AnAndAustin
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2002
- 2,112
- 0
- 0
It seems the majority of you guys don't read the other posts concerning 4200 cards. Well once again here's a bunch of links and I'll quote what I've put elsewhere.
Tech report
Toms HW
AnAndTech
Firing Squad
AnAndTech showing 128 vs 64
:-? The FiringSquad example of Commanche4 showing the 4200-64 (o/c 285/600) slower than 4200-128 (def 250/444) could suggest the performance hit when a game requires more than 64MB as will become more and more common. Also check out the last AndAndTech link which shows that 64MB cards will begin to lag behind 128MB cards and only have a 2% average lead over 128 when both are at default clocks anyway.
For 4200 cards (whether 64 or 128):
5.0ns gets to 480mhz
4.0ns gets to 550mhz
3.6ns gets to 600mhz
3.3ns gets to 600mhz
So anyway, for o/c it comes down to the type of RAM implemented regardless of whether the 4200 has 64MB or 128MB, the only difference is 20 notes in price and higher default clocks, but who's going to buy a 4200 and not o/c it? Running a 4200-128 at 250/500 shouldn't be considered o/c anyway, if nVidia had set 4200-128 at the same default clocks nobody would be interested in the 4200-64! Just like when they intentional underclocked the GF3TI200 just so it wouldn't hurt GF3TI500 sales. Oh and you can find your ns rating by looking at the last 2 numbers on the 2nd line of your RAM chips, 456D65E-RC40 denotes 4.0ns RAM.
So if your in the market for a 4200 it's certainly worth while going for 4200-128 with the usual 4.0ns RAM which averagely reaches 300/550. If you can find a 4200 using 3.6ns RAM you should expect 300/600, you won't get 600+ even though 3.6ns 4400 cards give those as it comes down to TSOP, 2 fewer layers and power regulation which is why 4200 cards are so much cheaper in the first place. Don't pay over the odds for a suped up 4200 as you'll find the 4400 will be at a comparible price and a much better buy. That Suma is more of a slower 4400 than a suped up 4200, anybody seen it in the flesh yet?
Tech report
Toms HW
AnAndTech
Firing Squad
AnAndTech showing 128 vs 64
:-? The FiringSquad example of Commanche4 showing the 4200-64 (o/c 285/600) slower than 4200-128 (def 250/444) could suggest the performance hit when a game requires more than 64MB as will become more and more common. Also check out the last AndAndTech link which shows that 64MB cards will begin to lag behind 128MB cards and only have a 2% average lead over 128 when both are at default clocks anyway.
For 4200 cards (whether 64 or 128):
5.0ns gets to 480mhz
4.0ns gets to 550mhz
3.6ns gets to 600mhz
3.3ns gets to 600mhz
So anyway, for o/c it comes down to the type of RAM implemented regardless of whether the 4200 has 64MB or 128MB, the only difference is 20 notes in price and higher default clocks, but who's going to buy a 4200 and not o/c it? Running a 4200-128 at 250/500 shouldn't be considered o/c anyway, if nVidia had set 4200-128 at the same default clocks nobody would be interested in the 4200-64! Just like when they intentional underclocked the GF3TI200 just so it wouldn't hurt GF3TI500 sales. Oh and you can find your ns rating by looking at the last 2 numbers on the 2nd line of your RAM chips, 456D65E-RC40 denotes 4.0ns RAM.
So if your in the market for a 4200 it's certainly worth while going for 4200-128 with the usual 4.0ns RAM which averagely reaches 300/550. If you can find a 4200 using 3.6ns RAM you should expect 300/600, you won't get 600+ even though 3.6ns 4400 cards give those as it comes down to TSOP, 2 fewer layers and power regulation which is why 4200 cards are so much cheaper in the first place. Don't pay over the odds for a suped up 4200 as you'll find the 4400 will be at a comparible price and a much better buy. That Suma is more of a slower 4400 than a suped up 4200, anybody seen it in the flesh yet?