How much will TI4200 improve my system performance?

[gwlam12]

Hi. Here are my specs:

1.4GHZ T-Bird
512 PC2100 DDR RAM
60GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
Radeon 32MB DDR OEM (running at 166mhz)
WIN XP

I've only included the specs which I think are important. How much of a performance increase should I expect if I were to upgrade to a TI4200? I'm not talking about gaming (even though its fun, but I think I should stop wasting time). I'm talking about loading menus and stuff like that on Windows XP. I'll pretty much be building webpage, programming, doing essays. The typical college student work. Should I save my money? Or would a TI4200 increase my performance enough for me to spend my money on? Thanks.

 

[PliotronX]

In gaming, it would make a huge difference, but as you said gaming isn't a priority so I vote you save your cash. There would be little if any improvement in UI performance under XP.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Yup there's be a BIG jump in perf, but so would a much cheaper GF3TI200 or Rad8500LE, I'd rec the Rad if prices are similar and best to go 128MB too. Do double check clocks and features as these can change with Radeons depending upon manu and retail/oem.

 

[Rand]

In gaming performance it would certainly be a temndous performance increase, but outside of gaming I can't see it being worthwhile. The Radeon 32MB DDR will give you a bit better 2D visual quality, along with better DVD playback.
Formerly the GF4 was very marginally faster in 2D, but more recent drivers have severely dropped 2D performance. Very few applications arent even remotely dependent upon 2D graphics performance however.

For gaming it'll definitely be a solid upgrade, outside of gaming it'll be a side-step at best and a mild downgrade in some respects.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Respect Rand, but it still astonishes me that a lot of people still hold on to this IQ ('2D' image quality) thing from the 90's, 'Matrox are King, ATI are Queen and everything else is just a peasent in comparison'.

The newer Radeons have better image quality than the older ones, although they are all very good, and Matrox are the best. GF2 were pretty awful, GF3 were better (esp Gainward and Leadtek) but now GF4 cards, TI in particular have significantly improved, something noted by reviewers and even Matrox themselves! In any case we are now talking VERY small diffs and only really noticable if you have a decent monitor running above 1280x1024x32 @ 75Hz+. Not really a huge concern for the vast majority of users.

DVD playback is a bit of a non-starter on modern CPUs, even 600mhz was more than adequate for that. Rad9000 cards do use a little DX8 magic to enhance the playback and reduce the artifacts which should be great for lower quality video, but I haven't seen any reviewer take a look at this yet. Other than that I don't think DVD playback is really relevant any longer.

As for 2D perf, I don't think you'll notice any diff using a Rad9700 over your current Radeon as we're talking tiny diffs here and a CPU and RAM upgrade would probably improve this much more.

If you don't need great 3D 4200 is a bit of a waste, you'd be served with more 3D than you need with a GF3 or Rad9000pro/8500LE as they peform VERY close to 4200 in 3D with a CPU at 1.4ghz. Since the Rad9000pro/8500LE offer better image quality, DVD playback, TVout, dual display etc over a GF3 then these would be your best avenue, but choose them for the right reasons at least!

 

[bulldawg]

I changed from an All in Wonder Radeon to a Gainward 128 4200. Game difference is amazing, best thing is that everything just looks sharper and clearer now. I love it.

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
Respect Rand, but it still astonishes me that a lot of people still hold on to this IQ ('2D' image quality) thing from the 90's, 'Matrox are King, ATI are Queen and everything else is just a peasent in comparison'.

I say it because I can see the difference myself, and I often see posts by others lamenting the 2D of even the GF4. It's not exactly overly unusual that people come about questioning ATi's quality either.
A good majority of enthusiasts do run 19"+ monitors well capable of 1280x1024 and above, and so I believe it is well worth mentioning as some are rather sensitive to the 2D quality output of modern graphics cards.
It would be negligent of me to pass it off just because the competition are improving, and it's no longer a primary factor for the average person. An enthusiast is hardly the average person.

I try to mention everything that may be relevant, regardless of whether I personally consider it of substantial difference as I've little knowledge of his personal requirements in a graphics card.

DVD playback is a bit of a non-starter on modern CPUs, even 600mhz was more than adequate for that. Rad9000 cards do use a little DX8 magic to enhance the playback and reduce the artifacts which should be great for lower quality video, but I haven't seen any reviewer take a look at this yet. Other than that I don't think DVD playback is really relevant any longer.

For the most part I would agree, for myself and 99% of others any modern processor is quite capable of playing back a DVD easily without any assistance by the graphics card. You yourself mentioned ATi's superior DVD playback capabilities later in that post.
Nonetheless, I mention DVD playback capabilities because I've seen a few people that wish to watch a DVD on one monitor while working in applications on another. Perhaps the wish to watch and capture segments of the DVD at the same time, in such situations DVD performance is still of importance.

Also, variances in DVD quality still remain though not as significant as they once were.
As a quick example, ATi players still tend to look better in terms of superior alpha blending (for subtitles) and scaling (full-screen). Such differences may be of use to some.

As for 2D perf, I don't think you'll notice any diff using a Rad9700 over your current Radeon as we're talking tiny diffs here and a CPU and RAM upgrade would probably improve this much more.

I agree, that's why I stated very few applications are truly dependent upon 2D graphics performance any longer. He did question 2D performance however, so I reported what minimal differences there may be.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Cool Rand, sincerely thanks for your opinion. I have great respect for you and while I don't often agree with you 100% it is fair to say I can pretty much always see things from your perspective and know you are not one of those annoying people who make comments with bias nor lacking foundation. Thanks for making you points in a fair and informative way as you always seem to do

 

[gwlam12]

Now I'm waiting for prices to fall. Have prices already fallen? Or is it just beginning?

By falling, I mean big price drops, not slow depreciations. To put it another way...has the dust settled for the next month or so?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
Respect Rand, but it still astonishes me that a lot of people still hold on to this IQ ('2D' image quality) thing from the 90's, 'Matrox are King, ATI are Queen and everything else is just a peasent in comparison'.

If you don't need great 3D 4200 is a bit of a waste, you'd be served with more 3D than you need with a GF3 or Rad9000pro/8500LE as they peform VERY close to 4200 in 3D with a CPU at 1.4ghz. Since the Rad9000pro/8500LE offer better image quality, DVD playback, TVout, dual display etc over a GF3 then these would be your best avenue, but choose them for the right reasons at least!

VERY true and observant Austin! You hit it right on the nail with the 2d image quality comparaison!

Also, same for the performance - at Anandtech's performance (in UT 2k3), 1.4 GHz was the magic mark for where the GF3 doesn't show any more notably big performance gains, and the GF4 needs more CPU power to get it really high. I'd stick with a GF3 at 1.4 Ghz: save money and milk your hardware for what it's worth .. but, a Ti4200 for a good price isn't that bad of a deal now, plus it will be better if/when you upgrade. It's your choice.

 

[gaterl8r]

hell i have a 450 p3 and i bought a g4 ti4200 64mb cuz i found one for 100 dollars...
I dont regret it AT ALL
i get higher framerates than before with 4xS AA on, anisotropic filtering on, 32 bit color, no framerate reduction at all...
get it at least for the improved image quality

 

[AnAndAustin]

The advantage of going for a 4200 is that you don't need to upgrade your gfx card if you decide to upgrade your CPU, 4200 shows significant improvements with every mhz a CPU can throw at it, relevant to both gwlam12 and gaterl8r (please upgrade gater). If you're unlikely to go over 1.4ghz in the next 6 months then a Rad8500 is the best choice (although Aniso and AA will suffer) providing the GF3 aren't a whole lot cheaper (or the 4200 isn't the same price like in the UK!).