Abit Siluro GF4 Ti4200 64mb

[wviperw]

Just bought one from googlegear.com for $117. I know that the R9500Pro is "the" card to get, but it was a bit out of my pricerange. All the cards that were advertised at around $150-160 (the max I was willing to pay) were in reality 9500's w/ 128mb, but NOT pros. The pros were still up around 180+. Oh well, I think the Ti4200 will do me well for awhile. It will hopefully do a little better than my current Savage4 card which got something like a 567 in 3DMark2k1 on my 1ghz Duron.

Plus, I hear the Ti4200's can OC pretty well up to 4400 speeds. Anybody have any experience OC'ing Abit's card?

 

[AnAndAustin]

There's lots of threads on 4200 o/c'ing and most people find 4400 perf easy to achieve BUT there's no guarantees. Even at stock they're still VERY fast though. A 1ghz Duron isn't going to get anywhere near the best from a 4200 although there will of course be a HUGE gain over a Savage, expect about 5000-6000 marks STOCK SPEED (from memory). If your mobo can take one then strongly consider shelling out 60 notes for an XP2000+ type CPU as this will really get the excellent perf from a 4200, like 10000 marks again with everything at STOCK SPEED. Other good ways to increase perf (outside o/c'ing) is to ensure you have DDR (AthlonXP boost about 10% over all perf) and 512MB RAM (esp with WinXP).

 

[wviperw]

Yea, I'm planning on upgrading my cpu/mobo here before Doom3 comes out. By then I should be able to get around a 3ghz computer for a decent price. My current mobo is an Abit KT7, so I don't have all that much room to be upgrading so I'll probably just wait for the *big* cpu+mobo upgrade.

And I was looking @ some 3dm2k1 scores and they were as high as 8k w/ my sys specs. They must have oc'ed A LOT.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Or messed with wierd settings like LOD bias which makes things look absolutely hideous, but it does make things run faster. LOL, might as well disable colour and run in B&W for what that's worth! Whenever looking at 3Dmark results don't look at the top results but where the numbers seem to begin converging, generally at the end of page 1 or the start of page 2. Of course most people only submit their results if they're among the highest, and many people o/c quite extreme, so there system is totally unusable and unstable but hey they can run 1 loop of the 3Dmark suite! Anyway, what chipset does the Abit KT7 use?

 

[wviperw]

Via Apollo KT133. I think the multiplier goes up to something like 12 or 12.5, and then the FSB only goes up to 110 IIRC.

 

[AnAndAustin]

KT133 is very long in the tooth and certainly won't handle 133/266FSB and even at a reduced speed (like 33% lower on a 100/200FSB) may show trouble. It may also struggle with Duron 1.3ghz (13x obviously) and although Duron 1.2ghz are VERY cheap and will allow a bit more breathing space for your 4200 when you really want more you will almost certainly be looking at a mobo AND CPU upgrade if not RAM too.

Anyway for now soak up the HUGE gain from the 4200 and be sure to enable 2xAA and 8xAF so that the gfx card power your CPU can't tap isn't wasted. When you come to upgrade it might not be as expensive as you think, you could get a SiS735/745 mobo (<$50) which may have SDR and DDR slots (keep your current PC133) and XP2000+ type CPU ($60ish). You could add DDR later but SDR will only knock you about 10% anyway. You could find your case doesn't have sufficient airflow so may need case fan(s) or that your PSU isn't up to scratch but I doubt either of those will hinder the upgrade, even if so a new case with 350-400W PSU should be under $50.

 

[wviperw]

Well, I got the card a few days ago. Unfortunately its not giving me the framerates I was wanting quite yet for some reason. Now I know part (or most) of it is due to the rest of my system, but I figured I'd be doing a *little* better than I am. Here's my sys specs again:

Abit KT7 mobo (Via KT133)
Duron 700@1ghz (10x100)
320mb RAM (2 chips of PC133 128mb(CAS3) + 1 PC100 64mb chip (CAS3))
Maxtor 60gb 7200rpm HD
Windows 95b < *wince* >
DX 8.0a

Yes, I know that the SDR RAM and 1ghz computer are killing me. Yes, I know Win95 is killing me also (no DX8.1, not very good AGP support, new Detonator drivers won't install on it, etc., etc. ) But even after all those crushing blows I figured the GF4 Ti4200 would do a lot better than my old Savage 4, but no.

Quake3 Benchmarks:

32mb Savage4 (143/143) at low gfx: 103.1fps
64mb Geforce4 Ti4200 (250/500) at low gfx: 113.7fps !!!

32mb Savage4 (143/143) at high gfx (640x480 res): 66.4 fps
64mb Geforce4 (250/500) at high gfx (640x480 res no AA,AS): 65.5 fps !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(default CD drivers)


What is that ?!? A card thats like 4 or 5 generations higher actually doing worse? I know the 'platform' is a big crutch here, and drivers probably have something to do w/ it too, but IMO that NO excuse for a GF4 to do WORSE.

And according to Anand, a 1ghz system should be getting at least 150 fps in Q3 @ 1024*768. (his Athlon XP @ 1ghz looked like it was at about 180fps).

I did test the card at higher resolutions (up to 1600x1200) and it did a lot better than the old Savage 4 card (scaling from 640 to 1600 at high gfx settings only lost me about 10fps IIRC). So this obviously shows that its the platform and not the card I guess, but still.

So I moved on to something besides Q3 figuring that maybe it was something to do w/ Q3. 3DM2K1 wouldn't work on my machine since I don't have DX8.1 (requires win98), so I had to go down to 3DM2K. I ended up getting a score of 5147 on that at the default resolution which is quite good compared to what I've gotten in the past. Yet I would venture to guess its no where near what its supposed to be w/ a GF4 since the average 2K1 score for a similar system to mine was around 6.5k IIRC, and 2K should be a lot less demanding. Unfortunately the ORB is no longer up for 2K so I couldn't compare my results w/ similar systems.

So whats up? I know I should be upgrading win95, but I really don't feel like spending $200 for XP so I'm going to see if I can just buy a $50 licence for it (already have the CD from my laptop). Beyond that, as I said before I'll be upgrading my CPU/mobo/RAM in a couple months before D3 comes out, but until then I was really wishing I'd have A LOT better performance w/ my new video card.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Firstly Quake3 is very old and you need to get to 1280 res to start pushing any relatively modern gfx card. Quoting crappy 640x480 res which was the res used for gaming 10 years ago is only going to be dependent on your CPU. In res like 640x480 a GF4TI4600 CAN do worse than a GF4TI4200 etc etc, it makes no sense running games or benchmarks in such a low res. Use a higher res and pref a more modern game too and rem you are severely limiting your 4200's potential in a D1ghz system. What you want to try is at least 1024x768x32 with all details on full, then try forcing AA & AF too! As for your system, your 4200 is choked (as you know) but throw away that 64MB PC100 and run your RAM async at 133mhz as this will give you a noticable boost.

The 1ghz AnAndTech system you refer to was a downclocked AthlonXP with more L2 cache and better core than your Duron, not only that but it was running a 133/266FSB with DDR! Your D1ghz would be MUCH closer to 900mhz on that scale. When comparing your system in 3Dmark rem to consider the first point at which the scores converge (begin to get closer together) and that the top end scores are going to be using high FSB and fast DDR as well as o/c'ed gfx cards etc. If you want an idea of what diff gfx card and CPU combis achieve ...

3Dmark2001:

Duron1ghz & Savage4/Pro - 700
Duron1ghz & Savage2000 - 1600
Duron1ghz & GF2TI/GTS - 4000
Duron1ghz & GF4TI4200 - 7600
Duron1ghz & Rad9700PRO - 7700

Athlon1.4ghz & Savage4/Pro - 700
Athlon1.4ghz & Savage2000 - 1600
Athlon1.4ghz & GF2TI/GTS - 5200
Athlon1.4ghz & GF4TI4200 - 10500
Athlon1.4ghz & Rad9700PRO - 11500

AthlonXP2400+ & Savage4/Pro - 700
AthlonXP2400+ & Savage2000 - 3000
AthlonXP2400+ & GF2TI/GTS - 6000
AthlonXP2400+ & GF4TI4200 - 13000
AthlonXP2400+ & Rad9700PRO - 15500

Not only look at the perf diff between having a faster gfx card on the same CPU but also the downsides of inbalancing gfx card and CPU, if your gfx card is over-powered for your CPU then always maximise AA & AF. Have a look in perf order ...

Duron1ghz & Savage4/Pro - 700
Athlon1.4ghz & Savage4/Pro - 700
AthlonXP2400+ & Savage4/Pro - 700
Duron1ghz & Savage2000 - 1600
Athlon1.4ghz & Savage2000 - 1600
AthlonXP2400+ & Savage2000 - 3000
Duron1ghz & GF2TI/GTS - 4000
Athlon1.4ghz & GF2TI/GTS - 5200
AthlonXP2400+ & GF2TI/GTS - 6000
Duron1ghz & GF4TI4200 - 7600
Duron1ghz & Rad9700PRO - 7700
Athlon1.4ghz & GF4TI4200 - 10500
Athlon1.4ghz & Rad9700PRO - 11500
AthlonXP2400+ & GF4TI4200 - 13000
AthlonXP2400+ & Rad9700PRO - 15500

 

[wviperw]

The 1ghz AnAndTech system you refer to was a downclocked AthlonXP with more L2 cache and better core than your Duron, not only that but it was running a 133/266FSB with DDR! Your D1ghz would be MUCH closer to 900mhz on that scale

Yea, I know it wouldn't perform as the Athlon XP w/ DDR RAM. So I figured it'd atleast perform somewhat similar to the 800mhz system they have tested and that system got 150fps. So IOW, according to the bench's my D1ghz system is performing like a 333mhz version of that 1ghz XP w/ DDR RAM b/c I get about 61fps in 1024x768? (61/180 = 33%) That seems to be even more crappy than it should be.

As for the 3DM2K1 marks you displayed, 7600 would be very good if I could get that, but I'm willing to bet I'd be well under 5k since I can only get 5k on 3DM2K (not 2001 but 2000).

 

[Hazer]

That extra 64MB PC100 chip can cause problems. Its always been a bad idea to mix and match memory like that. Since it only gives you 64 extra, and runs 33MHz slower, get rid of it.

Second, you cant open up the Ti4200 till you upgrade the OS. 95b? Uggh. I couldn't get older hardware to work properly with 95d, switched to 98se, and now even thats getting as obsolete as a commodore. Im willing to bet that removing the extra DIMM and upgrading OS so you can use the updated drivers (theres a reason for updated drivers, its cause they screwed up the first time).

 

[wviperw]

Funny you should post that today Hazer because I actually just ordered WindowsXP online about a half hour ago. As for the RAM thing, I tried taking out the PC100 RAM but didn't really see much of a difference in performance.

 

[AnAndAustin]

If the rest of the RAM is PC133 then you should find an option in the BIOS to run the RAM async to the FSB (RAM+PCI clk?), FSB=100mhz while RAM=133mhz. This yields a good 10% perf boost and is well worth doing if only in the short term until you upgrade.

 

[mboy]

Need to dump that pc100 stick to run it a 133 fsb as I am sure it wont do much good to oc that stick.
Beter off taking it out and runing the pc133 for now as another posted stated.