Geforce 4 : Time for us Geforce 2 users to upgrade?

[MCS]

I know this is all speculation at the moment, but by the time the GF4 arrives I would have had my GF2 Ultra for over a year, and some of you would have had a GTS/Pro for even longer than that...I had always held off getting a Geforce 3 because I saw it as a pretty pointless upgrade except for 3DMark points, will we see the same thing still with the GF4?

Will Geforce 2 based cards continue to play all of 2002s line up of games, or will they choke to death?

 

[aldamon]

You should have upgraded while that Ultra had some resale value. I sold my Ultra for $130 and bought the $99 GF3 TI200 at Best Buy. Even if the TI200 had been $150, it was still worth the $20 to upgrade.

 

[MCS]

And did you see much benefit?

 

[Sid03]

"did you see much benefit"

that IS the question... what do you think a gf4 will do for you that your gf2 cannot?

i own both a gf3 and a kyro2. i notice no difference, with the exception that the kyro has better image quality. until the software becomes more advanced (the gf3's features aren't even being supported), i don't see the need for a gf4 or 5 or 6.

i play games on my ps2 10:1 more than my pc. and my console cost less than my gf3 alone.

the state of pc gaming is sad indeed.

 

[aldamon]

<< And did you see much benefit? >>



Absolutely! My TI 200 overclocks to 220 / 518, well over TI 500 levels, and my overclock is actually on the slow end of TI 200 overclocks these days. Check out the reviews. The TI 200 smokes the Ultra at stock speeds, let alone at TI 500 speeds! On my GF2 Ultra, both Max Payne and RTCW chugged along at the pretty resolutions (1240 x 960+) and now they're smooth as butter.

Here is how I interpret video card upgrading. Interpret it as you will:

A.) Keep upgrading one step at a time, keeping up with newer technology. You just have to time your purchase so the lowest selling price for the new card comes close to alining itself with the best price you can get for your old card. There are LOTS of venues for getting good prices on your old stuff and the AT Hot Deals forum is a great place to find a great price on the new card you want.

The other two options are available if you wait until your current card is basically worthless:

B.) Sell your Ultra for next to nothing 6 months from now and then because you've waited so long, buy the first GF4 on the block at an outrageous price.

C.) Keep your Ultra for yet another year, sell it for even less, and then buy the GF4"TI 200" equivalent.

D.) Keep the Ultra and keep playing the waiting game until your whole system is out of date along with your video card.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be playing games the way the developer intended them to be played NOW, instead of always waiting for the "next big thing." It's all about timing.



<< "i play games on my ps2 10:1 more than my pc. and my console cost less than my gf3 alone.

the state of pc gaming is sad indeed. >>



That is an example of bad timing. Sure, if you were the first on your block with a GF3 you paid more than a PS2 for it. I paid $99 for my TI 200 and many others are paying ~$150. Regardless of what you think of the PC Gaming Industry, economics are economics my friend and you jumped in too early.

 

[cmaMath13]

I disagree. I had a TNT2Ultra at one time. I upgraded to the GeForce (revolutionary card?.?.), but did NOT see a significant gain so I returned it. Then I tried the Voodoo5, and still was not satisfied and returned. I was not happy until I got my current video card GeForce2 Ultra. The GF2 Ultra is similar to GeForce 3 in non-optimized games. The Ti500 is even a little better, but I doubt it would be worth the $$. I personally think the GeForce 4 (or a derivative) will be the next video card I purchase. It will be significantly faster than what I already have.

 

[BFG10K]

Will Geforce 2 based cards continue to play all of 2002s line up of games, or will they choke to death?

They're pretty much starting to choke on today's games. I upgraded from a GF2 GTS to a Ti500 and the difference was like night and day. My Ti500 is faster at 1152 x 864 x 32 than my GTS was at 800 x 600 x 32.

 

[Seyba]

No one answered this in the last thread, so I'll ask here: When IS the estimated release for the Geforce 4? Is there one?

Thanks! Someone please take the 10 seconds to answer this.

 

[Borg81]

I think the beginning of Febuary

 

[JayPatel]

it will still play all of 2002 games, because developers will always factor in User X with the lowly mach64 tnt2, which happens to be a lot of users. in your case, a GTS will do you fine until geforce3 becomes the norm. The hardcore enthusiast community makes up a small percentage of the overall consumer computer user base so developers will never just exclusively develop a game for people with a Geforce 3/4. The Ti series changes all that as it has made the Geforce3 more mainstream, but it will still take a long time before it becomes standard video card requirement.

 

[Rankor]

If my system lags on Doom 3, it'll be time to upgra--...scratch that, BUY a new system.

 

[Rand]

<<
Will Geforce 2 based cards continue to play all of 2002s line up of games, or will they choke to death? >>



Matter of opinion and I guess it depends on what your standards are. Some people don't even consider the GF2 Ultra to be fast enough to play today's games let alone the games of 2002.
Personally, I'm inclined to say yes, a GF2 Ultra should be able to handle anything coming this year ar 1024x768 at least.

I doubt the GF4 is going to make anyone upgrade that isnt already eager to upgrade to a GF3 as it seems to be little more then an overclocked GF3 with an extra vertex shader. Nothing really special or new, no big features, no better memory controller or anything... just an extra vertex shader and a higher clockspeed.



<< When IS the estimated release for the Geforce 4? Is there one? >>


Supposed to be announced in February, as for when it will actually be available in the DIY market... the last I heard was March availability.

 

[aldamon]

<< I disagree. I had a TNT2Ultra at one time. I upgraded to the GeForce (revolutionary card?.?.), but did NOT see a significant gain so I returned it. Then I tried the Voodoo5, and still was not satisfied and returned. I was not happy until I got my current video card GeForce2 Ultra. The GF2 Ultra is similar to GeForce 3 in non-optimized games. The Ti500 is even a little better, but I doubt it would be worth the $$. I personally think the GeForce 4 (or a derivative) will be the next video card I purchase. It will be significantly faster than what I already have. >>



I'm sorry, but that's apples and oranges. You obviously didn't do your homework When the original GeForce256 came out, it was not that much faster than the TNT2 Ultra in a lot of situations. On the other hand, the stock GF3, the GF3 TI 200 AND GF3 TI 500 all smoked the GF2 line in higher resolutions, right off the bat. You also have to consider that the performance increase associated with overclocking the GF3 line is MUCH higher than on the GF2 line, so the gap is widened very easily.

Then you moved on to a Voodoo5? What were you looking for exactly, performance wise? Seems to me you bought three cards that perform very closely to each other in a lot of situations. No wonder you were disappointed.

Look, the GF4 is going to be way too expensive until at least Christmas, maybe later. You might as well dump the Ultra on Egay, buy an overclockable GF3 derivative and then when the games catch up to that card, sell the GF3 derivative and buy an overclockable GF4 derivative. To the real computer gamer, there is no gain in waiting or living with low resolutions when you can buy GF3 cards in the $150 range that will hold their value nicely if you resell to the Egay / Best Buy crowd.

 

[imgod2u]

These second generation cards are usually the best. When a new card with new technology comes out, they are usually underestablished and unrefined. Such was the original Geforce256. The Geforce 2 was a well refined and pumped up core based on the same technology (fixed hardware T&L along with other features). The Geforce 4, from the rumored specs, is essentially to the Geforce 3 what the Geforce 2 was to the original, meaning there should be a significant performance increase in the same applications as the Geforce 3, only not many new fancy features (which isn't used by many games and apps anyway) features.

 

[Innoka]

Is there much incentive for nvidia to add much new to the Geforce3? Who is using the programmable effects yet in real games? Tell me if you know, I want to see them. nvidia knows very well the only credible competition is ATI and that they are behind them in hardware by over half a year, and in drivers months still.
I expect the main difference when the GF4 comes along is that the premium GF3 Ti500 will shrink in price nearer to the Ti200 level because the hardware difference is not substantial, there is just a higher markup. But I don't see how the GF3 Ti 200 is going to be ~$100 in 6 months with 57 million transistors and 64mb of soaring DDR. I think the price situation now is good.

 

[MCS]

Some very interesting opinions!

Something worth mentioning - I was playing Medal Of Honor last night which I was told is a fairly intensive game on the graphics card. I set the options to 1024x768x32 max settings which I always do. The game was pretty smooth, but the FPS were mainly around 25-35 and there were noticable slowdowns in places which DID distract from gameplay. If this is a measure of things to come then I would either a) lower my settings or b) consider an upgrade.



<< Look, the GF4 is going to be way too expensive until at least Christmas, maybe later. You might as well dump the Ultra on Egay, buy an overclockable GF3 derivative and then when the games catch up to that card, sell the GF3 derivative and buy an overclockable GF4 derivative. To the real computer gamer, there is no gain in waiting or living with low resolutions when you can buy GF3 cards in the $150 range that will hold their value nicely if you resell to the Egay / Best Buy crowd. >>



This is a good idea. I could pick up a GF3 Ti200 (for example) which would last me until the GF4 is a reasonable price (which will probably be another year from now).

 

[aldamon]

<< Some very interesting opinions! >>



Yeah, did you notice that everyone just had a video card discussion without one flame? Remarkable!

Good luck with your purchase!

 

[gregor7777]

Yeah, did you notice that everyone just had a video card discussion without one flame? Remarkable!


That is pretty remarkable. I personally still use and love my GTS 32mb. It will run every game I've ever played without a hitch, but....I have to play at 1024 x 768. Anything above that, and it shows it age. Now, I'm going out on a libm here and saying that it will continue to run most games, at least for the next 1/2 year or so, perfectly fine at this resoloution.

I'll but my next card when after selling my GTS, I pay only around $100 for my new one. This is almost upon me as the price of the ti200 is near $150 or so.

 

[MCS]

Doh! I just found out I have been running ALL my games with 4X FSAA turned on!! No wonder MOH:AA seemed choppy, it's up to 50-70FPS range now. Doesn't look so nice though. Suddenly my Geforce 2 Ultra seems like a nice fast card again.

 

[cmaMath13]

aldamon,

1) I admit that I feel into the "hype" of things. Plus, I was in full-blown upgrade mode. At that time, I did not have any kids and had extra money to blow.
2) When I went for the Voodoo5, I was wanting to play games at same resolution WITH AA(at least x2, but preferably 4). Thus, I was not getting exactly what I wanted.
3) Now that I am a little older and hopefully wiser, I am trying NOT to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.
4) I have a 17" monitor and prefer to play games at 1024x768x32 resolution, thus the GeForce 3 is NOT worth the upgrade. The GeForce Ti series may offer a nice bump, but I am not willing to buy yet....

I hope that clears up my point of view.

 

[Byte]

Well most of the new games run pretty slow now on my Gef 2 Pro. I want to get a Geforce 4 for Digital Vibrance alone!! W00t W00t

 

[Insidious]

<< Will Geforce 2 based cards continue to play all of 2002s line up of games, or will they choke to death? >>



Probably will see some (not so major) performance limitations (resolution limited to 1024 or so, probably won't get the performance you want if you try to use FSAA), but you are going to be able to play and be competative with the GF2 (IMO)

However, with that said, I think the GF3 does provide significant gains in gaming experience with many games. I am skeptical about the GF4 gains and don't really believe it is going to be worth the wait and $$ right now (This is just my feel and not iintended to be presented as fact or anything else that fires up the Trolls )

 

[BFG10K]

I want to get a Geforce 4 for Digital Vibrance alone!! W00t W00t

Don't buy a new card just yet for that reason alone. Like I said in your other thread, try Riva Tuner to see if you can digital vibrance to work on your current card.

 

[Mem]

I agree with Rand it depends on the type of games you play,I`ve both a GF2 MX and GF2 Ti and both play my sort of games (RPG, and usual CS,UT, etc) fine,I normally buy adventure RPG games like Wizardry 8 where speed is not the important thing and will be buying this year Morrowind,Might & Magic 9 ,I will probably upgrade my card later (especially for Quake 4,Doom 3) but really don`t need too at this time.

 

[PizzaDude]

I currently own a Geforce 2 GTS and I think I'll be purchasing one of the Geforce 3's when the Geforce 4 comes out. Reason being is because the current PC games don't even come close to taking advantage of the power Nvidia has to offer in their top-of-the-line cards. Almost no one needs or can even use ALL of the power that a geforce 4 has to offer. Why would I get a GF3 instead of a GF4 you may ask? Simply because of price. I'm excited to see how much the prices of Geforce 3's drop because of the GF4 release.