Should a GeForce FX 5500 256MB out perform a GeForce Ti4400 128MB?

[TechKnight]

Alright I have a PNY GeForce Ti4400 128MB AGP that is dying (sometimes the fan doesn't spin). I received a used XFX GeForce FX 5500 256MB AGP. I run the 3DMark03 and get scores of 1600s on the Ti4400 (while making sure the fan is spinning). Then I swapped the cards run 3DMark03 on the FX5500. Now it seems to start up smoothly in the first test but then the FPS dropped to really low and in some of the tests, it drops to less than 1 FPS where it's skipping and I get a blank screen in between each frame. The score on the FX5500 was 1400s. My understanding is that the FX5500 is newer and should technically perform better than the Ti4400; especially given twice the ram. However, could there be a malfunction with this card that causes it to lag in such a test and performed so poorly?

 

[Laminator]

The GeForce FX 5500 is simply an FX 5200 with higher clock speeds. Needless to say, the FX 5200 is craptastic and thus so is the FX 5500. The GeForce Ti 4400 is an uncommon card that is faster than the Ti 4200 and considering that the Ti 4200 is sometimes faster than the FX 5600, it's no surprise that the FX 5500 would get its butt-kicked by the Ti 4400.

 

[TechKnight]

Thanks Laminator. Actually I looked up the specs and found this:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2195&p=3

Thus, I have discovered that newer is not necessarily faster. :brokenheart:

 

[imported_Kiwi]

The GF4 series predated the use of a cohesive performance numbering system by both major 3D producers. The FXes were nVidia's first series to try to have a "600" or better as a baseline Mid-Level gaming entry card, and an "800" as a real performance card, but all of the FXes had defective Dx9 shaders, and the even numbered, 600 and 800 cards just didn't do even Dx8 very well (they were great at OpenGL). It took the 5700, 5900, and 5950 to handle Dx8 decently, but none of them ever were good with SM 2 pixel shading.

Generational improvements vary from one generation to the next, such that the 7300 GT is/ was roughly on a par with the Ti-4600, which was about the same as a 9700 Pro, save for the GF4 having no Dx9 capability at all.

 

[Laminator]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
Generational improvements vary from one generation to the next, such that the 7300 GT is/ was roughly on a par with the Ti-4600, which was about the same as a 9700 Pro, save for the GF4 having no Dx9 capability at all.

Hmmm...I'm not sure if I would say that. GDDR3 versions of the 7300GT are a little faster than the 6600GT; both are 8-pipeline cards with similar clocks/architecture. The 6600GT was on part with the 9800 Pro/XT. While it is true that the Ti 4600 could sometimes keep up with the 9700 Pro in games, this happened in non-DX9 games at resolutions lower than, say, 1600x1200. In Doom 3, for example, the Ti 4600 was slower than even the 9600 Pro while the 9700 Pro was 40% faster and the FX 5800 Ultra was over 100% faster.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

The Geforce 6600 GT may have been at the same OpenGL performance level as a 9800 Pro, but it couldn't run in the same race with the 9800 XT running an intense graphical game SM 2) such as Oblivion (and I would also expect the 256 MB version of the 9800 Pro to have beaten the nvidia card). I know it directly from my own personal testing. Doom3 is not a Direct3D title, and was not included purposely, but I would've been surprised as can be if the 9600, even the XT, would've been better than the Ti-4600 in the general run of games from the period about three years ago when all of those oldies would have been on the retail shelves at the same time.

 

[Laminator]

You're right about the 9600/4600; I have a Radeon 9600 and compared to my friend's GeForce4 Ti 4600 Ultra, it is slower in older games (like GTA III, for example) and faster in DX9 games like Far Cry and Need for Speed: Most Wanted. More or less, though, the performance is comparable. This is not surprising considering both are 4-pipeline cards, with the 4600 having more raw power and the 9600 supporting newer features.

My main concern was the notion that the 7300GT would be comparable to the 4600; the 7300GT is an 8-pipeline card with much higher clock speeds and is similar in speed to the 6600GT and the 9800 Pro. I'm guessing it should be thought of as twice the card the 4600 is.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: TechKnight
Alright I have a PNY GeForce Ti4400 128MB AGP that is dying (sometimes the fan doesn't spin). I received a used XFX GeForce FX 5500 256MB AGP. I run the 3DMark03 and get scores of 1600s on the Ti4400 (while making sure the fan is spinning). Then I swapped the cards run 3DMark03 on the FX5500. Now it seems to start up smoothly in the first test but then the FPS dropped to really low and in some of the tests, it drops to less than 1 FPS where it's skipping and I get a blank screen in between each frame. The score on the FX5500 was 1400s. My understanding is that the FX5500 is newer and should technically perform better than the Ti4400; especially given twice the ram. However, could there be a malfunction with this card that causes it to lag in such a test and performed so poorly?

I've found a Geforce FX 5500 vs Geforce4 Ti4200 review. The Ti4400 is faster than the Ti4200 but it will give you a rough idea about how slow the Geforce FX 5500 is lol

In the conclusion in that review, it says that the Geforce4 Ti4200 is 37% faster than the newer Geforce FX 5500!

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Laminator
You're right about the 9600/4600; I have a Radeon 9600 and compared to my friend's GeForce4 Ti 4600 Ultra, it is slower in older games (like GTA III, for example) and faster in DX9 games like Far Cry and Need for Speed: Most Wanted. More or less, though, the performance is comparable. This is not surprising considering both are 4-pipeline cards, with the 4600 having more raw power and the 9600 supporting newer features.

My main concern was the notion that the 7300GT would be comparable to the 4600; the 7300GT is an 8-pipeline card with much higher clock speeds and is similar in speed to the 6600GT and the 9800 Pro. I'm guessing it should be thought of as twice the card the 4600 is.

Depends on what clockrates a 7300 GT are at, a baseline 7300 GT is only 350MHZ Core and 667MHZ Memory is I recall, that is weaker then the baseline 6600 GT obviously and doesn't stand a chance, but the GDDR3 ones with Core clocks at 500MHZ or higher would be superior. As well they come with 256MB of Memory if I recall which helps out some.

I think the baseline 7300 GT will be superior to the Ti4600 in just about ever possible way, twice the shader power, more advanced shader units, more memory bandwidth, larger frame buffer, higher core clock.

The GDDR3 version with high core clocks will pull away obviously and give the 9800 Pro and
6600 GT a run for their money, and obviously outstrip and Geforce 4 Ti.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
The Geforce 6600 GT may have been at the same OpenGL performance level as a 9800 Pro, but it couldn't run in the same race with the 9800 XT running an intense graphical game SM 2) such as Oblivion (and I would also expect the 256 MB version of the 9800 Pro to have beaten the nvidia card). I know it directly from my own personal testing. Doom3 is not a Direct3D title, and was not included purposely, but I would've been surprised as can be if the 9600, even the XT, would've been better than the Ti-4600 in the general run of games from the period about three years ago when all of those oldies would have been on the retail shelves at the same time.

Overall I would say the 6600 GT is superior to the 9800 pro, only when you can saturate the 128MB frame buffer or outstrip it's memory bandwidth level could the 9800 line pull ahead.

Not to mention in Oblivion, was programed predominantly on Radeon 9x00 hardware so the Geforce 6 not doing as well isn't surprising.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
The Geforce 6600 GT may have been at the same OpenGL performance level as a 9800 Pro, but it couldn't run in the same race with the 9800 XT running an intense graphical game SM 2) such as Oblivion (and I would also expect the 256 MB version of the 9800 Pro to have beaten the nvidia card). I know it directly from my own personal testing. Doom3 is not a Direct3D title, and was not included purposely, but I would've been surprised as can be if the 9600, even the XT, would've been better than the Ti-4600 in the general run of games from the period about three years ago when all of those oldies would have been on the retail shelves at the same time.

Actually, wasn't it true that a 6600 vanilla was just about as fast as a 9800XT? And the 6600GT kind of kills it? After all, the 6600GT was on par with a 6800nu.

 

[Cookie Monster]

When AA enabled, the 9700 pro was up to 2 times as fast as the fastest Geforce 4 series which was the Ti 4600 i think.

The FX series weren't too bad in DX10, even the original FX5800 ultra card wasn't to shabby compared to the 9700pro. There were other things that seriously hindered this product (and thats an understatement hehe) which caused its fall. The low/mid range FX cards were pretty horrible to my knowledge, except maybe the FX5700 ultra which was competitive to a degree but fell short against the 9600pro/XT combination.

Now 6600GT is indeed on par with the 9800pro, and overall the faster card.

Ditch that FX, and save some money to buy a 6600GT AGP, or 7300GT/7600GS AGP. It will be much better upgrade given the fact that you dont want to spend a whole lot more to move to PCI-e just like me

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Kiwi
The Geforce 6600 GT may have been at the same OpenGL performance level as a 9800 Pro, but it couldn't run in the same race with the 9800 XT running an intense graphical game SM 2) such as Oblivion (and I would also expect the 256 MB version of the 9800 Pro to have beaten the nvidia card). I know it directly from my own personal testing. Doom3 is not a Direct3D title, and was not included purposely, but I would've been surprised as can be if the 9600, even the XT, would've been better than the Ti-4600 in the general run of games from the period about three years ago when all of those oldies would have been on the retail shelves at the same time.

Actually, wasn't it true that a 6600 vanilla was just about as fast as a 9800XT? And the 6600GT kind of kills it? After all, the 6600GT was on par with a 6800nu.

Not particularly no, the 6600 Vanilla was only a bit more powerful then the 9600 XT 25-40% more?, remember back then fillrate was still the predominant indicator of performance, and even though the NV40 architecture was a bit more efficient overall the the R3xx line, your still limited to 2.4GP of fillrate on 6600 Vanilla vs the 412MHZ and 3.3GP of the 9800 XT not to mention substantially more memory bandwidth and larger frame buffer on the 9800 XT.

6600 GT was on par with the 6800 Vanilla until that card reached a point where the load on it's memory subsystem was greater then the 6600 GT could handle.

 

[Laminator]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Depends on what clockrates a 7300 GT are at, a baseline 7300 GT is only 350MHZ Core and 667MHZ Memory is I recall, that is weaker then the baseline 6600 GT obviously and doesn't stand a chance, but the GDDR3 ones with Core clocks at 500MHZ or higher would be superior. As well they come with 256MB of Memory if I recall which helps out some.

I think the baseline 7300 GT will be superior to the Ti4600 in just about ever possible way, twice the shader power, more advanced shader units, more memory bandwidth, larger frame buffer, higher core clock.

The GDDR3 version with high core clocks will pull away obviously and give the 9800 Pro and
6600 GT a run for their money, and obviously outstrip and Geforce 4 Ti.

I forgot to specify that; thanks. GDDR3 versions of the 7300GT now typically have 500MHz/1000MHz clocks, around the same as those as the 6600GT. As they are both 8-pipeline, 128-bit cards based around the same nVidia architecture, their performance should be pretty much the same.

In general, the 6600GT is equivalent to the 9800 Pro. The 9800 XT is a little faster. The GeForce4 could sometimes keep up with the 9700 Pro in DirectX 8.1 games but once you enabled all the quality settings and upped the anti-aliasing, the 9700 Pro would show its true potential and be up to twice as fast (8-pipelines, 256-bit versus 4-pipelines, 128-bit).

The 6600GT is slower than the vanilla 6800; however in Doom 3 with anti-aliasing disabled, the 6600GT would have equivalent performance to the 6800. Off course, the nVidia cards pWnz0red ATI in Doom 3 (even the GeForce FX cards).

 

[Laminator]

Isn't this great, guys? It feels like 2004 again.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Laminator
Isn't this great, guys? It feels like 2004 again.

Those were the days.

Now its just getting too complicated to a point where you cant compare anything between the two competing GPUs.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Laminator

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Depends on what clockrates a 7300 GT are at, a baseline 7300 GT is only 350MHZ Core and 667MHZ Memory is I recall, that is weaker then the baseline 6600 GT obviously and doesn't stand a chance, but the GDDR3 ones with Core clocks at 500MHZ or higher would be superior. As well they come with 256MB of Memory if I recall which helps out some.

I think the baseline 7300 GT will be superior to the Ti4600 in just about ever possible way, twice the shader power, more advanced shader units, more memory bandwidth, larger frame buffer, higher core clock.

The GDDR3 version with high core clocks will pull away obviously and give the 9800 Pro and
6600 GT a run for their money, and obviously outstrip and Geforce 4 Ti.

I forgot to specify that; thanks. GDDR3 versions of the 7300GT now typically have 500MHz/1000MHz clocks, around the same as those as the 6600GT. As they are both 8-pipeline, 128-bit cards based around the same nVidia architecture, their performance should be pretty much the same.

In general, the 6600GT is equivalent to the 9800 Pro. The 9800 XT is a little faster. The GeForce4 could sometimes keep up with the 9700 Pro in DirectX 8.1 games but once you enabled all the quality settings and upped the anti-aliasing, the 9700 Pro would show its true potential and be up to twice as fast (8-pipelines, 256-bit versus 4-pipelines, 128-bit).

The 6600GT is slower than the vanilla 6800; however in Doom 3 with anti-aliasing disabled, the 6600GT would have equivalent performance to the 6800. Off course, the nVidia cards pWnz0red ATI in Doom 3 (even the GeForce FX cards).

The majority of what you said I am already aware but, I will have to disagree on the 6600 GT vs the Radeon 9800 Pro part, most of the time the enhanced shader power is more useful then the additional memory bandwidth, and overall the 6600 GT is superior, but not by very much.

6600 GT and 6800 Vanilla you would be surprised to see, is that the 6800 Vanilla is only superior when the additional memory bandwidth can come into play, so basically when AA or AF are enabled, as the 6600 GT had a smidgen more fillrate then the 6800 Vanilla.

 

[Laminator]

If I'm not mistaken, the 9800 Pro/XT has more memory bandwidth than the 6600GT; the former cards have memory clocks of ~700MHz on a 256-bit bus while the 6600GT has a memory clock of 1,000MHz of a 128-bit bus. Both cards have very similar shader power; the 9800 cards have 4 vertex shaders and 8 pixel shaders while the 6600GT has 3 vertex shaders and 8 pixel shaders.

I looked at Anandtech's review of the 6600GT: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2196&p=6

It looks like the 6600GT is actually superior to the 9800 XT in most situations. It is much superior to the 9800 XT in Halo and Doom 3. Surprisingly, it defeats the 9800 XT in the Source engine as well, albeit not by much until you reach 1600x1200, 4xAA/8xAF. In Unreal Tournament 2004 and Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy (Quake 3 engine), the 6600GT is faster until you reach 1600x1200, where the 9800 XT pulls ahead. Seeing as how the Unreal Engine 2 and id Tech 3 engines are not particularly GPU-intensive, this could be attributed to the 9800 XT's increased memory bandwidth. In Far Cry, the 6600GT is equivalent to the 9800 XT at 1600x1200 but pulls ahead when AA and AF are introduced.

The 6600GT may have a higher fillrate than the 6800 but the 6800 has more shader power, which will be more important in today's games. Then again, the 6800 wasn't exactly the most cost-effective card to buy at the time.

 

[aka1nas]

The cards aren't really comparable as the Ti4400 is DirectX 8 and the FX5500 is DirectX 9. The Ti4400 likely does have more raw fill-rate, which will help in titles that it can run. However, it simply can't run games that only support Dx9 and up.

The FX5500 is a pretty crappy card. You could always grab something cheapish like a 7600 series card which would be massively faster in games than either of those two cards.