1200 4x antialiasing and 8x aniso filtering, the 64 meg cards were FASTER.
That's because, usually, the cards with more ram have slower ram, to keep prices similar.
Therefore there is no need in today's games for 128 megs, let alone 256. Maybe half life2 /doom3 will use that, but since the absolute best graphic card today barely hits the 70 fps mark @1024/768 in hl2, we will have to wait for the next generation to see if they will need that much ram in high resolutions.
I've looked at the benchmarks for ATI vs. NVIDIA and congrats ATI. Also in that article it gives you an actual game screen cross comparison of directx 8, 8.1 and 9. I must say, as an artist, the difference is visually non-existent.
Perhaps they gave us a poor test area or the screen capture didn't do it proper justice...whatever! The last real breakthrough I was witness to was when I took a voodoo card and plopped it into my then new Pentium 200. The improvement in both quality and performance was breathtaking. Since then I've tried GeForce, Voodoo3 and ATI...all impressive but not like my first 3D accelerator.
Now I'm not saying that the new cards aren't worth it or that the advancements haven't been impressive. For me, they just seem to be a variation on a theme...faster frame rates and some added eye-candy. All of which will run today’s games without a hitch but then so does my old GeForce 2 card. Oh, sure I can't run 1600 x 1200 x 32 @ 112 fps but I run 1024 x 768 x 32 @ 50+ fps virtually any game today. They look and run great and I have saved thousands of dollars by upgrading CPU's, ram and motherboards rather than the latest and greatest video cards. Also my overall performance and compatibility has greatly outpaced my friends with lesser pc's with mega-vid cards!
My advice has always been, spend the money if you can afford it...however, look at your basic equipment and make changes there first! Then buy the best video card with your left over change. You'll be further ahead and happier for it! As dakota81 points out the game developers will tweak there wares to fit what the current "majority" video GPU/gamers have...why spend for features that aren't there, enabled or substantially add to your experience!?
Cheers
Perhaps they gave us a poor test area or the screen capture didn't do it proper justice...whatever! The last real breakthrough I was witness to was when I took a voodoo card and plopped it into my then new Pentium 200. The improvement in both quality and performance was breathtaking. Since then I've tried GeForce, Voodoo3 and ATI...all impressive but not like my first 3D accelerator.
Now I'm not saying that the new cards aren't worth it or that the advancements haven't been impressive. For me, they just seem to be a variation on a theme...faster frame rates and some added eye-candy. All of which will run today’s games without a hitch but then so does my old GeForce 2 card. Oh, sure I can't run 1600 x 1200 x 32 @ 112 fps but I run 1024 x 768 x 32 @ 50+ fps virtually any game today. They look and run great and I have saved thousands of dollars by upgrading CPU's, ram and motherboards rather than the latest and greatest video cards. Also my overall performance and compatibility has greatly outpaced my friends with lesser pc's with mega-vid cards!
My advice has always been, spend the money if you can afford it...however, look at your basic equipment and make changes there first! Then buy the best video card with your left over change. You'll be further ahead and happier for it! As dakota81 points out the game developers will tweak there wares to fit what the current "majority" video GPU/gamers have...why spend for features that aren't there, enabled or substantially add to your experience!?
Cheers
- Thread starter
- #12
- Thread starter
- #13
I'll through a spanner in the works and say for less money you could buy a card that will give you a 25-30% better 3D mark than either of these cards : That's substantially higher frame rates:
GF4 4800Ti but not SE
OK, so it's only DX8 compatible, but as braddds points out the refinements in image quality brought about with DX9 are slight.
More horsepower for less money!
Out of your choices: ATI Radeon 9600pro
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
GF4 4800Ti but not SE
OK, so it's only DX8 compatible, but as braddds points out the refinements in image quality brought about with DX9 are slight.
More horsepower for less money!
Out of your choices: ATI Radeon 9600pro
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
dakota81,
Wow! That's a change of heart! For the longest time, you were a stout supporter of Nvidia due to ATI's long history of bad drivers. I couldn't blame before for thinking that way, but since the release of the Radeon 9000+ line of cards, the tides have shifted in ATI's favor no longer plagued by prematurely released drivers.
jsevilla,
It is debatable, but I would have to go against paparazi on this one and lean more in the Radeon's favor. Any DirectX 9 card will pay off soon if you're a gamer - you'll only get the most out of titles like Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 with a DirectX 9 enabled card.
If you don't care about the latest and greatest, then it's perfectly fine to settle for an older GeForce4 Ti card. However, I have a feeling you'd be wishing you didn't less than a year from now.
~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
Wow! That's a change of heart! For the longest time, you were a stout supporter of Nvidia due to ATI's long history of bad drivers. I couldn't blame before for thinking that way, but since the release of the Radeon 9000+ line of cards, the tides have shifted in ATI's favor no longer plagued by prematurely released drivers.
jsevilla,
It is debatable, but I would have to go against paparazi on this one and lean more in the Radeon's favor. Any DirectX 9 card will pay off soon if you're a gamer - you'll only get the most out of titles like Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 with a DirectX 9 enabled card.
If you don't care about the latest and greatest, then it's perfectly fine to settle for an older GeForce4 Ti card. However, I have a feeling you'd be wishing you didn't less than a year from now.
~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
You don't have to feel that your opinion was going against mine cdogg, I was just putting a differant perspective on the debate and agueing that 25-30% higher frame rates have as much visual impact on how a game looks and plays as advances in "eye candy" as braddds so beautifully puts it.
We have a Thermaltake display system in our showroom(XP3gig, Nforce2 400) equipt with a FX5600 running 3DMark 2003 on loop, as you know 2003 is quite demanding and in places you can see slow down, not so with a Leadtek A280 TD (AKA 128mb GF4 4800Ti)
Now I don't know about you but I know which I prefer to look at.
I must admit, my judgement tells me you are right, anyone buying a new card would be a fool to go with the older technology, only thing is, my eyes are telling me a differant story.
Will it be differant with a DX9 game? probably, so going with a Radeon 9600pro does make sense.
Like I say I just like to argue both sides of the story, new technology often comes at a price with negligable gains, older technology can often be had at a bargain price with little in the way of compromises.
One last thing, just had my boss take out his FX5900 ultra after less than 4 weeks, he has gone back to his Radeon 9800pro, ATI rule ?????????
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
We have a Thermaltake display system in our showroom(XP3gig, Nforce2 400) equipt with a FX5600 running 3DMark 2003 on loop, as you know 2003 is quite demanding and in places you can see slow down, not so with a Leadtek A280 TD (AKA 128mb GF4 4800Ti)
Now I don't know about you but I know which I prefer to look at.
I must admit, my judgement tells me you are right, anyone buying a new card would be a fool to go with the older technology, only thing is, my eyes are telling me a differant story.
Will it be differant with a DX9 game? probably, so going with a Radeon 9600pro does make sense.
Like I say I just like to argue both sides of the story, new technology often comes at a price with negligable gains, older technology can often be had at a bargain price with little in the way of compromises.
One last thing, just had my boss take out his FX5900 ultra after less than 4 weeks, he has gone back to his Radeon 9800pro, ATI rule ?????????
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
One last suggestion and going back to slightly older cards being a bargain:
ATI's Radeon 9700pro, these are only 5% or so slower than the latest 9800pro's but can be found at knockdown prices!
In the UK for around £180
And you have DX9 compatibility with around 15,000 points in 3DMark2001SE (with a high end system)
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
ATI's Radeon 9700pro, these are only 5% or so slower than the latest 9800pro's but can be found at knockdown prices!
In the UK for around £180
And you have DX9 compatibility with around 15,000 points in 3DMark2001SE (with a high end system)
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question