Geforce4 Ti4600 to Radeon 9700 Pro...

[jdogg707]

I currently have a Leadtek A250TD Ultra Geforce4 Ti 4600 Video Card and have been persuaded through the price I can get an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro from work for, to upgrade, only if it will allow me to see some difference in quality/speed. I have always heard that ATI cards supply a better picture quality above Nvidia, is this true on the 9700 vs Ti4600? Especially when hooked up to my Samsung 181T 18.1" LCD through a DVI connector. Also, when I play Unreal Tournament 2K3 on my native resolution (which I would like to run all of my games at) 1280x1024x32 bit with all the settings cranked to high, no AA or AF turned on, I get a choppy frame rate in battles/deathmatches...I would like to be able to eliminate that. Also, as far as DVD playback is concerned, will I see better quality playback on the ATI card?

Now for some questions if I get the card. What drivers are the ones to use? Are there any bugs in the drivers or in certain games (My big games right now are Warcraft III and UT2K3)? Are there any issues with the card itself?

My big question is whether or not the performance difference is going to be enough to be worth the extra 79 bucks I am going to have to pay after I sell my Geforce4. Here are my system specs by the way...

Intel Pentium 4 2.26GHZ
Epox 4G4A+
512MB PC3200 DDR400
Western Digital 80GB x 2 in RAID 0

Thanks for all your help!!!

BTW, will I be able to cut up all of the settings like AA 4X and AF 16X and everything in the above mentioned games at 1280x1024x32? Thanks.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well even a GF3 or Rad8500 can still cut it in all current games including UT2003, there's really little point going above GF4TI4200! Of course Rad9700 is hugely superior as it's a good deal faster in pure 3D and can impliment both high AA and high Aniso with great quality and very little perf hit. Rad9700's DX9 really means VERY little as it will be at least a year before anything will take advantage of it, bu then there will be better and cheaper DX9 cards out. A 4600 with a P4 2.2ghz should certainly be able to play UT2003 smoothly at 1280x1024x32 even with 2xAA enabled, I'd check some other benchmarks as you may have some setup/driver issues, also try playing with Vsync enabled and disabled to see what you prefer.

GF3 always suffered because they lacked image/picture quality and dual display, this is something significantly addressed with GF4TI cards which also improved pure 3D perf, AA, TVout/VIVO and a great ability to take greater benefit from the fastest CPUs. GF4TI are certainly as good as Rad8500/9000 for image quality, although the Rads are still meant to be better once you get to 1600x1200x32 @ 75Hz. I'd imagine Rad9700 are going to have enhanced image quality over the Rad8500, but I doubt many users will be able to tell the diff. Radeons are definitely much better for TVout if you use that.

Of course using a DVI display device negates image quality diffs, so all cards should be completely equal. DVD playback is enahnced on the Radeon cards, although even on a Duron 1ghz this is almost completely irrelevant and why nVidia implimented hw DVD playback on the GF4MX cards but not the GF4TI cards. Rad9700 does have a facility (which is still to be reviewd) which enhances any MPEG video playback (not just DVDs) which should improve playback esp for lower quality video streams.

Rad9700 is a revolutionary new card and as such is having quite a few teething probs, as will nVidia's NV30 when that finally comes out.

So to sum up, if you want to improve 3D perf by a good 20%+, run with 4xAA and 16tap Aniso with little hit, enhance MPEG playback, be DX9 ready (for what that's worth), better TVout but will certainly have some drivers bugs and issues. Whether that's worth $80 is up to you, personally I'd rec you stick with 4600 for the next 6 months or so and see how the market develops ... Rad9700 will drop in price, nVidia will bring out NV30, ATI should bring out Rad9700 enhanced with DDR-II and there should be 'value' versions of Rad9700 and NV30.

 

[Deeko]

It will look better and run faster. Much so. You want to use AA and ansio? All the more reason, with full AA and ansio the 9700 can be 3x as fast as the 4600, and look better doing it. I'm using the latest ATI drivers, no problems here(I also play UT2K3).

 

[BFG10K]

only if it will allow me to see some difference in quality/speed

Most definitely. Having done the upgrade myself and being a hardcore nVidia fan before the upgrade I can tell you that the 9700 will blow you away. The image quality and the speed of the card is far superior to the Ti4600.

What drivers are the ones to use?

Ge the latest build of the Catalyst 2.3s.

My big games right now are Warcraft III and UT2K3)?

Both games work fine for me.

 

[WyteWatt]

This is unreal 2003 at 1600x1200 on my Leadtek GF4 ti 4400 video card with all details on high. Can anyone show me the difference with a pic in the same map and area with their ATI 9700 pro but with full FSAA and AF on ? I can't see a difference in the pics even in some of the reviews. Please someone show me the difference. I want to see the difference!!

Thanks

Unreal 2003 pic

 

[kylebisme]

in order to get an acurate comparison you might want to turn "stat fps" on.

 

[Shalmanese]

Wait... you want to get a Radeon 9700 for WORK because UT aint smooth enough???

 

[WyteWatt]

TheSnowman image quality.

 

[kylebisme]

well sure but immage quality means nothing if the framerate is not playable, and on a 9700 at the settings you requested it would not be playable at all. im curious as to how playable the ti4400 is in the immage you posted? nock the resolution down a notch or two and, assumeing the rest of the system is up to snuff, the 9700 becomes very playable with aa and af, not to mention aa makes more of an impact as the alising is more noticable at lower resoltions without it.

 

[zsouthboy]

Originally posted by: jdogg707
I currently have a Leadtek A250TD Ultra Geforce4 Ti 4600 Video Card and have been persuaded through the price I can get an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro from work for, to upgrade, only if it will allow me to see some difference in quality/speed. I have always heard that ATI cards supply a better picture quality above Nvidia, is this true on the 9700 vs Ti4600? Especially when hooked up to my Samsung 181T 18.1" LCD through a DVI connector. Also, when I play Unreal Tournament 2K3 on my native resolution (which I would like to run all of my games at) 1280x1024x32 bit with all the settings cranked to high, no AA or AF turned on, I get a choppy frame rate in battles/deathmatches...I would like to be able to eliminate that. Also, as far as DVD playback is concerned, will I see better quality playback on the ATI card?

Now for some questions if I get the card. What drivers are the ones to use? Are there any bugs in the drivers or in certain games (My big games right now are Warcraft III and UT2K3)? Are there any issues with the card itself?

My big question is whether or not the performance difference is going to be enough to be worth the extra 79 bucks I am going to have to pay after I sell my Geforce4. Here are my system specs by the way...

Intel Pentium 4 2.26GHZ
Epox 4G4A+
512MB PC3200 DDR400
Western Digital 80GB x 2 in RAID 0

Thanks for all your help!!!

BTW, will I be able to cut up all of the settings like AA 4X and AF 16X and everything in the above mentioned games at 1280x1024x32? Thanks.

Ummm. i think you must have some driver probs or something, UT2k3 is playable on my ti4600 at 1280x1024x32 QCAA and 2x AF on.......... hmmm...

personally, i would reccomend that you hang on to your 4600 for a little while, at least find out what nV30 can do before you run and pick up a 9700..... but, also, if you have the 80 bucks extra, what the hell, just do it, it can't HURT you.........

 

[fluxquantum]

the more i hear about the 9700 the more i want one