What Type Of Video Card Should I buy?????

[Roshan]

Hey guys, I am getting ready to buy a new video card, and I saw a EVGA Nvidia GF4 Ti-4200 64MB DDR IWas wondering if this would be a good VGA for my computer which has the following:

Amd Athlon XP 2000
Soyo MB
512MB DDR Ram
48x12x48CD-RW
16x48x CD/DVD
Maxtor 80GB HD 7200PRM

I was wodnering if this Video card that I am looking at would is a farily good one to run on my system. Here are the VGA's spec:

EVGA Nvidia GF4 TI4200 64MB Video Card RETAIL BOX.
Part#64-A4-NV75-S1
Specifications:
Res: Max 2048 x 1536 at 75Hz
GPU:256-bit GeForce4 Ti (250MHz clock)
MEM: 64MB 4ns 128-bit DDR Memory (220-440MHz effective)
Memory Bandwidth: 8 GB/Sec.
Bus: AGP 4X with Fast Writes and Texturing support
Ports: PC 99 DB-15 analog connector (VESA DDC2B + DPMS)
Retail Box (Comes with Drivers and User guide; see pic) Model#: 64-A4-NV75-S1

 

[gwlam12]

try going for the 128mb card. it'll be better in the long run

 

[Moishe]

If you browse thru here, you'll see that everyone seems to be suggesting the little extra money to get the 128mb version.
I agree with this. 64mb is fine now, but before 128mb will be practically a necessity. So you might as well get the 128mb version.
The gf4-4200 seems to be a good card, so it sounds like you're on the right track. If you plan on gaming with this card for a year or more you should gt the extra ram.

 

[Rand]

What do you intend to use the PC for?
What is your budget?
Any specific features you need?

It's almost impossible to guess whether any given graphics card is suited to someone without knowing what their usage is.
What's perfect for one person, but be entirely unsuitable for another.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Going by what we do know 4200-128MB is well worth it, currently only to a small degree, but regarding the next 6-12 months don't skrimp. The 4200-64MB you quote seems under-clocked and as usual much of the info seems to be a copy and paste from nVidia's info. Firstly a 4200-64 should be clocked at 250/500 while the 4200-128 should be clocked at 250/444. Your info suggests 64MB with 250/440 which is definitely a bad thing, 8.0GB/s is 250/500 and nVidia's site uses the very important 'up to' 8GB/s with ref to 4200 cards. Your info specifies 4.0ns which is common for 4200-128 NOT for 4200-64 which use the faster rated 3.6ns.

Even though the 4200-64 is clocked a little higher its 13% higher clock only equates to 2-3% in real perf, a 4200-128 at equal clocks is about 10% faster. Not only that but despite 4200-64 often reaching 300/600 while 4200-128 'only' reach about 300/550 but once again even before more than 64MB is truly needed the perf diff is very small. BUT when more than 64MB is req the perf hit on a 64MB card is pretty big, expect a 4200-64 o/c'ed to 300/600 to perf on par with a 4200-128 at DEFAULT 250/444 let alone 300/550! JFYI 4400=275/550 and 4600=300/650, a 4200 with the same amount of RAM will give identical perf. There are enhanced 4200-128 cards which are very comparable to 4400 cards at default and when o/c'ed, but their price is equivilent too so if you're in that price region pay the extra $20 for 4600 or a 'bit' more for the awesome Rad9700!

So IMHO bite the bullet and pay the extra $20 for 128MB, it's well worth it and when ever you come to sell on your 4200 ANY 64MB gfx card will be pretty hard to sell.

EDIT: AnAndTech 4200 roundup

 

[Mockmaw]

I'm not really buying the whole 'you need 128mb' thing yet.. I've only seen one benchmark thus far that shows a significant improvement: Jedi Knight II.. and that's only in one resolution: 1280x1024.. I don't run games that high, my monitor doesn't support it. The performance gap shrinks to neglible at 1600x1200.

I have a hard time buying a product based on speculation.. of course they say that Doom will use 80mb of textures.. but that's being a little vague. One, there's no way to tell the speed differential until we see some benchmarks.. that feels a way down the line. The most up to date game thus far, Unreal 2k3, doesn't seem to show any speed difference from having 128mb. Two, who's to say the cards we're buying right now will even be powerful enough to run full graphics with 80mb worth of textures when the game is finally released? I've felt this same vibe from every generation of video cards in the last several years... when the 32mb were coming out, the 16mb cards handled just fine in the games that were out at the time.. even though everyone said "no no, down the line you'll need 32mb!" When the 32mb cards were the standard and 64mb cards were coming out, seemed like everyone was saying "no no, you need 64mb because games are going to need it!" Seemed to me that everyone who paid the bucks for the 64mb GTS's got screwed.

I'm not saying that the 128mb cards are a waste of money.. I'm just having a difficult time with everyone saying "you need 128mb!" based off a single benchmark and a lot of speculation.

Can anyone point me to some additional benchmarks that show significant improvements as a result of 128mb of ram? I'm looking, but I haven't seen any yet.

 

[AnAndAustin]

I understand what you mean Mockmaw, AGP8x, ATA133 and P4's ghz over power show us the power of marketing and in the past of gfx card RAM; 12MB vs 8MB, 32MB vs 16MB, 64MB vs 32MB have all shown a long wait before becoming useful, but things are moving faster now and all mid to top end cards are coming with 128MB meaning games developers will be programming with 128MB in mind. Also we're talking $20 now and not the $100 of yester-year. It makes sense even when it comes to selling your card on later down the line ... just try selling a 32MB card now ... a 64MB GF2MX400 would probably sell quicker and for more than a 32MB GF2gts/ti/ultra. Anyway I take it you read the bm above, another game is Commanche4 but as with all things lowering details or texture quality a little makes 64MB cards run fine ... but then who wants to spend $100+ on a new gfx card to lower quality for the sake of saving $20? If you have a GF3 or Rad8500 with 64MB then fine, they're great, but if you're in the market for a new gfx card it makes a lot more sense to get a 128MB card. Just as it would to buy a P4 3ghz over a P4 2.5ghz ... even if the 2.5ghz is more than enough and very little currently uses more IF the price diff was very small ... why not?

Tech-Report gfx cards and 64MB vs 128MB

 

[Roshan]

Hey thanks for all your help. Now I was looking at this new VGA for $125, the specs:

GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 3 Ti200 128MB (NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200 GPU), Power Pack Golden Sample, ( 4ns 128MB DDR. ).
Specifications:
GPU:Nvidia GeForce3 Ti 200
MEM:128MB ultra fast DDR 4ns
RAMDAC: 350MHz
Support AGP 2X/4X
Overclocking enhanced performance mode. TV-Out.
OS Support: Windows® 2000, NT® (all), 9x, ME,XP, API support, OpenGL®
1.2 and lower , DirectX® 8.X
PortsB-15 VGA + S-Video Out Retail box. (Comes with Driver S-Video Cable and WINDVD Software)
Mfr's P/N: V87TI200 (128MB) Model#: GF3TI200 TI450-128MB

I understand it is only a Ti200, but what is the differnce between that and Ti4200. It is also 128MB DDR. Please tell me if I should go with this one.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Gainward are a very well respected brand and they are about the best you can get for GF3 (where brand still matters). That TI200 uses 4.0ns RAM which should allow you to get from the stock TI200 speed of 175/400 to about 240/500 (TI500 clocks and therefore perf) if not 250/530+. Gainward are well known for offering among the very best in image quality for the GF3 line, where this varied a LOT. So on all these counts it is a very good card, you're certainly getting GF3TI500 perf, but even so $125 is WAY over-priced.

Even though the GF4TI cards are simply slightly enhanced GF3, the enhancements are significant, there's a lot more to it than just a name. GF4TI cards offer MUCH better image quality, dual RAMDACs, dual display, TVout/VIVO, AA and they take much better advanatage when using the faster CPUs. Not only that but GF4TI4200 cards at standard speed are faster than GF3TI500 in virtually everything, but TI500 don't o/c and 4200 cards nearly always reach 4400 speeds which is hugely better than TI500. You should find a 4200-64MB for $120-130 and a 4200-128MB for $140-150. If that GF3 was under $100 then it'd be cool, but it isn't so either get a Rad8500-128MB which should be under $100 or else pay the little extra and get a 4200. Brand for GF4TI matters very little (just avoid AOpen and from the above EVGA) as all have excellent speed, o/c, image quality etc etc.

Here's an idea of how cards stack up in many games using the now VERY affordable AthlonXP2000+. Toms VGA Chart Here's how the major cards you're interested in stack up: Tech-Report and GotApex

 

[Looney1a]

If your current video card isn't all that bad you may want to wait till the radeon 9500 comes out. It might cost you a bit more but I think it would be worth it. I have a radeon 9700pro and it flys. The 9500 just has a lower clock speed in both the core and memory and has only 4 rendering pixel pipelines. It will come in 64mb and 128mb, but i would stay away from the 64mb. But this is just IMO.

Looney

 

[Mockmaw]

Ehh, I'm still not sold.. the only games in that review that showed a marked difference between 64mb and 128mb are Code Creatures.. which isn't even a game.. and Comanche4, where the difference is only seen at 1600x1200 where it appears the game isn't really playable anyway. (sorry, I wouldn't play at those framerates, nor at that res.)

Yeah, I know it's only a couple bucks more, and I'll probably end up going for a 128mb card.. I just think it's funny that there's this kind of communal assumption across the tech world that says 128mb will be absolutely necessary in the very near future.. when I believe that all that exists is speculation.

Ehh, what can you do. Not meant to start a flame war, so it may be best not to respond to this.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Looney, I agree if you have a GF3 or Rad8500 then there's very little point in upgrading until we see GF4TI prices drop below $100 AND/OR sub-$200 versions of Rad9700 or NV30 become a reality. When will ATI release the Rad9500 is a question burning on everybody's mind ... are they waiting to sell off the majority of Rad8500 cards ... or maybe they'll wait for GF4TI-8X (NV28) ... maybe they'll wait for NV30 ... maybe the budget version of NV30 ... but most likely ATI like nVidia are going to wait as long as possible (up to 6 months?) before releasing cards with DX9 hw, awesome 3D perf (inc AA and Aniso) for sub-$200 pricing ...

If you are happy with your gfx card's perf, or already have a good card then wait and see, otherwise there are some very tasty and well-priced options available at the moment.

Mockmaw. You do make a very fair point, 128MB cards don't tend to have a huge (or often any) advantage over 64MB in current games inc UT2003 and anything beyond this has to be mostly speculation coupled with knowledge, experience and educated guessing. Since we are talking about such a small price diff I'd strongly advise the 128MB route, if you check the perf diff between Radeons you'll notice they tend to get about a 10% perf boost by simply having this extra RAM onboard. As for the GF4TI4200, the faster RAM, higher std clocks and better o/c'ability don't really help it to eek out any significant lead. I'd say 128MB is well worth the tiny added cost as it is definitely going to be an advantage in the future (3 months ... 6 months ... 12 months?) and will be certain to sell on better.

Just as a final analogy, if 512MB of system RAM was only a tiny bit more expensive than 256MB (eg 10-20%) but very little currently showed any perf advantage it would still make sense to get it. That isn't to say people with 256MB would have to go out and add more RAM now, but simply that anybody looking to purchase RAM for a new system would be well advised to pay that little extra as it will certainly come in useful down the road.

 

[ShyambaJuice]

Yo. I was in the same position you are about a week ago and I decided to go with the XFX Geforce4 Ti4200 128 mb card. This card is fantastic. It's well built and works great. It has Samsung ram (pretty good OC'er) and the core is Rev. A3 (same as Ti4600 cores) so that's a good OC'er too.

So if you're considering a GF4 Ti4200, definitely go with the 128 mb version. I think most of the 128 mb cards are good stuff so just get the best deal.