• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which Geforce 4 are you buying?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The name GeForce 4 connotes next generation therefore faster, better, etc. doesn't it? Well, don't be misled by that! Its all marketing hype a.k.a. bull$hit. Don't take my word for it, do some research on the web - in particular, read what John Carmack had to say (I'd send you the link, but I can't find it anymore).

Best value for the money? IMO, the ATI Radeon 7500. Best performance available? The ATI Radeon 8500. Go look at the user benchmarks on MadOnion.
 


<< Don't take my word for it, do some research on the web - in particular, read what John Carmack had to say (I'd send you the link, but I can't find it anymore).
 >>



Here is what Carmack said, in a follow up....



<< Question: Did the latest Radeon 8500 beta driver (winxp 6043) solve the problem, you mentioned in you last plan update? It works for GL-Excess and other opengl tests. ATi told me, it was some mixed texgen issue.

That was one of the conformance problems that I was working around. There is a crashing problem they are still working on, and the average performance is still lower than an NV20.
John Carmack

 >>



NV20 = 1 year old GeForce3.
Also, don't confuse GeForce 4 TI and GeForce 4 MX.



<< Best value for the money? IMO, the ATI Radeon 7500. >>



And GeForce 4MX. GTS-V is a good deal too.



<< Best performance available? The ATI Radeon 8500. Go look at the user benchmarks on MadOnion >>



Bullsh*t. First three pages of top scores are GF4 cards. Hall of "Fame" is based on 1Ghz cpu, which only a few GF4 owners have. Also, you should read
Anandtech review
 


<< The name GeForce 4 connotes next generation therefore faster, better, etc. doesn't it? Well, don't be misled by that! Its all marketing hype a.k.a. bull$hit. Don't take my word for it, do some research on the web - in particular, read what John Carmack had to say (I'd send you the link, but I can't find it anymore). >>



Ok, So now you got my curiosity up. What did John Carmack of to say? I'd like to know.
 


<< Don't take my word for it, do some research on the web - in particular, read what John Carmack had to say (I'd send you the link, but I can't find it anymore). >>



Dude, he was talking about the GeForce4 MX series. Don't take stuff out of context... here's what he said in his .plan a few months ago.

Do not buy a GeForce4-MX for Doom.

Nvidia has really made a mess of the naming conventions here. I always thought it was bad enough that GF2 was just a speed bumped GF1, while GF3 had significant architectural improvements over GF2. I expected GF4 to be the speed bumped GF3, but calling the NV17 GF4-MX really sucks.

GF4-MX will still run Doom properly, but it will be using the NV10 codepath with only two texture units and no vertex shaders. A GF3 or 8500 will be much better performers. The GF4-MX may still be the card of choice for many people depending on pricing, especially considering that many games won't use four textures and vertex programs, but damn, I wish they had named it something else.
 
I think he wants a DX8 capable card. That rules out the 7500. But still, the 8500 is still damn cheap. There is no reason not to buy that card.
 
"Wait until April... get your hands on a GeForce4 Ti4200... it'll be a great card and you can always OC it to Ti4600 speeds."



ROTFL ... Hahahahahaha
Sorry, but I don't think its a guaranteed overclock from 250/500 all the way to 300/650. They are making the Ti4200's right now. They are all the cards that don't meet spec for the Ti4600 and the Ti4400. Combine that with memory chips rated nowhere near the speed on the Ti4600 and it's unlikely that all Ti4200's can reach Ti4400 speeds, much less Ti4600 speed.
 
"<< I thought the GF4 series cards aren't very overclockable. >>

Where'd you hear that? I've read some reviews on the Gainward GeForce4 Ti4600 and people have gotten it OCed STABLE... memory 700MHz to 760MHz"


That's exactly the point. The memory will overclock, but not the core. Don't you remember Asus and the other card makers wanting to produce the Ti4600's at the speed of 330/660. Do you really think that they couldn't get the memory to that speed, or do you think that the core might be a tough cookie to overclock??? From the responses I've seen so far in this thread people have the memory up to 700mhz and beyond, but their core clock speeds are under 330mhz. It's no wonder Nvidia is pissed at TSMC for the low yields and slooooow progres on switching manufacturing from .15 down to .13.
Just my .02
 
The problem with the GF4 core is heat. They run extremely hot, and even with the almost ridiculous looking cooling on some makers' cards, trying to push the core much higher is fruitless. They just get too hot.

As for the RAM not overclocking, baloney. Lots of 350-390MHz (700-780) overclocks floating around. I ran the VisionTek I used (Ti4600) at 315/750 with no trouble, although, like I said, the core runs VERY hot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top