NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4200 Preview--Bring a fresh change of undies :)

[Akaz1976]

<< I'd give my $30 bucks more to the Ti4400 >>



I thought the price difference between 4200 and 4400 was like $100.

Akaz

 

[BlvdKing]

Won't the 64 MB of RAM hinder the 4200 in FSAA? Also, the RAM modules are not BGA so the cards that are sold to the public will probably have ramsinks on them.

I don't have enough $$$ to upgrade from my Ti 200.

 

[SCSIfreek]

guess my old voodoo5 finally gets the boot outta my main system. Should i wait another 6 months for the NV30? ahhhhh.....I dunno..


--Scsi

 

[Akaz1976]

How come in firing squads review 4200 with 64MB RAM performed better than 128MB RAM? even with slower RAM (444MHz), the 128 version would still have more bandwidth and the have exactly the same core and core speed.

Akaz

 

[Leon]

<< How come in firing squads review 4200 with 64MB RAM performed better than 128MB RAM? even with slower RAM (444MHz), the 128 version would still have more bandwidth >>



Amount of memory has nothing to do with bandwidth.

 

[Electric Amish]

*yawn*

amish

 

[Katana]

<< guess my old voodoo5 finally gets the boot outta my main system. Should i wait another 6 months for the NV30? ahhhhh.....I dunno..


--Scsi >>




NV30 comes out in six months? I didn't think it would come out until next spring, did Nvidia already announce this?



Well I already have my money saved for one of these, now when will they be out?

 

[jm0ris0n]

If I remember correctly the GF4 was finalized around december. This being true, NVIDIA wold have 8 months under their belt of new chipset design. I'd hate to see that time wasted on just a speed bumped gf4. Hopefully the NV30 will be worth waiting for the second I (we) fire up doom3

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< Amount of memory has nothing to do with bandwidth >>



unless ur talking rdram. then there is a correlation.

 

[herbage11]

:|:Q anyone got some spare undies? lol cant wait for this to hit the market!

 

[jeffrey]

<< I'd give my $30 bucks more to the Ti4400 >>



"I thought the price difference between 4200 and 4400 was like $100.

Akaz"


The 128mb Ti4400 is $230 right now on pricewatch. The Ti4200 128mb is said to launch around $199. The initial price difference when cards hit the shelves will probably be around $30-$40 before the Ti4200's drop further.

However, remember this:
Ti4200 64mb 250/500
Ti4200 128mb 250/444 (not confirmed)
Ti4400 128mb 275/550

If this info holds true (again, it's not confirmed) I'd gladly give $30-$40 for a 275/550 card over a 250/444 one.

I still don't get the Ti4200 hoopla.

 

[AGodspeed]

<< << I'd give my $30 bucks more to the Ti4400 >>



"I thought the price difference between 4200 and 4400 was like $100.

Akaz"


The 128mb Ti4400 is $230 right now on pricewatch. The Ti4200 128mb is said to launch around $199. The initial price difference when cards hit the shelves will probably be around $30-$40 before the Ti4200's drop further.

However, remember this:
Ti4200 64mb 250/500
Ti4200 128mb 250/444 (not confirmed)
Ti4400 128mb 275/550

If this info holds true (again, it's not confirmed) I'd gladly give $30-$40 for a 275/550 card over a 250/444 one.

I still don't get the Ti4200 hoopla. >>



You've misinterpreted this whole thing.

1. The Ti4200 is supposed to be $179 at launch, not $199.
2. Ti4400 prices have had a lot of weeks to fall. After a certain amount time, they won't fall much more, unless nVidia releases a new product that challenges it's intended market.

The Ti4200 (250MHz core clock, 500MHz memory) should drop from $179 to $150 on the net a couple weeks after its launch. Right now, the cheapest Ti4400 is $234 on pricewatch, and even if the Ti4400 gets down to $200 (which I doubt) by the time the Ti4200 has been out for a few weeks, that's still a $50 delta between the Ti4200 and Ti4400. That's quite enough for most people to go with the Ti4200, especially since it will be overclockable to Ti4600 speeds.

 

[jeffrey]

<<You've misinterpreted this whole thing.>>

No, I believe you just might have overlooked what I posted.

"The initial price difference when cards hit the shelves will probably be around $30-$40 before the Ti4200's drop further."



<<....especially since it will be overclockable to Ti4600 speeds.>>

Please tell me that you were joking...... you were joking right? That 250mhz core is a long way away from Kansas in regards to GeForce4 core speed overclocking. Not to mention it would be pushing the ram rated at 250mhz all the way up to 325mhz. A Ti4200 overclock to Ti4600 speeds is a little bit far fetched, especially since the reports are that the memory on the Ti4200's aren't the ball grid array type as on the Ti4400 and Ti4600.

***
I was referring, in price, to the apples to apples 128mb versions. The $179 card is only 64mb. The Ti4200 128mb card is still going to launch at $199.

 

[Mingon]

Lets face it the 4200 is supposed to be the cheap model, so it will use the cheapest memory available (assuming non bga) i.e 3.8-4.0ns you might get 3.6ns, but I would bet on 3.8 which should allow for 525mhz but I wouldnt bet on more than 550mhz out of the memory. As for the core, the yields must be pretty good as the rated speed has increased to 250mhz, so again bet on perhaps a 10-15% average o/c. So I would guess on most reaching 4400 speed with perhaps 5-10% reaching 4600. One things for sure my koolance case is getting a new buddy soon, I just hope uk prices are not to high i.e $199 should equal £125 - but I wouldnt bet on seeing anything below £150 for a while.

 

[Akaz1976]

<< << How come in firing squads review 4200 with 64MB RAM performed better than 128MB RAM? even with slower RAM (444MHz), the 128 version would still have more bandwidth >>



Amount of memory has nothing to do with bandwidth. >>



Fair enough but the fact that the more expensive and higher memory 128 version being outperformed by the cheaper lower mem 64MB version still doesnt sit right. Especially since both products are same gen same company products.

Akaz

 

[Eug]

I guess nobody ever does any work because yet again nobody mentions anything about 2D text quality.

If good then it's a great deal. If mediocre, it's worth nothing to me.

 

[Mem]

<< I guess nobody ever does any work because yet again nobody mentions anything about 2D text quality. >>



The only way you can really do a real 2D test is to do a super roundup of all GF4 Ti4200 cards and compare them to each other and then a Matrox card ,so I`m not really surprised it`s not mentioned.Most of us know the top brands that in general have the best 2D image in the Geforce range , however I`m sure in time we will see a super roundup of Ti4200 cards.

 

[NFS4]

<< I guess nobody ever does any work because yet again nobody mentions anything about 2D text quality.

If good then it's a great deal. If mediocre, it's worth nothing to me. >>


BLAH BLAH BLAH. Detracters always fall back on the 2D image quality crapping as usual

For me, I don't give a crap b/c I'm using an LCD on the DVI port. Either way, I've never had a problem with NVIDIA's 2D quality on analog conections.

 

[Eug]

<< The only way you can really do a real 2D test is to do a super roundup of all GF4 Ti4200 cards and compare them to each other and then a Matrox card ,so I`m not really surprised it`s not mentioned.Most of us know the top brands that in general have the best 2D image in the Geforce range , however I`m sure in time we will see a super roundup of Ti4200 cards. >>


Well, that's true of course, but it seems some brands even vary from generation to generation. At least if they commented on 2D quality on these cards we'd know what to avoid/consider if it were extremely bad/good. I find that just testing 1600x1200x85 is usually a pretty good indicator.



<< BLAH BLAH BLAH. Detracters always fall back on the 2D image quality crapping as usual >>

Well, I've seen some pretty bad Geforce cards so it is a major concern for me. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I've never bought nVidia cards - too much of a crap shoot. Nonetheless I would definitely consider a 4200 if a card came out with Radeon-level 2D quality. I'm just afraid that most of the reviews will as usual will have minimal attention paid to 2D, where people spend most of their time. I will admit though that my experience with nVidia cards is with Geforce2 and below only. No Geforce3 or 4's.

 

[NFS4]

<< Well, I've seen some pretty bad Geforce cards so it is a major concern for me. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I've never bought nVidia cards - too much of a crap shoot. Nonetheless I would definitely consider a 4200 if a card came out with Radeon-level 2D quality. I'm just afraid that most of the reviews will as usual will have minimal attention paid to 2D, where people spend most of their time. >>


Considering NVIDIA's marketshare and dominance, either most people don't give a crap about 2D image quality, or it's not at as bad as people make it out to be.

 

[Mem]

<< I find that just testing 1600x1200x85 is usually a pretty good indicator >>



Eug I agree however you will have to be patient and wait ,we will probably get feedback from some ex ATi,Matrox owners that will be buying a GF4 Ti4200 card soon plus other sites will be doing their GF4 Ti4200 reviews as well.

A wise man does some research before he takes the plunge .

 

[Eug]

<< A wise man does some research before he takes the plunge >>

No plunge now. Probably when I get my 3 GHz Hammer or something. It was just a general comment about the state of video card reviews in general.



<< Considering NVIDIA's marketshare and dominance, either most people don't give a crap about 2D image quality, or it's not at as bad as people make it out to be. >>

Heh, well a bazillion people are on AOL so what's your point? Actually nVidia GPUs are great, but the OEM manufacturers sometimes suck as you very well know. I think the reason is that people just don't know any better, for a few reasons.

1) Many people only run 1024x768 anyway, so it's irrelevant. Lots of cards that are terrible at 1600x1200x85 run pretty well at 1024x784, or even (the dreaded 5:4 AR) 1280x1024.
2) Half the people I've talked to in my dept. can't even tell the difference between 60 Hz and 75 Hz, until I point it out to them.

I did a minor test in my dept. the other day. I have a high end video camera hooked up to a microscope and to two TV monitors via 1) single cable BNC (equalent to coax or composite, not the 3 to 5 cable BNC used for high end video) and 2) S-video.

It was clear to me that:

1) The BNC image flickered, but the S-video was solid.
2) The BNC image had slightly (artificially) more contrast and brightness, with enhanced edges, etc. However, the S-video image had more appropriate brightness and contrast, and of course much greater detail (looking at cell nuclei etc).

Out of 5 people (who make their living looking down a microscope all day), 4 preferred the crappier single-cable BNC image, because it had artificially high brightness and contrast. It's no surprise that TV and monitors come from the factory set with their contrast and brightness way too high. Similarly it's no surprise that many people can't tell what good 2D on a video card is. (Not saying that's you though. You probably have had good nVidia cards in the past, and now it's moot since you use DVI.)

 

[NFS4]

<< Heh, well a bazillion people are on AOL so what's your point? >>


And I've never had a problem with AOL In fact, I signed my aunt up for it a couple of months ago and it was easy to setup and easy for her to use. And her kids find it simple enough to use (5 and 6). People bash AOL b/c it's AOL b/c it's a big company with lot of marketshare and power. It's the same way people are against Microsoft, Intel, NVIDIA, or anybody that has dominance in the marketplace.

Sure AOL isn't perfect, but what is?

 

[ChrisADuffy]

Can't wait to get my hands on one.

 

[StormRider]

I wish they could combine the Geforce4 core with the VPE (Video Processing Engine) from the Geforce4 MX core -- that's what I'm waiting for...