GeForce FX 5600 256mb or Ti4600(4x)?

[MattK]

I have a Ti 4200 128mb 8x but my card does not have DVI or VIVO, both of which I REQUIRE in my new card.

New card must have: 128+ mb, DVI, VIVO, be FASTER than my 4200 and cost LESS THAN $200.

I will NOT CONSIDER an ATI card as they have NO CARDS with VIVO worth changing to that don't cost $300+. If you want to sell me a 9700 AIW for $200 then I'm in!

Any other alternate suggestions would be appreciated, the two exact products I've been looking at are:

ProLink FX 5600 256mb 'Ultimate' 600 Mhz. from komusa.com

OR

GeForce4 TI 4600 128 mb from gameVE.com

I have no/zero/none interest in overclocking so I want the fastest 'stock' GPU $200 can buy with DVI/VIVO.

Thanks for your help!

/Matt

 

[Schadenfroh]

without a doubt get the geforcefx 5600

I will NOT CONSIDER an ATI card

sadly, it has gotten that bad here that one must put this sort of disclaimer.

/waits for 9500 pro drones

 

[MrPabulum]

I'm going to have to agree with Schadenfroh -- get the Geforce FX 5600, especially since Nvidia has fixed the major driver issues with the 44.03s.
:beer:

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
without a doubt get the geforcefx 5600

I will NOT CONSIDER an ATI card

sadly, it has gotten that bad here that one must put this sort of disclaimer.

/waits for 9500 pro drones

i had to do that back when the Kyro II fanboys were raging. my simple "which: should i get GeForce2 GTS or Radeon 64 MB" thread turned into a kyro puke fest. same kinda crap is happening now. i don't know why people get so attached to hardware.

 

[bluemax]

Actually, I'll be watching this thread with great interest because I could use exactly the same thing;
Dual monitors, VIVO. I won't need 256MB, mind you....

I've been diving into the TV encorder chips lately, which TV chips are good/bad....
I don't need a TV tuner either, I have a VCR for that.

Sapphire does make ATI cards with VIVO instead of AIW....
Sapphire 9600 page
It says VIVO optional.... if that means anything... I haven't seen a 9600 VIVO for sale anywhere yet. That'd be my choice because it runs cooler. But that'd be for MY machine... I'd happily consider the GFFX 5600 as well.... but I hate requiring extra power connectors and fans.

 

[MattK]

Do you guys think it's worth paying $25 extra for memory that is 600mhz 3.3 ns over the standard 500mhz 4ns memory?

/Matt

 

[stardust]

yup, faster memory is always worth it, increases ur fill rate and bandwidth.

btw..do consider the GeforceFX 5600 ULTRA rev2, thats going to get u a lot closer directX8 scores to the ti4600 than the 256mb 5600 non-ultra.

ditto to u...NO ati

 

[billyjak]

Here you go READ THIS HERE

 

[devers]

MattK,

As billyjak's, and many other, tests show, the non-ultra 5600 can hardly keep up the old GF4 Ti4200. The ti4600 is even faster than the ti4200. As such, in terms of today's performance, the ti4600 is the better buy for the money. (Note that if you plan on enabling AA+AF a lot, then the ti4600's performance edge is significantly reduced) For future performance, both of these cards support DirectX 8, and it's extremely doubtful that there'll be many interesting major titles that *require* DX9 for a long time.

So, the ti4600 appears to be the better of the two choices you have above. Nonetheless, you might be able to pick up a 128MB version of the 5600 Ultra (rev2, hopefully) for around the same price. But even that probably won't offer better performance than the ti4600, unless AA+AF is enabled often.

 

[nick1985]

4600

 

[Blastman]

I?m seeing some performance issues with the 5600.

link ?

I just purchased a Prolink Pixelview Fx 5600 256MB, and after installing it, along with the most recent nvidia driver (44.03), I'm a little disappointed at the performance. On Rise of Nations, for example, when I first start a game, the frame rate is all of 37 fps. Interestingly, this card replaced a Ti-4200, which, with the same settings, sported an 80fps performance level.

In 3 of the racing sim games at hardwarefr the 5600 performed extremely lousy too, being about ½ the frame rate of a 4200.

In the 12 games (16x12) the overall performance was ?

5600U ?109.9 ? ? (v2 400/400)
4200 ?. 100
5600 ? 85.8

The 4600 is probably about 15-20% faster than the 4200 so it would be a lot faster than just a plain 5600.