Which of the following will not be an "overkill" for my system?

[slicksilver]

Amd Athlon 1.4 Ghz. w/256MB PC2100 DDR Ram is what I have on my PC. I'm currently using an old Asus V6600 32MB Geforce Card. I'm seriously considering the following :

1. Ti4600
2. Radeon 9500/9700
3. Ti4200

Under no circumstances can I afford another upgrade. All I can do now is a Video Card upgrade and I want it to be perfect for my 1400 Ghz. I dont want it to underperform. Or is there any other chipset card I should look at?

Thanks

Raj

 

[nRollo]

It depends what games you play and what resolution/options you want to run.

I had a 1.4 Athlon/DDR and a Ti 4400, then a 9700. My 3dMark 2001 with the 4400 was in the low 8000s, with the 9700 it was in the high 10000s - low 11000s. (depending on memory settings)

The 9700 would definitely be the most "future proof", the 9500 more economical, but down in the 4600 range performance wise.

BTW going from 256 >512 DDR didn't change my 3dmark at all.

I'd get the 9700 personally, none of these cards are "overkill" for your system.

 

[DoubleL]

Ti4200 it will run about the same speed as the Ti4600 for a lot less money if you clock it higher, I am using a Ti4200 without any overclocking programs and it does everything and more than I need, I get 11,800 in 3DMark2001SE with a 2400+ just running at 2.1

 

[nRollo]

The only exception I would take with Double L is about the OCing. OCing your VGA isn't a given, you can burn up your VGA, shorten it's life. With 4600s down around $200, I don't see the point of saving $50 -$70 and then having to OC. (and if you wanted to OC, a 4600 will OC higher)

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: Rollo
The only exception I would take with Double L is about the OCing. OCing your VGA isn't a given, you can burn up your VGA, shorten it's life. With 4600s down around $200, I don't see the point of saving $50 -$70 and then having to OC. (and if you wanted to OC, a 4600 will OC higher)

First of all, a 4200 is fast enough in its own right. He really wouldn't have to overclock. Second of all, its highly unlikely he will damage his card or shorten its life in any way by ocing. As long as he follows proper procedures, the card will be fine. I've never seen anyone burn up a gf4 gpu through ocing, with the exception of physically messing with the card too much (voltage and whatnot).

 

[AnAndAustin]

I agree. 4200 is the best way to go, the 128MB 4200-8X or 'enhanced' 4200 cards using the longer 4400/4600 design if you want that bit more. 4600 aren't really worth the extra cost, at defaults the 4600 is 'only' about 20% faster and doesn't have much o/c'ing headroom unlike the average 4200 card. If you can afford the 4600 then get the Rad9500PRO. Do check if your mobo can take an XP1800+ to XP2000+ as they're VERY cheap and very powerful. I'd get a 4200 and see how things go over the coming months, a Rad9500PRO won't be hugely overkill but a 4200 would make more sense, either way you'll want to enable AA and AF as you won't be using either card's full potential.

As for o/c'ing, the 4200 much like the GF3TI200 is intentionally clocked far below its true potential to promote sales of the higher cards. So long as you leave the voltage well alone, go up in small increments testing thoroughly at each level and then back off a few notches when you find the maximum o/c you will do NO harm at all 99.99% certain. Burning up is not going to happen and you should achieve a very worth while o/c with no added ageing of your card. The 4200 uses the same core as the 4600 although it only has to run at 250mhz to pass the manu tests. Nearly all 4200 will at least yield TI4400 speeds, ie within 10% of the 4600, it makes little sense not to even try it.

 

[kylebisme]

i would get a 9500pro and spend the money you saved to double your ram, if you play any reasonably new games and use xp, 512mb is realy a nice thing to have.

 

[nRollo]

"Do check if your mobo can take an XP1800+"
Good advice there. Raj, you should go from a 1400 MHz Athlon to a 1533 MHz Athlon. That 133 MHz will make a big difference.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1543&p=10

"First of all, a 4200 is fast enough in its own right."
Is it? Remember, he said:" I dont want it to underperform" I had his rig, a 1400MHz Athlon with DDR. I went from 8300 with a Ti4400 to 11170 with a 9700, on 3dmarks. I was also able to jump up a notch in resolution and settings. Which card do you think will run DX 9 games better? He'll get FAR better performance out of a 9700, and much longer useful life. The 4200 is a generation older, and a LOT less powerful.

"the 4200 much like the GF3TI200 is intentionally clocked far below its true potential to promote sales of the higher cards"
It COULDN'T be that the 4200 chips failed the quality control testing at the factory and were speed binned accordingly. All the chips are the same, they just sell them at different prices to rip off suckers, right?

"I've never seen anyone burn up a gf4 gpu through ocing"
They've been out a whole 9 months, so no one has really OCd them for very long. Beyond that how many people do you know OCing them? Beyond that, these bbs are full of "I had to ram my VGA" posts.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Here's the working link:

Rollo's link

Nice to see the diff between an Athlon 1.4ghz and an XP1800+ in the res of 640x480 we ALWAYS use! For a more useful idea check out these:

AnAndTech CPU Scaling Article (many gfx card on many games)

AnAndTech CPU Scaling Article (many gfx card on UT2003)

TomsHW showing Athlon, AthlonXP and P4

4200 is half the price of Rad9500PRO or 4600, at stock it's only about 20% slower than 4600 and the 9500PRO only really pulls away when full AA and AF are used, if you use medium AA and AF the 4200 isn't that far behind esp on a slower CPU, of course we'd all love to play with full EC is that worth an extra 100 notes esp considering your CPU will be limiting the likes of the 9500PRO. Of course the 9500PRO has other benefits but the DX9 is one of the worst, it will surely be a good 12 months before DX9 games come out and by then a DX9 card will be MUCH cheaper and a lot faster! If you have $200 to spend I'd suggest a new CPU, RAM and 4200 would be wiser than simply a 9500PRO and would cost the same and ALSO improve EVERYTHING you do with your PC. Don't get me wrong 9500PRO is an excellent card for an excellent price, but that doesn't mean everybody should rush out and buy one!

Obviously there will be some 4200's whose core or RAM won't o/c very much but generally 20% faster core and RAM is achievable yielding better perf than a 4400. It's lame to think that all (or any significant amount of) 4200 cores are rejects and defects from the 4400 or 4600 and even the ones which are will likely hit 270. Almost everybody tries o/c'ing their 4200 as was true of GF3TI200 owners. Rollo it seems you need to justify your own purchases but instead you come off as sounding a little too rightous and full of yourself. I'm not saying a Rad9500PRO wouldn't be a wise buy for the guy, just that I think that money would be better spent upgrading other parts, the way you bark on and condemn other opinions with a single flimsy link is a little sad IMHO.

Tech Report 4200 roundup (showing how the diff std vers o/c)

AnAndTech's version

Xbit Labs showing CPUs with 4600 and Rad9700

Enhanced 4200 cards (often as fast as or exceeding 4600 speeds):

PC Stats Albatron P Turbo
O/C Add Albatron P Turbo
Xbit Labs Suma Special Edition
O/C'ers.ru Suma SE
HardOCP Asus Deluxe
HardOCP Abit OTES
Suds Abit OTES
Finally 4200-8X should all come with 3.6ns RAM and should therefore get close to 4600 perf once o/c'ed.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i would get a 9500pro and spend the money you saved to double your ram, if you play any reasonably new games and use xp, 512mb is realy a nice thing to have.

I'll second that. RAM is good.
I'll also add a bit about the nVidia cards (I know little of the ATi cards). If you do go for a Ti4200, the Albatron GF4 Ti4200 Turbo is supposed to be a good overclocker, usually making it to a Ti4600's default speeds - it's got fast RAM. I've not used it myself; that's just what I keep seeing posted on the boards here.

 

[nRollo]

AnandAusten:

Forgive me for being too lazy to learn the HTML-esque functionality of the message board, or use it. In my line of work, HTML is about as valuable to me as say, rollerblading knowledge, so I've never bothered with it.

You can post 100 links to cpu scaling, but the bottom line remains the same:
You actually recommended Raj buy a cpu that's only 133MHz faster than the one he has. Even if they were free, the gains realized from such an upgrade wouldn't be worth the 10 minutes it would take to install the "upgrade".

"Of course the 9500PRO has other benefits but the DX9 is one of the worst"
I didn't say it was the BEST reason, but a 9500Pro is faster than a 4200, and has DX9 support. Even if they were exactly the same in performance, wouldn't it be better to have Dx9 than not?

"It's lame to think that all (or any significant amount of) 4200 cores are rejects and defects from the 4400 or 4600 and even the ones which are will likely hit 270."
It's also lame to make purchase recommendations based on highly variable OCing speculation. What if he has a minitower case with zero airflow that turns into an oven when he fires it up? What if he does get a chip that was appropriately speed binned? Here's the difference between my advice and yours: If his parts don't perform at the speed on the box, he can take them back to the store for an exchange, HONESTLY. If he doesn't achieve your OCing results, can he tell the person at the counter "Some guy on Anandtech said I should be able to run this 30% above spec, it doesn't, can you give me another to try?"

"Rollo it seems you need to justify your own purchases but instead you come off as sounding a little too rightous and full of yourself."
I never need to justify my purchases, period. My purchases are seldom justifiable, I just like to play with new parts. This year I had a GF3, GF4 Ti4400, R8500 Retail, R9700 Retail, and a V5 in my box. I would be happy with any of them, they all had interesting aspects.
However, he asked what card would be best for his system, and not underperform, and the 9700 pro is the ONLY answer to that question. All of the rest "underperform" by comparison. Can you post any links that show any other card beating the 9700 with a system like his?

"the way you bark on and condemn other opinions with a single flimsy link is a little sad IMHO."
The way you advise him to make irrelevant cpu upgrades and the worst choice for a vga upgrade is a little confusing IMHO.

 

[AnAndAustin]

LOL! Considering the cost an XP1800+ to XP2000+ give a pretty big speed boost and not only in games but other things you do with your PC too. Take a look at the CPU Scaling Articles and you'll see the diff between an Athlon @ 1.3ghz (effectively a non XP Athlon 1.4ghz) and an Athlon @ 1.6ghz even with a GF4TI4200. He'll get a good boost from buying either a Rad9500PRO or else a 4200 with a few other upgrades for the same dosh. Both fine choices

 

[qhunter]

He said that upgrading anything but the Video card was not an option. I would say that with his current specs the CPU will become the chokepoint for most of the higher end options mentioned. That means spending dollars for perormance he can't even get at. I strongly recommend getting a Gainward TI 4200 Golden Sample. They come tested at higher speeds and are still warrantied at their recommended OC speeds. It is EXPECTED that these will be oc'd and can be gotten at Newegg for around $160. It may still be a Little more than his system can use BUT will give him everything he can possibley get...at a significant savings .

 

[mamisano]

I'd say Radeon 9500 + either a CPU upgrade for $70 or another 256MB Ram.

I had a ti4200, the Albatron ti4200P-Turbo that AnAndAustin was speaking so highly of. Well, I was lucky it was able to overclock to 290/630, short of 300/650 ti4600 speeds. Many of the revies out there had it running well over 300 core and 700 memory. Most people believe Albatron changed something and the cards do not perform as well anymoe...especially for the $185 price tag. I picked up a 9500Pro and returned the ti4200. The 9500PRo scored 1000 3DMarks higher than the OVERCLOCKED ti4200 and when I overclocked the 9500Pro that leaped to a 2000 point advantage

I currently have my R9500 Pro running at 310/620 with NO problems.

So, you can spend the same $$ on a ti4200 or R9500 Pro, and need to overclock the ti4200 to TRY and come close to a stock 9500 PRO.

What type of motherboard do you have?

 

[kylebisme]

qhunter, he said "Under no circumstances can I afford another upgrade." but then he goes on to ask about video cards costing between 100-300$, seems to me he has room to swap to add some ram or swap the cpu aswell if he goes with one of the less expenceive video cards.

it seems to me that upgradeing the cpu from a standard 1.4 althon to even a 2ghz tbred would not be worth it for its gameing preformance improvement, and would be beter left to a full upgrade of cpu/motherboard/ram when the system configuration is in real need of upgrade probably a year or so away. today rajkannegani has an old geforce ddr on a resonobly powerful setup and considering the mention of a purchaseing a 9700, aparently ~300$ to spend. were i in that situation i would buy a 9500pro and another 256mb of ram. the 9500pro will be somewhat held back by the system, but it will still give the best image qualty in games second in speed only to the 9700s, a very plesent gameing experiance to say the least and one that cannot be had on a gefoce4 at all. also 512mb of system memory will insure enough room for all the high quality textures the 128mb card will be beging for. later, a year or more down the road, the system will start to choke and an an new motherboard, cpu and ram will breath new life into it, for another 300$ and beter/faster stuff than what is out now.

 

[Mustanggt]

Here is my advise to you, It will cost you $300 for a radeon 9700 pro you can upgrade your mobo and CPU for $200 and spend the other $100 on a radeon 8500, I have a Nforce2 mobo with a Tbred 1800 total cost $189 It runs a 2Ghz and I am pulling down 10400 in 3d mark with a radeon 8500, so you see that this is the better way to go consider your whole system will be much faster and not just your video card. for the same cost kinda of a no brainer

 

[nRollo]

LOL- this "advice" is just all so bad, I can't believe it.

"I have a Nforce2 mobo with a Tbred 1800 total cost $189 It runs a 2Ghz and I am pulling down 10400 in 3d mark with a radeon 8500"
But Mustang, I pulled down 11170 with the cpu/RAM he has with a 9700Pro, so how does he come out ahead having to go through the work to yank his motherboard, when he could have a faster computer just by updating his VGA?

"Considering the cost an XP1800+ to XP2000+ give a pretty big speed boost"
But Austen, see above note to Mustang.

I think it's a pretty safe to say a guy with a GF2 isn't upgrading often, he should buy the 9700, which will last the longest....

 

[slicksilver]

which one is better?

XP2000 + Ti4200/Radeon 9500 Pro/Ti4600

or

additional 512Mb of RAM + Ti4200/Radeon 9500 Pro/Ti4600

Ultimately best bang for the buck is what matters...

Thanks everyone for your insights...

Raj

 

[Mustanggt]

Rollo If you cant see the sense in it then there is no way to tell you. Its pretty simple You get 11170 with a 9700 pro I get 10400 with rad 8500. Upgrading his video card to 9700 pro will not make his pc faster play games faster thats it. what I explaned in prev post is He will see A huge increase all around, I would be getting in the 15000 to 16000 range with 9700 pro in my rig. spending $300 on 9700 pro is a waste of money in low end machine plain and simple.

 

[nRollo]

"Its pretty simple You get 11170 with a 9700 pro I get 10400 with rad 8500. Upgrading his video card to 9700 pro will not make his pc faster play games faster thats it."
Hohoho-What kind of Christmas math is this Mustang?! LOL- so higher 3dmark means lower game speed?

"I would be getting in the 15000 to 16000 range with 9700 pro in my rig. "
I'm kind of doubting that, as I get 13353 with my P4PE/P4 2.53/512 333 DDR/R9700 Pro. You must be some kind of system assembly genius, you would get a higher 3dmark with a 2GHz Athlon than Tom's Hardware gets with a 3.06GHz P4?!
Hmmm
Your 1800+ has it's mojo workin'!

"spending $300 on 9700 pro is a waste of money in low end machine plain and simple. "
Hmmm the Anandtech guys seem to disagree with you WTFbut then again, they can't make a 2Ghz Athlon stomp a 3Ghz P4 at 3dmark......

UPDATE:
You are the greatest systems assembler IN THE WORLD Mustang! I searched on Futuremark for guys with Athlons that have 15-16K 3dmark scores, and there were only THREE, and they have much faster cpus than you!

 

[nRollo]

"XP2000 + Ti4200/Radeon 9500 Pro/Ti4600
or
additional 512Mb of RAM + Ti4200/Radeon 9500 Pro/Ti4600"

Since you seem to have given up on the 9700 Pro (inexplicably) I'd pick XP 2000+/9500Pro out of those choices. Would give you the fastest gaming (or close enough to 4600 not to matter) and have better aniso/FSAA/IQ, as well as DX9.

 

[kylebisme]

he only has 256mb of ram!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The 9500 Pro is about as fast as a Ti 4600 out of the box and it is generally cheaper too. Being a faster part and newer as well, I'd recommend the 9500 Pro. If you have a old Tbird 1.4GHz Athlon, "only" 256 MB of ram, and an older motherboard, then why not go ahead and by a 9700 part (you can always save $90 or so and buy a 9700 as opposed to a 9700 Pro).

Pros of getting a 9700:
1. You get the best gaming performance over any other sub $300 upgrade
2. You don't have to undergo any risky overclocking to get the awesome performance
3. The upgrade is simple, uninstall your current video, unplug the old card, swap in the new and away you go
4. You'll have a good chunk of time you have your 9700 and the old system, down the road when you get more $ you can upgrade the rest of your system around the 9700 when you get another $300 for new mobo/CPU/ram

Cons of getting a 9700:
1. Expensive - limits you to only upgrading your video

That's all I can think of as a con...

Why not just get a 9700 if all the performance boost you really need is in gaming? The rest of your computer is definately NOT slow or lacking to perform most any other average computing tasks. Going with a 9700 will get you gaming results better than any other sub $300 upgrade so why not go with the best? Spending $60-100 for a new CPU that ins't much faster than what you already have now is a waste imo, especially if you are packing an older motherboard. More ram won't boost gaming performance considerably so you don't need to go there just yet. If you want boosted performance other than in the area of gaming then you can go ahead and upgrade your CPU as well, but the performance gain wont be great and you'll actually get less performance with your games than if you just upgrade to a 9700.

 

[nRollo]

" he only has 256mb of ram!"
True, but how much difference does that even make for todays games? Also, 256MB of PC2100 can be had most weeks from Best Buy or CompUSA for $35-$40 bucks after rebate. (Crucial 256MB PC2100 $35 at BB now, for example)

 

[kylebisme]

256mb of ram is not enough for many games if you want to run high res textures, thats why i recomend another 256mb, especialy with a stick of crucial going for 35$. geting a 300mhz faster processor for 60$ seems prety unjustifiable though.