GF3 TI200: Time to upgrade?

[bigbangtech]

I bought my Visiontek GF3TI200 from BB a long time ago at BB for $99AR. I've completely missed anything that went on with the GF4 and now we're up to a second generation of FX cards. I mostly will be looking for DX8 performance in games and was wondering how (if at all) a FX5200($99 at BB, non-ultra) stacks up to my GF3Ti200. What's the best value in DX8 for under $150?

 

[Detselom]

i would suggest getting a gf 4 4200. it's faster then a non ultra 5200

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: pooper
I bought my Visiontek GF3TI200 from BB a long time ago at BB for $99AR. I've completely missed anything that went on with the GF4 and now we're up to a second generation of FX cards. I mostly will be looking for DX8 performance in games and was wondering how (if at all) a FX5200($99 at BB, non-ultra) stacks up to my GF3Ti200. What's the best value in DX8 for under $150?

<<< Here is a benchmark I just posted on another thread, as you can see the FX5200 hardly performs any better than the old GF4 MX440. Your GF3 Ti200 will be faster than the FX5200 so don't bother getting it. IMO a great video card to get is the Geforce4 Ti4200, it offers great performance for it's price. Actually I'm replacing my 128mb FX5200 with a 128mb GF4 Ti4200 because it's just a much much better video card >>>

Here are some NEW benchmark scores for my GF4 MX440 (270/400) and Geforce FX5200 (250/400):-

AMD Athlon XP 2500 Barton (11x166mhz)
SIS746FX motherboard
512mb DDR333 memory
Detonator v44.03
SIS AGP v1.15
Windows XP Home edition with SP1

All games tested at 1024x768x32bit with max quality settings and with sound enabled for real game results!

(results are fx5200 & mx440)

3dmark 2001 se (1024x768) = 7656,6367
3dmark 2003 (1024x768) = 1423,261

Quake 3 (demo4):-

800x600x32bit = 212,198
1024x768x32bit = 159,145
1280x1024x32bit= 132,121

Quake 3 2xfsaa:-

640x480x32bit = 212,184
800x600x32bit = 169,132
1024x768x32bit= 112,86

Quake 3 4xfsaa:-

640x480x32bit = 135,96
800x600x32bit = 90,66
1024x768x32bit= 55,43

Quake 3 anisotropic filtering at 1024x768x32bit:-

2x=138,125
4x=126,N/A
8x=117,N/A

Return to castle wolfenstein (IXBT):-

800x600x32bit = 125,158
1024x768x32bit = 82,121
1280x1024x32bit= 66,101

NOTE:Yes these scores are correct, the FX5200 gets it's ass kicked by the little GF4 MX440 big time. Hey Nvidia I think you forgot to obtimise this game for the Geforce FX?

Serious Sam 2 (Elephant Atrium):-

800x600x32bit = 160,152
1024x768x32bit = 120,108
1280x1024x32bit= 99,87

NOTE:The FX5200 stutters when the benchmark starts which results in a lower score, Nvidia should of fixed this problem in the last driver release.

UT2003 flyby LQ (Antalus):-

800x600x32bit = 124,124
1024x768x32bit = 83,84
1280x1024x32bit= 55,56

UT2003 botmatch LQ (Antalus):-

800x600x32bit = 74,76
1024x768x32bit = 61,64
1280x1024x32bit= 43,46

NOTE:Both of these video cards should be used in a slower system because they are both really holding back the Athlon XP 2500. The GF4 Ti4200 which will be replacing the FX5200 in this system will deliver much better performance!

 

[NYHoustonman]

That video card isn't terrible. If I were you, I would save a little more and get a 9500 Pro, or even wait longer for the prices of, say, the 9700 pro to go down. That video card should be able to handle most things up to Doom 3 and HL2, I would think.

 

[chin311]

Not worth the upgrade from a ti200, i'd get either a 9500/9600 pro from ati, you'll at least notice a diff, and still have directx9.

or if you don't wanna go that route, a ti4200 would make a good performance jump, and you can get them for 120-$

 

[Gog]

Hey Poop, I'm in the same boat as you are. I actualy got my Visiontek for about $75 after rebates/etc from the Gateway accessory store a while back.

I refuse to spend any more than about $150 on a new video card and the video card that I get should outperform the Ti200 by a decent margin.

IMHO the Ti 4200 doesn't do this and the 9500 series although very good cards are a combination of being too expensive and not offering such drastic improvement. The 9600 pro performs on par with the 4200 but when oc'ed can reach near 9700 levels, so that maybe a good deal when prices come down.

I will be waiting for the the 9700 to drop to around $150. Currently its at about $220.

In the meantime my oc'ed Ti200 is doing a good job of handling the games I play which are mostly GTA3, IL-2, and HL mods. Even when HL2 comes out I'm sure the Ti200 should do a decent job of playing it at 800x600. D3 maybe a different story.

 

[bigbangtech]

Thanks for all the info, guys! I'm probably going to go for a 4200. How is this one? 64MB 4200 $90 + $7 shipping OR is the 128MB version really worth it?

 

[kylebisme]

depends on if you want to be able to use high texture quality or not.

 

[Schadenfroh]

if you can get the 128mb for less than 15 more, then it would be better for future games. 64mb is enought tho. in general the 64mb outperforms the 128mb becuase the 64mbs memory is faster.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Is your performance in the games you play really that bad that you HAVE to upgrade now, rather than wait for a DX9 capable video card around when Doom 3 and HL2 come out? Your choice, but really give waiting a thought.

 

[ultimatebob]

A Ti4200 card isn't much of an upgrade over a GeForce 3. I would hold out a bit longer, and pick up an ATI Radeon 9600 when it goes under $150.

 

[Corporate Thug]

save up, get a 9500 pro

 

[UnrealAddict]

Absolutely agree. gf4200 not that much of an upgrade. You don't want to spend extra for 9500 pro? Then you're looking at upgrading again next year. I was in the same boat 3 weeks ago. UT2003 dragged my Ti200 to the floor sometimes. Not to mention the stuttering in Splinter Cell. Splurged for 9800 pro so I wouldn't have to upgrade again for 2 years. Think of it, if you end up upgrading every year, is it saving you money? All along, you're suffering from poor 2D and picture quality. Not for me. You'd be amazed how much better 2D the ATIs have over nVidia.

 

[Rogozhin]

for $220 you can get a 9700 non pro that you can run at pro speeds, much much better than any g4 and will run anygame you throw at it with aa and af enabled at decent fps.

rogo

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: UnrealAddict
Absolutely agree. gf4200 not that much of an upgrade. You don't want to spend extra for 9500 pro? Then you're looking at upgrading again next year. I was in the same boat 3 weeks ago. UT2003 dragged my Ti200 to the floor sometimes. Not to mention the stuttering in Splinter Cell. Splurged for 9800 pro so I wouldn't have to upgrade again for 2 years. Think of it, if you end up upgrading every year, is it saving you money? All along, you're suffering from poor 2D and picture quality. Not for me. You'd be amazed how much better 2D the ATIs have over nVidia.

Your 9800 Pro will last you 2years? Keep telling yourself that because IMO it's not going to happen.

You can't say that ALL ATI video cards have superior 2D to Nvidia based video cards because they don't. My XFX Geforce FX5200 has excellent 2D quality and image quality and is easily a match for the Sapphire Radeon video cards I've owned.

 

[McArra]

Get a R300 or R350 and forget about DX8 hardware and Nvidia.

 

[NYHoustonman]

and Nvidia.

I sense bias...

As a side note, my Gainward ti4400 golden sample has EXCELLENT 2D quality. Never seen any of the newer ATI cards in action, but this has been better than any video card I have used and is better than the 2D quality in every other computer I have been on.

Anyway, just as I said before, unless you are having such bad performance in games that it is unplayable, suck it up, save a little more, and go for AT LEAST a 9500 pro.