4200 vs 8500

[klmico]

Here's my little problem. I got an 8500 from newegg for 99 a few months back but now I realize that a DVI to VGA adaptor will not work on it and I want to use dual monitors. Now I'm planning on switching to a 4200 so I can use that nast little plug in. I hope to be able to sell my old 8500 for about 75 or so. Would it be worth it to make this switch? Dual monitors isn't a neccesity for me but I would love to have this feature. Also, if I do decide to switch to a 4200, how long would this card last me compared to my 8500?

 

[klmico]

anyone?

 

[stevens]

Well if you really want dual monitor you could just keep the 8500 and get a cheap pci video card. The ti4200 is a little faster than the 8500 but you can get the gainward ti4200 with 3.5 ns ddr which will overclock to mear ti4600 speads with stock cooling. I have an 8500 and what i am gonna do i wait till next year when the 9700 is the "budget" card to get and then up grade b/c my 8500 plays all the games that i play fine. The ti4200 will last just as long as the 8500 and imo the 8500 will give better picture quality. You could just email newegg and tell your problem and i think that they would send you a new dvi-vga adapter because they are a very good retailer.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Isn't the prob that the type of DVI port used on the Rad8500 can't handle a DVI-CRT converter? If not then the converter can be bought seperately for $5 or so.

I haven't heard of anybody successfully running an AGP and PCI gfxcard simultaneously to give multi-monitor support, is that what you're suggesting stevens?

GF4TI4200 cards at default clocks are only slightly faster than Rad8500 (except for AA where the GF4 is miles ahead). However the 4200 cards are intentionally under-clocked and most of them (128MB or 64MB) use 4.0ns RAM which nearly always gives an o/c of 300/550 (faster than TI4400), and ANY 4200 using 3.6ns RAM seem to hit 300/620 (TI4600=300/650). In any case if you sell your Rad8500 for $75 that means the upgrade to GF4TI4200 will cost you about an extra $75. You will gain perf (esp AA) and GF4 image quality tend to be as good or better than Radeon cards so you'll only be losing the better TVout of the Radeon, it really comes down to whether or not you believe the perf gain and mulit-monitor support is worth $75. The GF4TI4200 will certainly age better than the Rad8500, but not by much. The 4200 with 128MB of RAM and the GF4TI brand will make a sale easier and more profitable, a big factor is that the new nVidia card won't be called GF5, whereas ATI have already released the Rad9000 to replace the Rad8500. I would suggest waiting and seeing how prices drop, also budget versions of Parhelia and Rad9700 are planned soon, not to mention (or nearly) the new nVidia cards due out Novemeber, even if you don't buy one all other prices should drop.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
Isn't the prob that the type of DVI port used on the Rad8500 can't handle a DVI-CRT converter? If not then the converter can be bought seperately for $5 or so.

I haven't heard of anybody successfully running an AGP and PCI gfxcard simultaneously to give multi-monitor support, is that what you're suggesting stevens?

GF4TI4200 cards at default clocks are only slightly faster than Rad8500 (except for AA where the GF4 is miles ahead). However the 4200 cards are intentionally under-clocked and most of them (128MB or 64MB) use 4.0ns RAM which nearly always gives an o/c of 300/550 (faster than TI4400), and ANY 4200 using 3.6ns RAM seem to hit 300/620 (TI4600=300/650). In any case if you sell your Rad8500 for $75 that means the upgrade to GF4TI4200 will cost you about an extra $75. You will gain perf (esp AA) and GF4 image quality tend to be as good or better than Radeon cards so you'll only be losing the better TVout of the Radeon, it really comes down to whether or not you believe the perf gain and mulit-monitor support is worth $75. The GF4TI4200 will certainly age better than the Rad8500, but not by much. The 4200 with 128MB of RAM and the GF4TI brand will make a sale easier and more profitable, a big factor is that the new nVidia card won't be called GF5, whereas ATI have already released the Rad9000 to replace the Rad8500. I would suggest waiting and seeing how prices drop, also budget versions of Parhelia and Rad9700 are planned soon, not to mention (or nearly) the new nVidia cards due out Novemeber, even if you don't buy one all other prices should drop.

in certain benchmarks the 4200 may seem to be just barely ahead of the 8500. but the 4200 totally owns the 8500 in UT2003 and upcoming games. also the dvi port thing is because he bought an OEM 8500LE that does not have the required 240mhz external ramdac for dual CRT.

klmico you could always sell your crippled 8500LE and buy a different 8500 with both ports active. the switch i think would be worth it if you are going ot use it sometime to either a full 8500 or a 4200 (granted the 4200 isl ike $60 more) . the 4200 probably would last longer but not that much longer, as really they are the same generation of card. when people ask of lasting longer, i could only say somet6hing like

an nv30 would last longer than a geforce2gts, but cards that are closer generations probably not much of a difference since game engines tend to make big jumps when they change.

 

[SickBeast]

In certain benchmarks the 4200 may seem to be just barely ahead of the 8500. but the 4200 totally owns the 8500 in UT2003 and upcoming games.

The 4200 beats the 8500 by 15% with max settings in ut2003. With medium detail, they are tied. I'm willing to sacrifice 15% performance for the immaculate 2d output I get with my 8500 card. Also, I'm sure that if anisotropic filtering was enabled, the 8500 would DESTROY the 4200. And as for AA performance, no currently available card can run with AA at 4X at a high resolution. If you want AA, wait for the 9700 to come on the market.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

In certain benchmarks the 4200 may seem to be just barely ahead of the 8500. but the 4200 totally owns the 8500 in UT2003 and upcoming games.

The 4200 beats the 8500 by 15% with max settings in ut2003. With medium detail, they are tied. I'm willing to sacrifice 15% performance for the immaculate 2d output I get with my 8500 card. Also, I'm sure that if anisotropic filtering was enabled, the 8500 would DESTROY the 4200. And as for AA performance, no currently available card can run with AA at 4X at a high resolution. If you want AA, wait for the 9700 to come on the market.

on the dm antalus benches its like 15% but on the dm asbestos the ti4200 wins by about 50% the ti200 gf3 is even faster on that map . 50% is "ownage"

 

[Rand]

In certain benchmarks the 4200 may seem to be just barely ahead of the 8500. but the 4200 totally owns the 8500 in UT2003 and upcoming games.

UT2003 is hardly representative of the majority of upcoming games though, it's already been revealed that Epic's specifically optimized UT2003 for nVidia based graphics cards.
UT2003 is representative of one thing and one thing only... UT2003, itself. I doubt it's terribly representative of other games based on the same engine, and it certainly isnt terribly representative of entirely different upcoming games.

 

[rbV5]

I haven't heard of anybody successfully running an AGP and PCI gfxcard simultaneously to give multi-monitor support, is that what you're suggesting stevens?

Really? I've used AGP + PCI for multi-monitor support many times, and it works very well. It's supported in all modern OS's to some degree or another natively.

 

[Kingofcomputer]

try to ask newegg to exchange for another 8500,
they've several different oem 8500 with just few bucks price difference.
only one of them is the one that doesn't allow dvi-to-vga adapter,
you got that one.

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: rbV5

I haven't heard of anybody successfully running an AGP and PCI gfxcard simultaneously to give multi-monitor support, is that what you're suggesting stevens?

Really? I've used AGP + PCI for multi-monitor support many times, and it works very well. It's supported in all modern OS's to some degree or another natively.

As have I, I've seen and used many systems that utilized PCI + AGP for muti-monitor. Hell, the PC I'm typing this on message on is setup to display on two monitors via a PCI and AGP graphics card.

Definitely not as functional or versatile as a true multi-monitor setup driven from one board... even the weakest multi-monitor implementations driven by one card are better, but for basic uses a PCI + AGP method works fine.

It can occasionally be a mild hassle to deal with, but current Windows versions cope with it reasonably well.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well it's nice to know that multi monitor is at least possible with AGP & PCI, I take it WinME, 2000 & XP should all work fine without any additional hw, but what about Win98? A small PC shop prob has loads of old PCI gfx cards the'd be willing to part with one for about $2 I should imagine LOL. Could certainly be the cheapest solution if you want to try out multi monitor stuff, esp since the Rad8500 is undeniably a capable 3D card.

There is no denying that 4200 cards at their defaults (never mind the superb o/c) are faster than the full retail ATI Rad8500. However I never generally rec anybody with a GF3, Rad8500/LE to bother upgrading to GF4TI cards, since they already have excellent 3D and would usually be better off waiting for the new nVidia cards as well as budget versions of Parhelia and Rad9700 along with price drops and concrete info / reviews. When you talk 4200 vs Rad8500/LE it is really apparent that the 4200 is far superior, but the Rad8500/LE cards are usually far cheaper. Aniso is twice as fast on Rad8500 cards, but the quality is twice as good on nVidia cards so it pretty much evens out. '2D' image quality is very even on GF4 and Rad8500 cards, although opinions differ and almost everybody has a little bias, but I don't think the diffs would be perceptible, certainly to the vast majority of us. The GF4 is streets ahead for AA, the Rad8500 takes a huge perf hit, sure 4xAA is pretty hard on the 4200 but 2xAA and QxAA both only cost about 10% hit, the top quality 4xS mode on a 4200 is still faster than a 4xAA mode on a Rad8500, poss even a 2xAA mode. No doubt for AA that the GF4 card is superior. It seems the Rad9700 is excellent in pure perf, technology and AA ... but lets not forget the cards and clocks aren't finalised yet and are still about a months away, also the price tag of $400 puts it in a different league to all cards currently out (the Parhelia only has GF3 3D perf). The new budget version (Rad9500?) should whip 4200's ass, but the same could be said for the new nVidia cards due November, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

klmico, if you really want multi monitor support and don't want to wait a couple of months to see how the market shapes up, then either get a cheap PCI gfx card, exchange your Rad8500 or get a 4200. If it's just as an interest, then I'd suggest waiting a couple of months.

 

[klmico]

Thanks for all the help people, I think I will just wait for the next generation cards to upgrade since dual monitors isn't really a must have for me, I just have a spare 17 in laying around that I could put to good use. Maybe I will try out the cheap pci card thing though...