Plz Inform me...

[Bakkus]

I was wondering about the diffrence between the GF-Ti and GF-FX -cards. This is because I am going to buy myself a new computer soon, a 2.66GHz P4.

I am this confused because I have heard that the upcomming D3 and HL2 are going to be suporting the Ti-technology, but that does not seem to make sense sinse FX cards are newer...arent they? Also I have seen Ti-cards that are more expensive than FX. Finaly I saw a preview here on anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812&p=4

Here it seems to me that GF-Ti cards are beating all the other cards... so what is it with the name of the review "ATI's Radeon 9600 Pro - Another Win for ATI".
It comes to my head now that possibly this has something to do with the directX8 and directX9 but how?

If anyone would be able to help me understand this I would much apreciate that( Dont use to much Tech -lingo )

Best regards from Iceland.

 

[Harabecw]

Hi, welcome to the forums.

The Geforce4 Titanium (4200, 4400, 4600 etc) is a previous generation card line that can do all the nifty (but not too nifty! ) features in DirectX8.1. From my experience however they have a problem with high AA/AF in newer games with all the settings on, but if you keep AA out of this they still perform very well.

The new Geforce-FX series are DirectX9-feature cards.
But...there's a catch. The lowly FX5200/5200ultras do not perform better than a GF4-Ti4200 and are priced accordingly (I think like $80 for normal, more for ultra)
The 5600/5600 Ultra are much beefier and compete with ATI's Radeon 9500pro/9600pro(newer version). which one is faster is up to the reviews to say.

The GF-FX5800 Ultra was regarded as "crap" by everyone including nvidia and was replaced by the (supposedly better) 5900 Ultra which will come out in a bit. These go against the top Radeons - 9700/Pro/9800/pro.


In short, you have 3 'tiers'. top cards - Radeon 9700/9800, GF-FX5900 Ultra and the lower clocked versions of it.
"medium" - Radeon 9500/Pro, 9600Pro, GF-FX5600/ultra. The Geforce4 Ti4600/4400 compete here as well if you don't up the Anti-Aliasing or Filtering too much
"low" - GF4-Ti4200, which is actually a great performer once you OC it. GF-FX5200, IMHO poo but I don't have it so ask someone else.
Radeon 8500/8500LE/8500LELE(heh), 9000/pro, 9100/pro, 9200/pro. basically the same core with some differences.

If I'm wrong with anything here someone correct me and give me a carrot.

 

[gururu]

nice explanation harabecw. I also wanted to add something.

there are not huge differences in the framerate between last generation cards and newer generation cards when AA and AF are not applied. The important thing to realize is that speed no longer owns the throne. Now, image quality (IQ) has become extremely important. The true power of a card is observed when speed and IQ are optimized. Under these circumstances, the newer cards literally CRUSH the older cards.

More and more work is being put into games and applications that attempt to create more realistic environments. Anisotropic Filtering (AF) is IMO the single best feature one can enable. It is, for me, impossible to consider not using it. So are we sacrificing speed for IQ? Not anymore. Whereas the older generation cards struggle with near unplayable framerates, the newer cards run with AA and AF at smoother than silk framerates (60 and above). DX9 is just another example of software that will enable game makers to add even more bells and whistles in games.

Playing new games on old cards really does make it seem like you are playing old games.

 

[Bakkus]

Thanks so much for your time and effort.

So it seems to me that I should get me a GF-FX5600/ultra because they are DirectX9-feature cards, which I will use rather than DX8... right!! And also I would like to be able to use AA and AF. This should take GeForce4-Ti out of the equation and leave "GF-FX5600/ultra" left(since GF-FX5900 Ultra is to expensive).

Thanks again.

 

[Harabecw]

Actually, you should go with a Radeon9700 NON-Pro in that case. sometimes costs the same as a 5600Ultra and offers better performance.

EDIT: actual numbers, 9700non-pro's can go for $200-230. Pros $250-300.

 

[Pete]

Nice explanation by Harabecw. I'll echo the recommendation that no card competes in price/perf to a 9700 (non-Pro) for $200.

I'll also warn you that it seems all first-gen FX cards (FX 5200, 5600, 5800) don't seem to support DX9 minimum precisions at acceptable speeds. DX9 min is FP24 (24-bit per each color in RGBA). FX cards theoretically support both FP16 and FP32, but current precision tests show they always run in FP16 mode. If the drivers eventually enable FP32, I think they'll be too slow to be worthwhile. So I think that of the current DX9 solutions, only the FX 5900 (and all ATi DX9 cards) will run fully-compliant DX9 shaders reasonably quickly. I'm only going by 3DM03 and a handful of benchmarks created by the forum regulars at B3D, though--we'll have to wait a year for DX9 games before we're completely sure. And nV's next drivers (Detonator 50.xx) are rumored to include boosts in precision and speed, so maybe it's just a matter of nV providing suficiently optimized drivers.

But if you're buying now, I think your main choices are a $105 128MB GF4Ti 4200-8x or a $201 Radeon 128MB 9700 @ GameVE. Of course there are other choices for specific needs (like a 128MB Radeon 9000P for $89 if you want better signal quality & DVD playback and more output options than the GF4 and will use AF all the time), but those are the two main choices in terms of price and performance levels. You can split the difference with a $150 128MB Radeon 9500, which will be slower than a 4200 in plain rendering, but faster with AA & AF, but I think it's worth paying the extra $50 to get the much faster 9700.

You want numbers, you say? Here's a fairly comprehensive comparison of the mid-range ($100-200) cards. Ignore the French, look at the graphs. Keep in mind a 9700 will be noticably faster than a 9500P, especially at higher resolutions or with AA&AF.

Edit: The normalized ("Moyenne") scores at the end of that Hardware.fr review are the most interesting, if you'd like to get to know the cards at a glance. In plain 1600x1200 rendering, a Radeon 9500P is, on average (across all the tests Hardware.fr performed), 27% faster than a 4200 and 15% faster than a 5600U. In 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF, the 9500P is TWICE as fast as a 4200, and still 15% faster than a 5600U. Again, a 9700 will be faster still than a 9500P, especially with AA & AF, as it's the same card but with *twice* the memory bandwidth (the main limiting factor in AA performance). So, I'd stick with the 4200 for plain rendering, and ante up for a 9700 if you want all the bells and whistles. IMHO, of course.

 

[Bakkus]

warning warning information overflow....

SO... what u are trying to tell me is that actually the GF-FX cards don´t have anything good about them, and I should not buy them.

It is better to buy an "9700 non-pro" or a "Ti 4200" (which I thought was old and not a DX9 supporter, nor good with AA or AF). How can it be better than the newer GF-FX 5600?

Here are some cards that are possible for me to buy:

1. ASUS AGP-V8420 GeForce4 Ti4200 128 MB DDR AGP TV-out, VIVO&DVI, Video Card, Deluxe $368

2. ASUS 9280TD GeForce4 Ti4200 128 MB DDR AGP 8x, TV-out and DVI $258

3. Microstar GeForce FX5600-VTDR, 128MB DDR, 325 Mhz C, 550 MHz M, V, T, D, P, X8, Remote $341

4. Microstar GeForce FX5600-TD, 256MB DDR, 325 Mhz C, 550 MHz M, T, D, X8 $368

5. ATI RADEON 9700 128 MB DDR Dual Head, DVI and TV-OUT $454

so... If anyone would want to tell me the diffrance between these cards and possibly rate(who is the best and who is the worst) them, I would like that very much. Also feel free to comment on anything.

 

[gururu]

Bakkus, this is how they rate best to worst:

9700>5600-TD>5600-VTDR>V8420>9280

if you can afford the radeon it is great. if it would be too much of a sacrifice, shoot for a 5600. I wouldn't touch a Ti4200 at those prices with a ten-foot pole.

how about the 9500pro or 9600pro? Are those prices the cheapest you've found?
It boggles my mind how people recommend the Ti series anymore. I'm not anti-Nvidia. Heck, I'm pushing the 5600 or even the 5800/5900 if you can afford them. I'd just stay from the 4200, 4400, 4600 cards since they are obsolete in terms of running today's IQ enhancing features.

 

[Harabecw]

are these prices....canadian $$$? whats that in USD?

 

[DaveSimmons]

It is better to buy an "9700 non-pro" or a "Ti 4200" (which I thought was old and not a DX9 supporter, nor good with AA or AF). How can it be better than the newer GF-FX 5600?

the 5600 is better prepared for future games, the ti 4200 is a better value for playing current games. The ATI 9700 is better than either for both current and future games.

Also, by the way, a P4 2.6C with 800 MHz frontside bus is 5-10% faster than a 2.66 GHz with 533 frontside bus.

 

[TourGuide]

If you've got the cash, get a 9800 or a 5900U.

I KNOW it's not a good value, but if you've got the dime to drop, then do it. I'd lean towards the nVidia product because of personal experience, but that's just me.

 

[Pete]

Bakkus, my post has all the info you need. Just take your time and read it slowly. And look at the benchmarks in that Hardware.fr review. IMO, I'd look into either the $258 4200 or the $454 9700. You'll have to read my post to see which you might want more. The 9700 is faster than the 4200 in all cases (at least twice as fast with AA & AF enabled) and is more future-proof in that it's a DX9 card, but you'll have to decide if it's worth it to you.