Which one is better: GeForce Ti 4600 or FX5200?

[Soulkeeper]

ahhh i remember another good point about the FX5200 now ...

the fan burned out on it, but it runs at such low temps it didn't matter still purring strong in my athlonXP machine

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
As long as you're playing something along the lines of the original Neverwinter Nights or the Serious Sam series you'll do fine. Beyond that may be a bit of a struggle.

But Geforce 4 was a MIGHTY fine card though, then trumped by the Radeon 9700...damn that was like the golden age of video cards, you could pretty much max any game for years back in the day, and prices/performance were a lot more palatable.

Yeah those were the days but unfortunately I listened to Rollo and bought a GeForce FX 5900 instead of a Radeon 9700 Pro

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: pecel
I have GeForce Ti 4600 and GeForce FX5200.
I think both have 128mb ram.
Which one is better in performance especially for gaming?

Thanks.

GeForce FX 5200

3DMARK 2001 SE = 4233
3DMARK 2003 = 919

GeForce4 TI4600

3DMARK 2001 SE = 12408 (66% faster)
3DMARK 2003 = 2004 (44% faster)

It's not just 3dmark that the GeForce4 Ti4600 is faster than a FX5200 but especially games as well. The GeForce FX does very badly using DX9 and the GeForce4 Ti4600 will even beat a GeForce FX 5900 with most games.

I used this performance database to get the 3dmark scores.

Need to re-work those math skills.

Back to school for me, should of spent more time doing math and less time with girls

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
As long as you're playing something along the lines of the original Neverwinter Nights or the Serious Sam series you'll do fine. Beyond that may be a bit of a struggle.

But Geforce 4 was a MIGHTY fine card though, then trumped by the Radeon 9700...damn that was like the golden age of video cards, you could pretty much max any game for years back in the day, and prices/performance were a lot more palatable.

All is not as bleak as you might think in the price/performance video card market. You can pick up a 512MB 4850 for $110 AR from Newegg right now. That's a lot of performance for the money.

http://promotions.newegg.com/N...est/index-landing.html

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Astrallite
As long as you're playing something along the lines of the original Neverwinter Nights or the Serious Sam series you'll do fine. Beyond that may be a bit of a struggle.

But Geforce 4 was a MIGHTY fine card though, then trumped by the Radeon 9700...damn that was like the golden age of video cards, you could pretty much max any game for years back in the day, and prices/performance were a lot more palatable.

All is not as bleak as you might think in the price/performance video card market. You can pick up a 512MB 4850 for $110 AR from Newegg right now. That's a lot of performance for the money.

http://promotions.newegg.com/N...est/index-landing.html

Yeah, I'd say now is the best time for video cards... NO geforce 4mx or fx5200 for under 100 bucks was playing anything like 9600GSO's and 4830's play games today.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Astrallite
As long as you're playing something along the lines of the original Neverwinter Nights or the Serious Sam series you'll do fine. Beyond that may be a bit of a struggle.

But Geforce 4 was a MIGHTY fine card though, then trumped by the Radeon 9700...damn that was like the golden age of video cards, you could pretty much max any game for years back in the day, and prices/performance were a lot more palatable.

Yeah those were the days but unfortunately I listened to Rollo and bought a GeForce FX 5900 instead of a Radeon 9700 Pro

Are you serious? It must have been because of Physx and Stereoscopic 3D support, right?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: vj8usa
For a bit more info on the FX series's half-assed DX9/SM2 capabilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geforce_fx#Shaders
That hardly even matters with a 5200 though, considering how weak the card is to begin with (in terms of raw power).

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
GeForce FX 5200

3DMARK 2001 SE = 4233
3DMARK 2003 = 919

GeForce4 TI4600

3DMARK 2001 SE = 12408 (66% faster)
3DMARK 2003 = 2004 (44% faster)

Wow, didn't realize there was that great a disparity. I had forgotten how horrible the 5200 was/is. By the way, your math/wording is a bit off - 12408 isn't 66% more than 4233; it's roughly 3 times higher (a 200% increase). Same with the 3dm03 scores - the 4600 is 118% faster.

It's actually almost 3x faster, or ~293% faster.

Er, not quite. 2.93x faster would mean 193% faster than the 4600 (or 293% the speed of the 4600, to word it differently).

What are you on about? I was saying that the 4600 is about 3x faster than the 5200. 2.93x does not equal 193%.

If you have a base value of 100, and something is a value of 2x faster, that = 200% of the original value, so it would end as 200.

Clearly, ~12000 is roughly 3x faster than ~4000. The 'X' signifies the multiplication of the value.

Unless you were going on the 3dmark '03 score, which I ignored, as DX9 on 5200 is utterly pointless, and DX9 on the 4600 isn't a feature, which skews the results into utterly meaningless numbers. 3dmark '03 gave bonus score just for completing DX9 portions, even if the performance was absolutely atrocious, and these same portions were skipped when benching pre-DX9 cards such as the GF4 series, making comparisons impossible in terms of how games would actually play. Clearly the only way to compare relevant performance using the supplied numbers means you have to look at the 3dmark 01 score.

 

[PingSpike]

I bought a ti4600 for like $60...I used that card for at least 2 years...until the geforce6 series came out. One thing that made the FX series look even worse was the fact that the 4 TI series was so good.

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I just remembered that the FX5200 was basically a GeForce 4MX with DirectX 9 support added. And the 4MX was total crap compared to the 4 Ti. Hell, it sucked compared to the GeForce 2 Titanium.

The 4MX didn't even support DX8, it was a DX7 card...basically a Geforce2 on steriods. It was actually an ok card in older games though, but received a lot of flak. After that, budget cards were usually super chopped down versions of the new architecture which featured so little actual horsepower that they could run the new features that were implemented. The worst example of course being the FX5200/

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
If you have a base value of 100, and something is a value of 2x faster, that = 200% of the original value, so it would end as 200.

The original terminology was a little unclear. "2x faster" implies "base +200%", whereas "2x as fast" would imply "200% of base" = "base +100%".

 

[Laminator]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

What are you on about? I was saying that the 4600 is about 3x faster than the 5200. 2.93x does not equal 193%.

If you have a base value of 100, and something is a value of 2x faster, that = 200% of the original value, so it would end as 200.

Clearly, ~12000 is roughly 3x faster than ~4000. The 'X' signifies the multiplication of the value.

Unless you were going on the 3dmark '03 score, which I ignored, as DX9 on 5200 is utterly pointless, and DX9 on the 4600 isn't a feature, which skews the results into utterly meaningless numbers. 3dmark '03 gave bonus score just for completing DX9 portions, even if the performance was absolutely atrocious, and these same portions were skipped when benching pre-DX9 cards such as the GF4 series, making comparisons impossible in terms of how games would actually play. Clearly the only way to compare relevant performance using the supplied numbers means you have to look at the 3dmark 01 score.

Hi, Arkaign,

vj8usa is right. When something is "3x faster" than something else, the former has 3x the speed of the latter. If the latter has the speed of one unit, then the former has the speed of three units. Thus, the former has 300% the total speed of the latter and can be said to be 200% faster.

The confusing bit comes in the beginning with the phrase "3x faster," which is equivalent to "3x the speed." This is easily mixed up with "300% faster" as the percentage sign and the term "faster" denote that the 300% is added to the original 100% to obtain the total speed of the faster object (400%, or 4x the speed).

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Astrallite
As long as you're playing something along the lines of the original Neverwinter Nights or the Serious Sam series you'll do fine. Beyond that may be a bit of a struggle.

But Geforce 4 was a MIGHTY fine card though, then trumped by the Radeon 9700...damn that was like the golden age of video cards, you could pretty much max any game for years back in the day, and prices/performance were a lot more palatable.

Yeah those were the days but unfortunately I listened to Rollo and bought a GeForce FX 5900 instead of a Radeon 9700 Pro

LOL!

I still have my trusty old Gigabyte 9700 PRO sitting in it's original box, just waiting for the right system to come along to harness it awesome power.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Astrallite
As long as you're playing something along the lines of the original Neverwinter Nights or the Serious Sam series you'll do fine. Beyond that may be a bit of a struggle.

But Geforce 4 was a MIGHTY fine card though, then trumped by the Radeon 9700...damn that was like the golden age of video cards, you could pretty much max any game for years back in the day, and prices/performance were a lot more palatable.

Yeah those were the days but unfortunately I listened to Rollo and bought a GeForce FX 5900 instead of a Radeon 9700 Pro

Are you serious? It must have been because of Physx and Stereoscopic 3D support, right?

No it was because of the great GeForce FX DX9 performance