• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

64MB & 128MB, any big difference?

H

holyghost

Member
This is an update 2 my earlier post/question. I finally found the Ti4200 but it comes in 64MB & 128MB version. The price difference is 100 dollars so am wondering is it worth to pay the additional 100 dollars to get the 128MB version? Btw, am using an AMD XP1800 if you r wondering. So will there b a big difference in using the 64MB & the 128MB on my pc?
 
Originally posted by: holyghost
This is an update 2 my earlier post/question. I finally found the Ti4200 but it comes in 64MB & 128MB version. The price difference is 100 dollars so am wondering is it worth to pay the additional 100 dollars to get the 128MB version? Btw, am using an AMD XP1800 if you r wondering. So will there b a big difference in using the 64MB & the 128MB on my pc?
Click to expand...

are u in the US? 128 mb ti4200 should be in the $100 range
 
Shady06, nop. am not in the us. I am in Malaysia. The price difference for the 64MB & 128MB is 100 Malaysia Ringgit.
 
In some games the difference would be notable but in others you wouldn't see a difference. It basically depends on what games you play the most.
 
wkabel23, I play almost all sorts of games. FPS, RPG, Strategies & simulations. The most recent I'm playing is COD, Tron 2.0, NFS Underground & etc. So would it be worth the additional 100 bucks to get the 128MB?
 
at the moment not much difference . but if you can get ati 9500 pro ,9600 pro for around the same price or a little bit more buy it right away because geforce 4 ti 4200 won't last when half life 2 or more directx 9 games comes out in a few months. 9500 pro ,9600 pro are upto 3 times faster with aa and af ,it will also last you much longer than any gerforce 4 ti series not to mention ati has better image quality
 
cindy22, u got a point there. What I can find is a Gigabyte radeon 9500 running at 275Mhz core clock with 64MB. Would it b sufficient & better than the Ti4200?
 
Originally posted by: holyghost
cindy22, u got a point there. What I can find is a Gigabyte radeon 9500 running at 275Mhz core clock with 64MB. Would it b sufficient & better than the Ti4200?
Click to expand...

The Ti would run faster than a regular 9500. I would imagine. Not unless we want to get into a silly argument over - over clocking - and 2x AF.

According to tom's benchmarks between the Ti4200 64 MB and the Ti4200 128 MB in a game like unreal tournament 2003, the 64MB actually comes out on top by a negligible amount. Check the performance charts out for yourself: Here. This could be caused by more factors then just having more or less ram(like the speed or quality of the ram), but in the end, just having more ram doesn't make much of a difference on current day cards with present day games. So, no, as of right now, a Ti4200 64 MB would be just fine.

 
Regs, then what about the directx 9 issue which cindy mentioned? Will the Ti4200 face problem running Directx 9 games such as HalfLife 2?
 
Originally posted by: holyghost
Regs, then what about the directx 9 issue which cindy mentioned? Will the Ti4200 face problem running Directx 9 games such as HalfLife 2?
Click to expand...

You're thinking about half life 2? Join the crowd. I'm having doubt's my 9800 will run that game well at this point in all honesty. That game is 4 months away, and that's if they don't push it back yet another month or two. I just pretend that the game never got announced yet, but that's just me.

A Ti4 performed terrifically on Max Payne 2, which was supposedly a DX9 game. I have no idea what graphical features where cut out on the non-dx9 cards, but if there where any, it was very little. But Half life 2 will likely be a lot more demanding than Max Payne 2 ever will. Problem is, you will need a card that will both handle DX9, and handle it well. Saying a 9600XT will perform well for Half Life 2 is just too early to tell. So your stuck taking a gamble. If you want to play DX9 games at their fullest with good quality and framerates, expect to pay top dollar.

As of right now, I can see your budget is mid-range. So it makes sense for me to recommend a Ti4 with 64 Megs in your situation.

Edit: If you can get a 9600xt with 128 Megs for around the same price - go for it. However, a 9500 would not solve your problems.
 
128MB is the standard right now. I think it is very needed. Especially for the type of games you play. You might want to think about a 9600 Pro instead. I think it's a better buy.

As far as Image Quality, everything is kind of similar right now between all cards.

Half-Life 2 will run on DX8.1 on a Ti 4200.

If you get a Ti 4200 64MB - be warned your days are numbered, say goodbye to anything Hi-res and don't even think about Anti-aliasing or Anistropic Filtering, and expect to lower all the settings on your games to be able to play them and decent frame rates.

You're better off with the 9600 Pro, which is very inexpensive, 150 US dollars. Its sweet.
 
Well, yeah Vian. Only problem is he is not in the US. If he can afford a 9600p, then hell, that would of made this thread much easier. But considering he had to think twice spending some extra cash for another 64 Megs, I thought he was limited.
 
Yup, believe it or not. The 9600 Pro is 200 - 300 more than the Ti4200 128MB depending on the brand. I really wonder why it cost so much here. It really is sucking us dry.
 
Max Payne 2 is a D3D8 game with DX9 compatability, meaning the game has only "DX8-level" graphics and the devs weren't willing to take the time and money to ensure it was also perfectly compatible with DX8 (and thus also field DX8 support calls).

A difference of $100 means nothing to me unless you give me the cost of each card. Are we talking $100 vs. $200, $200 vs. $300, or $100 vs. $300? I wouldn't go below 128MB nowadays, but if your budget is tight you can live with 64MB and lower texture quality.
 
Thats why money conversions exist, because what has a value there is worth the same here. Its not like 150 is something easy to get either. for me, that would take 2 weeks of work. 130 a week. eh How much does your 9800 XT. how bout we compare that, that must be like 1000 there, so technically he is still getting a good deal with the 9600 Pro.
 
I would be hesitant to buy a 64MB card at this stage, unless it was used and I got a really good deal on it.

If you?re on a tight budget and want a 128MB card, you might check out the 9100s, they are a little slower than 4200?s but are a pretty decent card and here in Canada they are much cheaper than 4200?s. 128MB 4200?s run about $190 whereas the 128MB 9100?s run a bout $105.
 
128 MB is the compulsory minimum these days. If you go lower you'll find you'll get severe performance drops at times in the vast majority of games made in the last three years or so.

For 38 bucks it's definitely worth it.
 
depends on theuser really. do you upgrade your vid card every year?? if so just get the 64MB version. if you don't upgrade as often, get the 128MB version. ti4200 takes too much performance hit in AA/AF so having more ram just to run AA/AF is retarded. but certain games higher texture in more higher res. sure. maybe.
 
See, so the 9600 Pro or XT is still a bargain at a fourth of the XT's price and half of the Pro's price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top