• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Geforce4 TI4400 versus geforcefx 5600 256mb non ultra

Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
ok, one of my friends has convined the other that the geforcefx is faster than his 4400, because its DX9 and has 256mb of ram. He is going to pick it up from walmart soon for $100. I need some benchmarks containing the 256mb geforcefx non ultra and the 4400 128mb. i cant seem to find any. here is how the conversation went

chuck: "walmart has one of those 5600 256mb on sale for $100, i need a new card, old one is too slow"

me: "umm, that card is slower than your 4400"

chuck: "even with 256mb of ram?"

me: "yes, that card just sucks ass"

thomas: "dont listen to him, as soon as you max out the 128mb on the 4400, it spills over into system ram and slows you down, 256mb will help you"

(then a little argument ensues, between me and thomas about the 256mb of ram, me saying that a card as slow the geforce 5600 non ultra would not be able to use the ram anyways, but i could not win the argument)

benchmarks of these exact cards would help. expecailly in UT2004, battlefield 1942, which is what we all play.
 
The 5600NU is like <insert phrase I'd get a vacation for>. Honestly it sucks, spend the extra cash for a 9600 Pro or something. There's a real 9600 Pro (not EZ or Lite) at Newegg for $110.
 
Originally posted by: MDE
The 5600NU is like <insert phrase I'd get a vacation for>. Honestly it sucks, spend the extra cash for a 9600 Pro or something. There's a real 9600 Pro (not EZ or Lite) at Newegg for $110.
Click to expand...

that is what i have been trying to say, but i cant win the argument with the said person about the RAM amount, need proof
 
haha i'd take a 4400 ANYDAY, I'm browsin on ebay for something along those lines to put into my old dell dimension 4500 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: MDE
The 5600NU is like <insert phrase I'd get a vacation for>. Honestly it sucks, spend the extra cash for a 9600 Pro or something. There's a real 9600 Pro (not EZ or Lite) at Newegg for $110.
Click to expand...

that is what i have been trying to say, but i cant win the argument with the said person about the RAM amount, need proof
Click to expand...
Show them benches of 128MB 5900s vs 256MB 5900s or 128MB 9800 Pros vs 256MB 9800 Pros. If those cards have a tough time utilizing all that memory, what will a 5600NU do with it?
 
Tell your friend to look for a used 9700P for $100, rather than wasting his time with a crap 5600. The THG charts are probably all you need to show that a 5600 is not an upgrade in any way, and that 256MB on any card that costs less than $200 is just marketing fluff.
 
All you can do is show Thomas benchies and try to get him to understand Schadenfroh. If your bud buys the lame 5600/256, he will just have to learn the hard way just as a lot of people do.
I would show him that not even the 5600Ultra 128(which is a step up from the card he wants to buy) cannot beat a Ti4400. Try to steer him towards at least a 5700U or 9600pro/XT.
 
Digit-life and Tom's have extensive benchmarks with most card variants listed and used. The articles may have spin, but the VGA Charts III tells the truth.
 
Like it was stated before... even the next gen cards sometimes have trouble using all that memory. The 5600 is probably one of the worst cards in history!!!! it is crippled by lack of memory bandwidth speed... bad architecture.... i would be willing to bet my old Geforce 2Ti is faster than that. His 4400 will smoke that thing in every test. DX9 or not... its not going to be fast enough to use DX9 features. Do anything to keep him from wasting his money!

(Yeah you heard it right ill bet my Geforce 2 TI is faster than the 5600NU (as the Geforce 2 TI is faster than the 5200Ultra, the 5600NU rev 1 or even 2 will be slower).

If he wants an upgrade tell him to get a 9700pro, 9800Pro, or 5900XT. Anything else isn't worth it. MAYBE a 9600XT or 5700Ultra but still not much of a speed boost from those 2 cards.

-Kevin
 
Saying the 4400 is faster than the 5600 NU is not accurate. Half the time it's faster, and the other half, it's slower. Look at those Tom's Hardware benchmarks. The faster card is in bold.

UT 2003 normal
5600: 46.5
4400: 60.5

BF1942 normal
5600: 90.9
4400: 103.4

UT 2003 - 4x AA
5600: 36.3
4400: 28.9

UT 2003 - 8x AF
5600: 32.6
4400: 24.6

UT 2003 - 4x AA, 8x AF
5600: 30.1
4400: 18.3


At lower qualities, the 4400 is faster, but when you want high quality, the 4400 folds.
Either way, the "upgrade" isn't worth the money.
 
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Saying the 4400 is faster than the 5600 NU is not accurate. Half the time it's faster, and the other half, it's slower. Look at those Tom's Hardware benchmarks. The faster card is in bold.

UT 2003 normal
5600: 46.5
4400: 60.5

BF1942 normal
5600: 90.9
4400: 103.4

UT 2003 - 4x AA
5600: 36.3
4400: 28.9

UT 2003 - 8x AF
5600: 32.6
4400: 24.6

UT 2003 - 4x AA, 8x AF
5600: 30.1
4400: 18.3


At lower qualities, the 4400 is faster, but when you want high quality, the 4400 folds.
Either way, the "upgrade" isn't worth the money.
Click to expand...

Ok this is true, the 5600 is faster when you use aa and af. But look at the actual frame rates it's getting: 36.3, 32.6, 30.1. Assuming those are average framrates, I would not be at all comfortable playing with them. Even if those are the lowest framerate, I still wouldn't be very comfortable.

Conclusion: the 5600 sucks.
 
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Saying the 4400 is faster than the 5600 NU is not accurate. Half the time it's faster, and the other half, it's slower. Look at those Tom's Hardware benchmarks. The faster card is in bold.

UT 2003 normal
5600: 46.5
4400: 60.5

BF1942 normal
5600: 90.9
4400: 103.4

UT 2003 - 4x AA
5600: 36.3
4400: 28.9

UT 2003 - 8x AF
5600: 32.6
4400: 24.6

UT 2003 - 4x AA, 8x AF
5600: 30.1
4400: 18.3


At lower qualities, the 4400 is faster, but when you want high quality, the 4400 folds.
Either way, the "upgrade" isn't worth the money.
Click to expand...

GForce 4 was not designed to run AA/AF, that's why it lacks there. But nobody with a 5600 can use AA/AF, so there's no point in that comparison.
 
Sure it was designed to use AA and AF. If I can run Neverwinter Nights with 4x AF (no AA) on a GeForce2 Ti, I'm sure a GeForce4 Ti4400 can handle it.
 
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Sure it was designed to use AA and AF. If I can run Neverwinter Nights with 4x AF (no AA) on a GeForce2 Ti, I'm sure a GeForce4 Ti4400 can handle it.
Click to expand...

Their AA is very demanding, is multisampling AA if I remnber ok, much havier than newer cards and do sharp textures, not only jaggies. AF can be handled sometimes and with low numbers if you don't want a great performance hit (<4x).
 
What he is referring to until the Geforce FX came out Nvidia did not implement full hardware anti-aliasing. It was partial. ATI started doing this with the 9700 series. Also notice though that none of those benches were DX9 games. The 5600Ultra is HORRIBLE at those games. I would advise against getting it at all costs. 5700Ultra is a very good card... so is the 9600XT. If he wants even higher end... the highest i would recommend is the 5900XT and 9800Pro. DO NOT get the 5900Ultra or 5950Ultra or the 9800XT. They are not worth it with the next gen cards on their way.

-Kevin
 
AA is "full hardware" in consumer 3D cards. The difference being (ineptly 😛) debated is between super-sample and multi-sample AA. SSAA renders the whole scene at a higher resolution (2x or 4x the res), then downsamples to the screen res--this obviously costs a ton in terms of both fillrate and memory bandwidth. MSAA is faster as it just works on the polygon edges, ignoring textures. MSAA can be as effective as SSAA on polygon edges (assuming the same AA grid), but it doesn't touch textures, so it doesn't look as good overall. MSAA is meant to be used in combination with AF (for textures) to approximate SSAA at a smaller performance hit.

nV went to MSAA with the GF3; ATi only went to MSAA with the 9700P.
 
On top of not being an upgrade, I'd think the 5600 with 256mb ram would actually perform below the 128mb version, as well as cost more. I guess people who get dazzled by and buy by the numbers lower the cost of the good cards for the rest of us though 😉 In other words, let it be. Let him make the mistake and learn; he seems thickheaded and the hard way is often the only way some people learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top