Ti 4400 faster then 9600 pro aiw

[tyler811]

Can someone tell tell me what I am doing wrong. I just bought an ATI AIW 9600 pro and oc'ed it to 490 clock and 708 memory and it drags my video score score at pcpitstop.com from (4400) 249.78 to 109.31. I get in BF 1942 and it hangs for just a split second once in awhile. The 4400 ran at 492 clock and 692 memory which as you can tell is lower clocks then the 9600 pro but it ran great.

 

[Mingon]

the ti4400 at 392 ( i am guessing 492 is typo) has the ability to render 2 texels per clock versus 1 for the radeon. As they both have a 4 pipeline configuration this give the ti4400 a massive advantage in multi-texturing games (if the available memory bandwidth is the same).

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: Mingon
the ti4400 at 392 ( i am guessing 492 is typo) has the ability to render 2 texels per clock versus 1 for the radeon. As they both have a 4 pipeline configuration this give the ti4400 a massive advantage in multi-texturing games (if the available memory bandwidth is the same).

No 492 clock ( I will send a screenshot cause I am reinstalling the 4400 ) Thought the 9600 was 2 texeks per clock ?

 

[EarthwormJim]

I have never heard of 492 core clock speed for any Geforce 4's and I seriously think you are mistaken. Most 5900's don't even make it that far. You may be having problems with the 9600 because Nvidia drivers are still hanging around causing conflicts. Try uninstalling the drivers and running a driver cleaner program in safe mode to eliminate them.

 

[Pupdog5301]

The PcPitstop test is 2D only. nVidia cards score better on 2D...or at least on that test. Don't take that test to heart...

 

[petery83]

seems like a pretty good overclock for an AIW 9600 pro (from what I understand, AIW versions don't overclock as well as their regular counterparts)...did you use any special cooling?

 

[modedepe]

A ti4400 has a 275mhz core at stock speed. No way that will ever hit 492mhz.

 

[Mingon]

If that ti4400 is hitting 492 I want to see benches, that will stomp all over the 9600 in anything thats not directx9.

 

[cindy22]

This is strange, if you try sticking your ti 4400 in the freezer and chilling it to -90'c you can not even get it close to 492 core .

I too would like to see your scores in directx9 , ShaderMark 2.0, 3dmark2001 and 3dmark03 with 4x aa and 8x af ,or what about 4x aa and 8x af in games like unreal 2003 , unreal2, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness , Tron 2 ,etc.

 

[bpt8056]

Originally posted by: Mingon
the ti4400 at 392 ( i am guessing 492 is typo) has the ability to render 2 texels per clock versus 1 for the radeon. As they both have a 4 pipeline configuration this give the ti4400 a massive advantage in multi-texturing games (if the available memory bandwidth is the same).

Even overclocking the Ti4400 to 392 is most likely an impossible feat. Xbit Labs modified their Ti4400 and it couldn't go further than 340 here.

Try using Detonator Destroyer or DriverCleaner to clean up all the nVidia registry files in your computer and reload the ATi drivers.

 

[InlineFive]

I don't think so. My GeForce4 Ti 4200 is noticeably slower then my Radeon 9600 Pro. Even with the additional texture per pass.

 

[Mingon]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
I don't think so. My GeForce4 Ti 4200 is noticeably slower then my Radeon 9600 Pro. Even with the additional texture per pass.

is yours running at 492/708 like this person is claiming?

 

[TheAudit]

I have a 4400 running at 300/600, he must have gotten a super batch to be able to hit nearly 500 with his card.