Both my athlon xp and 64 system won't start when the geforce 4 ti 4800se is inserted. The AGP 2x light lit up for both of them. Does that mean that the video card is dead and it's not a installation or configuration error?
Video card help
- Thread starter dsj
- Start date
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,204
- 45
- 91
Did you try reseating it a few times just to be sure?
(I'm assuming that if you put a different videocard in, either system works as usual?)
(I'm assuming that if you put a different videocard in, either system works as usual?)
9500/9600
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html
there is no ti4800se on that list, but just remember that a ti4800se is just a ti4400 with a mod to work in native AGP8x. no performance difference.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html
there is no ti4800se on that list, but just remember that a ti4800se is just a ti4400 with a mod to work in native AGP8x. no performance difference.
It's not even worth getting. GF4 Ti cards are much faster than the 9600se and the 9250 is even slower. The Ti4600 is about 100fps faster in Quake3 than the 9600se for example.
Many tests on the THG VGA chart show the 9600se being on par with a GF4 MX440.
Needless to say, dont downgrade yourself. Pick up a 6600GT and bask in all it's glory.
Many tests on the THG VGA chart show the 9600se being on par with a GF4 MX440.
Needless to say, dont downgrade yourself. Pick up a 6600GT and bask in all it's glory.
Why didnt u say so in the first place!
Just spend the least amount of money possible.
CHeck the FS/FT forum. Pick up a GeForce2 GTS for like $20
The 9200 looks better than the 5200. That should be good enough to run games like industry giant 2 and patrician 3.
Can the 9250 play 2D games at very high framerates? I need it for some 2D Games that doesn't work on the 6800GT.
look at the link i posted and the benchmarks. the 9250 will be 1-2fps slower than the 9600se benchmarks.
That benchmark doesn't seem to be accurate. A geforce 5600 ultra is a lot worse than the ti4200?
the fx seires sucked a lot. the fx5xx sereis were generally bad cards.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
here are newer benchines with newer drivers so performance is slightly closer to what you should expect.
the fx5600 was a horrible card. the fx5700 was a horrible card. the fx 5900 was a horrible card. Dont een get me started about the space heater known as the fx5950. extreme ineffiencies caused ti to lose to a 9800 xt even with much higher mhz clocks on memory and core. Only when the "optimizations" were enabled did the fx5950 pull ahead, and by then the image quality was noticibly subpar compared to a 9800 card.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
here are newer benchines with newer drivers so performance is slightly closer to what you should expect.
the fx5600 was a horrible card. the fx5700 was a horrible card. the fx 5900 was a horrible card. Dont een get me started about the space heater known as the fx5950. extreme ineffiencies caused ti to lose to a 9800 xt even with much higher mhz clocks on memory and core. Only when the "optimizations" were enabled did the fx5950 pull ahead, and by then the image quality was noticibly subpar compared to a 9800 card.
The numbers are all over the place. The cards seem to be a lot better than others in some of the games and plummet down to the bottom of the list in other games. But these are ALL 3D games. For 2D games, is it true that a mx440 can run any of the ones in the world flawlessly? Because books I have read said that even very old 3D acclerators are very fast 2D acclerators.
any card should run 2d games fine. what game do you plan to run?
as for numbers all over the palce, that is to be expected. Most ATI cards are optomised for max Direct X 9 performance and Nvidia Cards tend to do better in OpenGL game performance. DOOM3 runs like carp on radeons but Nvidia runs it well, likewise, Half Life 2 has a advantage for ATI(fx5xxx series cant even run it in Direct X 9 format without it being unplayable at decent resolutions, the 6 series fixed this but it still lags behind the radeons somewhat.)
Also, remember the GeForce4 Tis run Direct X 8 so it wil;l be faster at equalivent settings than a card running Direct X 9 since Direct X 8 has lower image quality.
as for numbers all over the palce, that is to be expected. Most ATI cards are optomised for max Direct X 9 performance and Nvidia Cards tend to do better in OpenGL game performance. DOOM3 runs like carp on radeons but Nvidia runs it well, likewise, Half Life 2 has a advantage for ATI(fx5xxx series cant even run it in Direct X 9 format without it being unplayable at decent resolutions, the 6 series fixed this but it still lags behind the radeons somewhat.)
Also, remember the GeForce4 Tis run Direct X 8 so it wil;l be faster at equalivent settings than a card running Direct X 9 since Direct X 8 has lower image quality.
Any modern video card by ATI or Nvidia will play 2d games fine. Just get one with at least 32mb and you'll be fine. I've got an original Geforce video card that is still in one of my gaming systems today (play World of warcraft fine). There's absolutely no difference between it and my geforce 6800 in playing 2d games.
I want to play industry giant 2. It's publisher is so cheap that the game doesn't support my 6800 GT or any geforce 6 card. So I'm guessing that it's poorly programmed too and inefficient. And it requires a minimum of 32 MB of Vram to run. I want to run it at 1024*768 at 32bit color without lag.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter