ATI Radeon 8500 & Nvidia Geforce 4 Ti 4600 VS. ATI Radeon 9800 XT

[VIAN]

HardOCP takes credit for this one.

 

[MDE]

The most retarded review I've seen in a while (haven't been to Tom's in about a month ). We know a 9800XT will demolish a GF4 Ti4600 and an 8500. WTF are they trying to prove? New high end cards are better than older high end cards?

 

[Brian48]

I think they were trying to give folks with older cards a sense of how much a performance leap it would be upgrade at this time. You will note they specifically chosed cards one generation apart to stress this point.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
The most retarded review I've seen in a while (haven't been to Tom's in about a month ). We know a 9800XT will demolish a GF4 Ti4600 and an 8500. WTF are they trying to prove? New high end cards are better than older high end cards?

You must have missed the first paragraph......

"Asus Radeon 9800XT/TVD : Are you contemplating upgrading that GeForce4 or Radeon 8500 but first want to know how much of a benefit you will really get out of the latest video card? Let's find out how upgrading to an Asus Radeon 9800XT can benefit your gaming experience."

 

[Geomagick]

I think that it just goes to show you - older = slower.

Nuf said

 

[MDE]

They should have thrown in the 9700 Pro\9800 Pro, 5900 Ultra\nu, and 9600 Pro in for comparison at least. It just seems like they're trying to say that ultra high-end is the only way to go.

 

[PliotronX]

Welp, looks like a good time to upgrade, but jebus ATI rapes with their uncastrated cards now. Can't find a 9800np or suitable 9800se for under $260. It was a good day when you could take a $150 Ti4200 and make it perform similarly to the $300-400 incarnation with ease. Sigh.

 

[sugarkang]

i found this review rather helpful.
i've got a now POS radeon 8500, which was pretty nice back in the day.
anyway, i'm definitely upgrading to something in between 9600 and 9800.
i was thinking about going 96, but after this review, i see that even 98 will fall short of what i want.
especially because i'm fixin to get a samsung 177x which i'll have to play at 1280 on.

 

[rocketbubba]

I found this comparison to be very interesting, especially since I just upgraded from an 8500 to a Ti4600. I'm always a year or so behind the best technology and I bet I'm not alone. Anyway, I've seen a very definite visible increase in performance going to the Ti4600, it's a really nice card. If things go as normal for me, I'll probably grab a used 9800 pro about a year from now and people will be calling it a POS compared to whatever's the top dog then!

 

[VIAN]

I upgraded from an 8500 to a 4600 and although the boost was great, it only lasted a while since I was barely able to play Medal of Honor: Allied Assault - Spearhead on high quality.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yeah I have Radeon 8500 with a 3.0ghz p4 and i definately cant play games with AA and AF enabled not the latest ones

but arguably most games look better at 1600x1200 than 4AA/16AF at 1024x768 anyways so for now i am still sticking to 1600x1200 and for that it can play 95% of games.

So basically until a new card can play 1600x1200 4AA and 16AF fast enough not to slow down i am not gonna upgrade. That means I will probably upgrade in Spring. Besides before Spring nothing too demanding is coming out in the likes of Doom 3 and Half-life 2, by then Radeon 9700 Pro will be liek $150 anyways, so i could always drop for that.

this is also an interesting article to read how cpu perfomance also affects games and many people overlook the importance of CPU in first person shooter games especially

2003 Gamers Upgrade Guide Feb 6, 2003

i know its a bit outdated but maybe you should take a look at it.

 

[Pete]

Interesting, but I can't believe neither Kyle nor Brent know that the GF4Ti (indeed, all nV cards starting from the GF3, including even the GF4MX, IIRC) uses MSAA, not SSAA.

 

[VIAN]

Doesn't the Geforce 4 Accuview AA use a mixture of MS and SS AA.

 

[Pete]

4xS (which is also rotated grid rather than ordered--another bonus), yes. But regular 4x (the kind used in every review), no.

 

[UCSDHappyAsian]

i think they havent update anything good, and manager is pushin them to write some reviews..
Well, they got one reference card from ATI 9800 XT, and then they realized that they sold all the reference cards that they had before. Well, one of the staff thinks he is too creative for everyone and came up with this idea of comparing ATI 8500, nVidia geforce 4 Ti 4600, and ATI9800 XT.. Well, at least nobody in our universe would take a test like this, and this has to be totally "new" to everyone!

hmm.... two thumbs up for makin me laugh!

 

[Blastman]

I found that review interesting from the point of view of the substantially increased display quality the 9800XT had because they were able to use AF much more over the other 2 cards (8500/4600).

Take the Halo pictures on the far right, line them up and click back and forth between them -- the image on the 9800XT is substantially better than the other 2 cards. Just look at the large blue rock on the right, the surface of the pond or even the snow detail.

Here they are for your convenience ?

4600
8500
9800XT

Upgrading to a newer card like an 9600pro from an older card would be worth it just to get that increased IQ, let alone the jump in performance.

 

[Pete]

An 8500 should be just as efficient implementing AF as a 9800. [ H ] made the somewhat wacky point of using AA at varying levels with the 8500, which is something you DON'T do with a card as old as that that only does SSAA. With a GF4, you can enable some AA. With an 8500, you can enable full AF. Anything else doesn't seem ideal for each card.

 

[VIAN]

This is a very needed and meaningful review. They should do things like this more often. But ever two generations. Like comparing those cards to next gen cards would be a lot better. I also think that they should review driver releases too.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Pete
An 8500 should be just as efficient implementing AF as a 9800. [ H ] made the somewhat wacky point of using AA at varying levels with the 8500, which is something you DON'T do with a card as old as that that only does SSAA. With a GF4, you can enable some AA. With an 8500, you can enable full AF. Anything else doesn't seem ideal for each card.

Yeah, exactly.

I thought their heart was in the right place (show how high each card could go at "playable" framerates, which they deemed at a 30fps average or above) however their test settings were all messed up.

Personally, I think the penalty for enabling AF on a GF4 isn't worth it - leave it off and up the resolution or keep the framerate higher. As for AA, again I'd rather go up to 1280X960 no AA/AF.

For the 8500, it's a lot more forgiving with AF, so enable 8xAF and run it at 1024 or so.

At least none of this 2xAA/2xAF crap. 2xAF especially is a total waste IMO.

 

[VIAN]

Me, too. Anything but full AA and/or AF, is a waste of time. And if anything I would rather keep the AF on and leave AA off since you get a similar image at higher resolutions only crisper. At 1600x1200, the picture is flawless, no jaggies whatsoever, then add AF and you're set.