Video card question....

[benganpuss]

I was reading some benchmarks, and on one of them I saw that the geforce4 ti4600 was running better than a 9600 pro and a 9500 pro in most incidinces. Is this correct, should I get a ti4600 over a 9500 pro or 9600? or am i being wronged? also, I am in the market for a video card and was wondering what card should I get thats in the range of 80-150.00??? thanks alot,
-Justin

 

[amdskip]

I would personally go the 4600 route but thats just my opinion.

 

[Schadenfroh]

get ready for the fanATIcs to come to the 9500s rescue and slam nvidias product for its lack of DX9, dispite the lack of DX9 games. and not to mention the zombies for the FSAA and AF

 

[benganpuss]

yea i know they are gonna do taht but still i mean is the 4600 better than the 9500 pro like in regular/2x aa situations? i mean i'm planning on running half-life, battlefield 1942 and unreal 2k3 at the moment.....so im hoping to get at most 140 frames in half-life and it looks to be about 200 on the benchmark i read in ut2k3. this is all on the review here at anandtech. anyone can check it out themselves. so im just wondering if i should go ti4600 or 9500 pro. I just can't figure out which is better for regualar/2xAA situations. please help!

 

[benganpuss]

that review by the way is at: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812

 

[gururu]

read more reviews.
the ti4600 is obsolete. its older tech, and cannot come close to a 9500pro/9600 when running some of the advanced features (AA, AF, resolution) that elevate today's games (UT2K3, splinter cell, GTAVC, BF1942, etc.) over yesterday's games (CS, Q3A, UT).

anyone who argues on behalf of the 4600 is doing you anything but a favor.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: benganpuss
yea i know they are gonna do taht but still i mean is the 4600 better than the 9500 pro like in regular/2x aa situations? i mean i'm planning on running half-life, battlefield 1942 and unreal 2k3 at the moment.....so im hoping to get at most 140 frames in half-life and it looks to be about 200 on the benchmark i read in ut2k3. this is all on the review here at anandtech. anyone can check it out themselves. so im just wondering if i should go ti4600 or 9500 pro. I just can't figure out which is better for regualar/2xAA situations. please help!

you are correct, in regular setting/2x situations the 4600 is superior to the 9500. nvidia cards have quicanox, which should improve the quality of 2x fsaa. but if you can get this, apply coolbits, and o/c past a 4600 level.

 

[benganpuss]

So I will mostly be running Half-Life(Counter-Strike) and then want to play battlefield 1942 and ut2k3 occasionaly. Is the 4600 my best bet? thanks!

 

[Lonyo]

What monitor do you have? If you have an LCD, the 9500 is the best way to go, as you'll need to use AA/AF to get a better image as you won't be able to bump up the resolution.

Go for whichever is cheapest I'd say, or a 9700 non-pro which can be got for around $200.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: benganpuss
So I will mostly be running Half-Life(Counter-Strike) and then want to play battlefield 1942 and ut2k3 occasionaly. Is the 4600 my best bet? thanks!

i have a 4200 and CS/BF1942 kicks butt on my system, i imagine a 4600 would do even better. I dont play UT2k3 tho. but CS will run on anything. but i do admit that i start to see lag if i crank the AFto 8x and 4XFSSA. but i think it is becuase of my 1700 athlon. but 2x and quicanox is smooth.

 

[gururu]

ok, so I think that the 4600 will be a choice if you are certain that you aren't EVER going to want to go beyond 2XAA. at some point, it won't be competitive in future games as more DX9 compliant software comes into the scene. but this can take longer than a year and you'll probably upgrade again anyway.

 

[benganpuss]

looks like im goin ti4600 then. thanks alot. good chance i'll only be able to get 9500 pro anyways. thanks alot!