New Ti4200's vs old

[msb2ncsu]

I was looking into getting a new vid card to replace me GF2 Ultra.

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4, 8X AGP. Ti 4200, 3.3ns, Power Pack Golden Sample, BGA 128MB DDR
Is $208

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 Ti 4400, 3.6ns BGA Golden sample 128MB DDR.
Is $193

And 4600's or even 9700's start at the low to mid 200's.

I guess I am wondering if the newer 4200's are really worth the money or should I just stick with the GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 Ti 4200, 3.3ns, 64MB DDR. Golden Sample for a mere $150. I'm just not sure how much impact the memory speeds and such impact performance. Current system is just a 1600+ on an 8KHA+ board (but will be upgrading that soon too).

 

[zodder]

Current system is just a 1600+ on an 8KHA+ board

I have the exact same setup, but I'd hardly call it "just a 1600+ on an 8KHA+ board" when it's being run at 1828.

 

[AnAndAustin]

The 4200-8X is only better in the 128MB version as it should use higher clocks and faster RAM. The actual AGP8x part is useless (even Rad9700 doesn't truly benefit from it) and that's the only difference on the 4200-8X 64MB cards, clock speeds etc are the same. As for Gainwards Golden Sample it is often virtually meaningless, Gainward skimp on the non-GS versions to make the GS ones look better but they're totally comparable to pretty much any other manu's std offering. But anyway, on to specifics of the cards you mentioned ...

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4, 8X AGP. Ti 4200, 3.3ns, Power Pack Golden Sample, BGA 128MB DDR $208

Branding makes very little diff as does AGP8x. The 3.3ns BGA RAM (and hopefully full 8layer length design aka 4400/4660 I hope) is a good thing, essentially this card is a 4400/4600 hybrid sold under the alternate 'suped up 4200' title, good but highly priced.

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 Ti 4400, 3.6ns BGA Golden sample 128MB DDR.
Is $193

The 3.6ns BGA RAM should be inferior to 3.3ns as found on the other card, once o/c'ing comes in to it there will prob be about 10% perf penalty from the 3.6ns RAM but you should still reach 4600 speeds. The GS badge is almost certainly entirely meaningless here though, any other manu's 4400 should be identical right down to the RAM used. Pricey.

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 Ti 4200, 3.3ns, 64MB DDR

The 4200 uses the same core as the 4400/4600 so with a little tweaking the speed achieved will be the same unless you are unlucky (4400/4600 obviously guarantee a higher 'minimum' speed). The 3.3ns is only better than 3.6ns if it is in BGA form with the longer 4400/4600 design, otherwise the usual 4200 TSOP is every bit as good and cheaper too. Since 99% of all 4200-64MB use 3.6ns TSOP they every bit as good as this card so save yourself some cash.

If you want more than a basic / cheapest 4200 offers then you really should look to a Rad9500PRO - 9700 as these are far superior to any GF4TI including the 4600 and not just in pure 3D either. I'd suggest you consider the cheapest 4200 you can find (avoiding the skimping brands) and see how things unravel and prices fall over the next 6-12 months. If you want a bit more then look for a 4200-8X 128MB card or other TRULY enhanced 4200 (great examples being Albatron 4200 P Turbo and Suma Special Edition) but do take a look at how much extra a true 4600 or better yet Rad9500PRO - 9700 costs.

Enhanced 4200 cards:

OCadd Albatron 4200 P Turbo

Xbit link to Suma 4200 Special Edition

HardOCP Asus 4200 Deluxe (not in the same league)

Suddy Abit 4200 OTES (nice looking but not really worth it)

Other:

Tech Report 4200 roundup

AnAndTech 4200 roundup

TomsHW looking at GF4TI-8X

HardOCP Rad9500PRO

Firing Squad Rad9500PRO inc o/c'ing

 

[msb2ncsu]

Oops! Forgot I posted this. Thank you for the awesome reply, just have a few clarification questions.

So am I correct in concluding that the enhanced 4200's are similar in performance to the 9500 Pro (as long as AA an AF is not involved)? And that odds are as newer games come out in 1H 03' that 9500 Pro will probably pull ahead due to AA, AF, dx9, etc. So basically what you are saying is that there are some decent tuned up 4200's that I can get from 170-200+ but that for the same price I can get a 9500 Pro which is heads and tails above the 4200's (and in some case 4600's)? This would make me think that if I am buying now and am limited by $200, then get a 9500 Pro for sure. But, if I am not absolutley urgent or need to be more budget concious then 4200's will probably be more appealing because of more abundant price drops.

I hope what I said makes since to you cause I'm pretty unsure myself. There are just so many damn variations of each Companies card and tricks they employ to appear more attractive than a competitor that its easy to get lost.

 

[msb2ncsu]

Just read the tidbit at the end of the 9500 Pro OC article saying that it was "without a doubt the best gaming bang for the buck out of the current crop of cards" so I guess that is pretty much what I am looking for.

Thanks for your help!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: msb2ncsu
Oops! Forgot I posted this. Thank you for the awesome reply, just have a few clarification questions.

So am I correct in concluding that the enhanced 4200's are similar in performance to the 9500 Pro (as long as AA an AF is not involved)? And that odds are as newer games come out in 1H 03' that 9500 Pro will probably pull ahead due to AA, AF, dx9, etc. So basically what you are saying is that there are some decent tuned up 4200's that I can get from 170-200+ but that for the same price I can get a 9500 Pro which is heads and tails above the 4200's (and in some case 4600's)? This would make me think that if I am buying now and am limited by $200, then get a 9500 Pro for sure. But, if I am not absolutley urgent or need to be more budget concious then 4200's will probably be more appealing because of more abundant price drops.

I hope what I said makes since to you cause I'm pretty unsure myself. There are just so many damn variations of each Companies card and tricks they employ to appear more attractive than a competitor that its easy to get lost.

Correct:

If buy today, buy a 9500pro.

If you buy in a month or so when GF FX comes out, see where the prices are, as a Ti4200 "Turbo" will be lower in Nvidia's product hierarchy than the 9500pro will be in ATI's offerings. Choose the best price vs. performance.

If you wait until R350 or RV350, I wouldn't even look at a GF4, see where the prices of NV31, the 9700 TX/standard, and 9500pro are sitting.

Chiz

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: msb2ncsu
I was looking into getting a new vid card to replace me GF2 Ultra.

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4, 8X AGP. Ti 4200, 3.3ns, Power Pack Golden Sample, BGA 128MB DDR
Is $208

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 Ti 4400, 3.6ns BGA Golden sample 128MB DDR.
Is $193

And 4600's or even 9700's start at the low to mid 200's.

I guess I am wondering if the newer 4200's are really worth the money or should I just stick with the GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 Ti 4200, 3.3ns, 64MB DDR. Golden Sample for a mere $150. I'm just not sure how much impact the memory speeds and such impact performance. Current system is just a 1600+ on an 8KHA+ board (but will be upgrading that soon too).

if you are going to buy gainward, then i suggest you read this before buying it
don't say i didn't warn you

 

[msb2ncsu]

Thanks for the heads up. I had not heard about the problems. Looks like Im gonna go with a 9500Pro anyways.