Albatron GeForce Ti4200 3.3ns vs. Radeon 9600 Pro?

[RussianSensation]

I currently have a 3.2 ghz p4 and Radeon 8500 64 meg that my friend wants to buy off me for about $45.

Now I just want a card to hold me over till my next big upgrade for Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, Far Cry, etc.

I found this:

Albatron 4200 128mb 3.3ns 250/550 $90
and this:
Visiontek Xtasy Radeon 9600 Pro 400/600 $126

both prices include shipping.

I know Radeon 9600 Pro is a lot better for 4AA and 8AF gaming but i am not sure if it is justified considering the extra ~$40. I know the 3.3ns GF4 will probably hit 300/700 easy. So in essence: 4600 vs. 9600 pro? Do you think its worth it to go for Pro? Is it even worth it for me to sell my 8500? Or should I just keep it and upgrade in 1 year?

Edit: Any ideas as to when the 9800 Pro will dip below 200 possibly approach 150 mark?

 

[Blastman]

I would go for the 9600pro in a heatbeat. I think the extra $36 is well worth it. The 9600pro pretty well beats the 4200 across the board even without AA/AF.

I can?t see buying a card these days for close to $100 and not getting usable AA/AF, or usable AF. The 9600pro may not let you use 4AA all the time but 8AF pretty well should be usable most of the time. The 9600pro?s overclock nicely too. At 450/330 DDR the 9600pro in a digilife review beat the 9600XT in all the game benches.

I say get a good taste of 16xAF and gamma corrected rotated grid AA with the 9600pro, and who knows maybe that 9600pro will hold you for a while.

 

[modedepe]

I don't know if you'll get another year out of that 8500, but I wouldn't swap it for either of the cards listed. Neither will offer that big of an improvment, especially the 4200. Also, I'd stay away from gameve.com after hearing the latest round of horror stories from the 5900 saga.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yeah I was questioning this whole hassle of buying a new midrange card. I could always wait 4-5 months when the new generation comes out so I am assuming then 9800 Pro will cost 150 or so.

Also 4200@4600 speeds will be about equal to 9600 Pro (even overclocked) at all resolutions without AA and AF.

However, since I personally think that at 1600x1200 with noAA/2 or 4AF games look much better than at 1024x768 4AA/8AF, and considering 9600 Pro simply cannot play games above 1280x1024 with 4AA/8AF enabled, its anti-aliasing advantage is not that significant. Maybe I am messed....but I simply love to play at 1600x1200 with high details and I wont do without it.

8500 is not so bad I can play UT2k4 @1600x1200 demo, but its showing its age in Call of Duty and NFS:underground and far cry is unplayable....

I just thought 90-45 =$45 or 126-45 = $81 wouldn't be a bad upgrade but I can see how waiting to upgrade until the games that I absolutely can't play come out would pay off since then I can just put this 45-81 towards that future videocard upgrade. hmm.....decisions.....

 

[rancherlee]

4200 isn't much of an upgrade from a 8500 , I had both a TI4200 and radeon 8500 128meg for a while and I ended up keeping the 8500. (the TI4200 was one of the early ones, that would barely hit 4400 spec). The 8500 overclocked ran only ~10% slower than my 4200 and seemed to handle AA/AF better. I wasn't going to upgrade my 8500 till the 9800 pros were ~150$ but I just got a sweet deal on a 9600 PRO AIW for 155$!

 

[RussianSensation]

Yeah you are right they are very closely matched but at 1600x1200 in games like Unreal 2k3/2k4 and Max Payne 2 and Call of Duty the GeForce 4 is significantly faster. If i could sell my Radeon 8500 for 45 then it'll only cost me 45 to get equivalent 4600 speed with this 3.3ns card. But I can see how it's not really a major upgrade in a sense of upgrading.

Do you feel like the 9600 Pro is a good upgrade? I mean can you play most games at 4AA/8AF at 1280x1024 or maybe 1600x1200 without slowdown? I am starting to think to just leave my 8500 card and get a reduced in price 9800pro in 4 months or wait until HL2 and Doom 3 come out in Sept (sometime in Fall?) and get a new card for probably $300 or so that it will be then, instead of having to spend this 45. It seems you are implying that if 8500 starts to lag in games, then most likely than not 4200-4600 will show similar side effects as well....hmm.....

 

[Sylvanas]

9600pro by far

 

[MDE]

IIRC, that Albatron is the Ti4200 on a 4600 PCB. It might not be as bad as it looks at first if you're willing to overclock. Without AA\AF a 4600 is as fast or faster than a 9600 Pro.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
IIRC, that Albatron is the Ti4200 on a 4600 PCB. It might not be as bad as it looks at first if you're willing to overclock. Without AA\AF a 4600 is as fast or faster than a 9600 Pro.

Yeah i know but like i said I dont want a card that cant play at 1600x1200 with quality features enabled => read Radeon 9600 Pro, so I am basically looking for raw performance at high quality res with high details. I play FPS 99% of the time and racing games, and I cannot (don't have time to stop) and notice jaggies at 1600x1200 so AA is pointless for me and 2/4AF isnt a big hit on a Geforce 4.

I am probably gonna wait for 4 months though and get 9800 pro at 150.

 

[Blastman]

The 9600pro/XT is fine at 16x12??..

?sometimes? ? at 16x12 with 4AA/8AF it tanks, but even then in a lot of benches at that resolution with 4AA/8AF it?s still ok.

Still ahead of the 5700U in both these at high res. With AA/AF ?

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=gffx5900xt&page=9

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/asus_radeon_9800_9600_xt/page13.asp

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
IIRC, that Albatron is the Ti4200 on a 4600 PCB. It might not be as bad as it looks at first if you're willing to overclock. Without AA\AF a 4600 is as fast or faster than a 9600 Pro.

Yeah i know but like i said I dont want a card that cant play at 1600x1200 with quality features enabled => read Radeon 9600 Pro, so I am basically looking for raw performance at high quality res with high details. I play FPS 99% of the time and racing games, and I cannot (don't have time to stop) and notice jaggies at 1600x1200 so AA is pointless for me and 2/4AF isnt a big hit on a Geforce 4.

I am probably gonna wait for 4 months though and get 9800 pro at 150.

I was trying to point out that the 4200 will likely overclock very nicely and destroy the 9600 Pro in raw horsepower. I had a Ti4600 and a 9600 Pro and and without AA\AF the Ti4600 destroyed the 9600 Pro.

 

[Corporate Thug]

i see the 9600 pro listed @ $159...

 

[Tavoc]

I would go with the Ti4200 with the 3.3ns ram. The 9600 Pro barely has the ability to run current games smoothly with high IQ, and in the future it would just be unplayable, so I find the IQ factor irrelevant. With the the fast ram on the 4200 you could easily overclock to get much higher performance without high IQ settings.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: shady06[/i]
i see the 9600 pro listed @ $159...

Haha they raised the price while i was trying to decide if that was even an option for me. It was $120 before shipping 3 days ago.

 

[MDE]

nm...

 

[akshayt]

Any 128mb fx 5600series card will beat any ti 4200.
Any 128mb radeon series card except se models will beat the fx 5600series.

Both can't play your games too well.
take radeon 9800pro for 214$.

your card can play max at:
1024*768*32*mid-high settings,leave aa and af or minimal

 

[rbV5]

Any 128mb fx 5600series card will beat any ti 4200.
Any 128mb radeon series card except se models will beat the fx 5600series.
.

With 64bit FX5600's, and Radeon 128MB models such as 7500, 8500, 9000, 9100, 9200, 9500, I can safely say you're pretty much incorrect.

 

[MichaelZ]

i think you can also say he's pretty much moronic.

 

[cindy22]

guys stop bs g4ti 4200 is not even in the same ball park as 9600 pro . you lying nvidiots!

g4ti4200 = directx 8
9600 pro = directx9

and for the person/s who says get g4ti 4200 over 9600 pro because it's faster, better and or more future proof. You guys are obviously in denial and are freaking liars!

benchmarks

look at how well g4ti 4200 and any nvidia fx does compared to ati's in that benchmark, in call of duty and many other games which has nvidia logos but plays poorly on nvidia but runs blazingly fast and smooth on ati's ! g4ti4200 is near the bottom of the list !LOL!

 

[cindy22]

MonkeyDriveExpress, are you still lying to newbies again. who buys mid to high end cards and doesn't use aa/af with higher res nowadays?

I guess nvidia cards image quality is so bad with or without aa/af ,that's why you don't use aa/af . your propably playing games from the 90's because your nvidia cards can't handle new games very well right?

I'm playing all the latest games with my 9800 pro using 4aa/8af 1280x768 res with smooth fast framerates and way clearer, better image quality than yours

 

[cindy22]

I would go with the Ti4200 with the 3.3ns ram. The 9600 Pro barely has the ability to run current games smoothly with high IQ, and in the future it would just be unplayable

Tavoc = another nvidiot

if you say 9600 pro can barely handle current games than a g4ti4200 can't even play any current games at all!LOL!

and if you say that 9600 pro with future games are unplayable. Where did you get that info?
from here?LOL! future game

most reviews agree that ati cards are much more futureproof than any nvidiafx!LOL!

 

[rbV5]

I'm playing all the latest games with my 9800 pro using 4aa/8af 1280x768 res with smooth fast framerates and way clearer, better image quality than yours

Nobody cares, go crawl back under your Bridge dude, that dress doesn't fool me.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: cindy22
MonkeyDriveExpress, are you still lying to newbies again. who buys mid to high end cards and doesn't use aa/af with higher res nowadays?

I guess nvidia cards image quality is so bad with or without aa/af ,that's why you don't use aa/af . your propably playing games from the 90's because your nvidia cards can't handle new games very well right?

I'm playing all the latest games with my 9800 pro using 4aa/8af 1280x768 res with smooth fast framerates and way clearer, better image quality than yours

Obviously the OP does, which is why he asked which was faster without AA\AF and fancy effects. Crawl under your bridge and play with yourself you don't even make any sense. I personally had a Ti4600 and a heavily overclocked 9600 Pro and the 4600 was faster without AA\AF at 1024x768.

 

[MichaelZ]

cindy u r as biased as all the "real" nvidiots out there... only you swing in the other direction of course.

shut up.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
However, since I personally think that at 1600x1200 with noAA/2 or 4AF games look much better than at 1024x768 4AA/8AF

you might change your tune on that with a new card, ati's aa and af have come a long way sense your 8500 and the geforce4 also has better aa and af as well. actually the gefore4 has better af than the new ati cards, but not quite as good aa.

also, when talking about how the 4200 will overclock you should also consider that 9600pros tend to overclock fairly well themselves.