Which one Radeon 8500,GF4 Ti4200?

[Sniper82]

Is Ti4200 much faster compared to it. Know someone trying to choose between the 2.

 

[chocobaR]

I'd personnally get a Radeon 9500 Pro now or wait just a little for the price to come down. I don't think going from 8500 to Ti4200 is worth it.

 

[hclarkjr]

i went from a radeon 8500 LE 64 MEG to a geforce 4 4200 128 MEG, my advice to you is do it right now!!! big improvement!!! chocobar does not know what he is talking about. contact hans007 he usaly has 1 or 2 of them laying around. that is who i bought mine from. with my radeon i could not run FSAA or aniscrotic filtering without getting performance hit but with the geforce i have them turned all the way to max settings and do not get any hit at all on performance.

 

[hclarkjr]

plus omega has just released new driver for the based on 42.30 detonator that is a very good driver, been testing it all night

 

[Sniper82]

Well price is a big concern here. I don't want to pay much more than $100 shipped used so if I bought now a Ti4200 64mb would prob be all I could get. So 9500 Pro won't be for a couple months still.

 

[Overkiller]

Note that the person telling you to "get it" has a 128 meg ti4200 and not a 64Mb version that you have.

Going from an 8500 to a 64 MB ti4200 will get you negligible performance gains. i would wait out one or two months until the new radeons come out and get a 9500pro or a 9700/9700pro. There simply is no reason to get that 4200 right now.

 

[hclarkjr]

here is link that might help you look at it better

 

[Bovinicus]

You will get between (Roughly) 0-35% performance boost with the Ti4200. However, if you like to use anisotropic filtering, then the Ti4200 will perform about the same or a little slower and provide lower quality. However, for FSAA, the Ti4200 takes the cake.

I suggest you don't waste your time. Go with a Radeon 9500 Pro a little down the line as someone else suggested.

 

[PliotronX]

That is more of a sidegrade than anything else. I would get a 9500 Pro or wait for the 9700 Pro to come down (shouldn't be too long). Don't bother with the Ti4600. It would be a better idea, if going the GF4 route, to go with the lowest model (Ti4200) and overclock it. The Ti4600 is slaughtered by the 9500 Pro when AF and FSAA are concerned.

chocobar does not know what he is talking about.

It seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[chocobaR]

Happy I'm not alone with the 9500 Pro idea.

 

[InFecTed]

Keep the 8500 until the 9700 gets cheaper

 

[RanDum72]

The difference between the Radeon 8500 (especially if its not LE and has 128mb of RAM) and the GF4 Ti 4200 is hardly noticeable in everyday use, even in games. The Ti 4200 may have have higher peak FPS but the 8500 is usually a very steady performer and the variation between high/low FPS is smaller compared to the Ti. The 8500 is also easier on the eyes thanks to better 2D qualities. DVD playback is also superior. So in a nutshell, its not worth it IMO. Wait for prices to go down.

 

[bgeh]

try waiting till March 12th
that's when ATI and NVIDIA will launch their new chips
that'll lower prices by quite a bit

 

[hclarkjr]

randum72 how can you say that about the 2D qualities? i went from a 8500 to the 4200 and the 2D is equal for both. also should mention that the radeon was causing lockups in my system and as soon as i installed the geforce those problems went away. i later found out it was conflict with my soundblaster and the radeon which the geforce doesn't have. plus you look at the chart i linked in earliar post and you see the 4200 outscores the 8500. geforces have always been known for good speed in games but crappy for everything else like 2D but with the geforce 4 family they have solved that problem. it amazes me how people can make claims about one video card versus another but till you actualy use both i think you should just keep your comments to yourself

 

[RanDum72]

randum72 how can you say that about the 2D qualities? i went from a 8500 to the 4200 and the 2D is equal for both. also should mention that the radeon

I presently have the Radeon 8500 128mb, a GF4 Ti 4200 128mb and a Gf4 Ti4400. There is no doubt the 8500 is still superior in 2D just by comparing them side by side, thats why I use my PC with the 8500 when I do extended Web surfing or anything that entails prolonged staring at the monitor. I had no problems whatsoever with the 8500 and I have paired it with an Audigy 1/2, Santa Cruz and the nvidia nforce APU. Sure, the Gf4 is improved over previous generation nvidia GPU's in 2D and I thought the 2D was pretty good until I tried ATI.

plus you look at the chart i linked in earliar post and you see the 4200 outscores the 8500

I did not say that the 8500 outscores the ti4200. I said the difference is hardly noticeable in real world instances. Maybe you are trying to justify your decision to upgrade from 8500 to ti 4200 but presently it doesn't make sense, IMO, because better upgrades are in the horizon. If you are going to upgrade, might as well upgrade to something that has tangible performance increases for the money.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
randum72 how can you say that about the 2D qualities? i went from a 8500 to the 4200 and the 2D is equal for both. also should mention that the radeon was causing lockups in my system and as soon as i installed the geforce those problems went away. i later found out it was conflict with my soundblaster and the radeon which the geforce doesn't have. plus you look at the chart i linked in earliar post and you see the 4200 outscores the 8500. geforces have always been known for good speed in games but crappy for everything else like 2D but with the geforce 4 family they have solved that problem. it amazes me how people can make claims about one video card versus another but till you actualy use both i think you should just keep your comments to yourself

First of all the 3DMark2001 "score" you link is nearly identical - even though the Radeon is DISadvantaged by either being either LE or 64MB vs. 128MB for the Ti4200. And no one "plays" 3DMark2001, so WHO CARES about the score.

It also "amazes" us that YOU make "claims" based on ONE experience (where you admit you had problems with the Radeon).

Perhaps you should keep your own comments . . .

Anyway, there is going to be "so little" difference (can you "see" at most 5-10% faster? - especially because of the cards differences in how they handle AA and AF) between the OEM Radeon and the 64MB Ti4200 you might just gain "more" free performance by simply O/C'ing the Radeon . . . try at least 275/275 and you may luck out with 300/300.

 

[KpocAlypse]

else like 2D but with the geforce 4 family they have solved that problem

hummmm, kay....

True or not true, i can really say (had a MSI GF3ti200 and a RAdeon 8500, gave the Ti200 away)

However i will say that if i recall, The "geforce" doesn't HAVE to have crappy 2d, its usually the fault of aftermarket GFX board manufactures using inferior parts in comparison to companies like Matrox, ATi and the long lost 3dfx. So saying the the GF4 "fixed" the issue seems abit off.

In my stupid openion, I love my 9700, there is so far not a thing i can toss at it that it can't handle to my satisfaction. My 8500 is a love hate relationship, the GF3 did run smoother some games, but was fugly in Windows, and since my PC don't boot to a game, i desided to toss the GF3 for the 8500. RanDum72 pretty much said the same thing i would. To add as well, I like the ATi's duel monitor setup abit better.

 

[BentValve]

I just did this.

I have owned a Radeon 8500 275/275 retail since a little after it hit the shelves at $299 well over a year ago, I decided it was time to upgrade
this year and I decided it was time to get away from ATI so I pre-ordered an FX...of course its not even out yet and after the reviews
came out I canceled the pre-order.
So now there is really nothing I want........I might have taken a 9700 at around $300 but I did not feel like spending 2/3rds of that on
a 9500 Pro.
My new objective was to hang on awhile and see what the R350 and FX turn out to be.
Meanwhile I figured I would sell my 8500 so I can shave off a little cost on my upgrade card, since I have 2 pcs I can live without a card
in one PC for awhile and just use my Radeon 64mb ddr vivo based PC. I got $70 for the 8500 which is about the going selling rate
for 64mb cards...now I had to wait a few months or maybe even longer...ugh.
Anyways I was selling some DDR SODIMM ram in the FT/FS area and someone offered me an MSI Ti4200 64mb card for the ram
and $55...the ram was about $50 so bascially I paid $105 shipped for it . I figured since I might have a long wait until the
next batch of cards come out this 4200 would give me an idea of what Nvidia has to offer in terms of drivers and I would have a
chance to try out of of their cards....I have not
owned an Nvidia card since my Creative Labs TNT2 Ultra..which was a nice card at the time. I have been an fanATIic since the
8500's release.

I got the Ti4200 installed and it was a little hard to get it to sing but I am sure that it was something I did, I had to reinstall windows
2x to get it right. I got everything loaded up the way I want it...and I used the Det drivers from Nvidia, installed Powerstip ,
3d mark , and a few games including Nascar 2003 which I had just purchased.


I ran 3D Mark 2001 SE a few times and tweaked everything as best I could to see what the highest score
I could extract from the card was. The system is based on an Athlon 2000+ at stock speeds/512mb pc2700)
With the 8500 I could yank as much as 10,500 marks,
with the Ti4200 I have gotten really close to 12,000 marks.
Not a dramatic change at all......next I popped in Nascar 2003 and Unreal Tournament 2003....this is where the drama
begins. :Q

The 8500 stuggled with everything even at 1024x768 cranked up or even turned down...after tweaking things in UT2K3
I got the 8500 to play it decently enough but it was far from satisfying...the frames would drop down occationally no
matter what I did..........believe me 10,500 3D marks with an Athlon 2000+ is quite a feat...I had the card installed better
than most people could achieve. I mean after all I had the card well over a year and have played litterally thousands of
hours worth of games on it.

Anyways I popped in UT2K3 on my new ti4200 rig , card oced to 275/550 (around ti4400 speeds)...........HOLY MOTHER OF
DOG!! :Q ......................DID I SAY I WAS SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It plays UT2K3 like butter with everything cranked, Nascar 2003 is the same, I am pulling out all of my
older games and playing them again .

At this point I have no reason to get an FX or R350 when they finally do come out because the Ti4200 has yet
to stumble on anything I throw at it........I loved my 8500 and I regreted selling it ...that regret has long since
vanished now that I have the 4200 running.

All told the upgrade costed me $35...wow what an upgrade!!
Is it worth going from an 8500 to a Ti4200? You have no idea how profound the difference is.

My urge is to say "ATI never again" but I dont want to eat my words so I will just say "Thanks for helping me
get lost in my games again Nvidia!!"

 

[BentValve]

As far as 2D goes:

I am very picky about 2D and let me say that the Ti4200 is slightly better in every dept except color saturation..where it kicks the 8500's ass.
The card is the bottleneck for 2D because I use a Sony G520P 21" monitor that I have spentmany hours calibrating so I can see my digital
pictures correctly.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BentValve
I just did this.

Anyways I popped in UT2K3 on my new ti4200 rig , card oced to 275/550 (around ti4400 speeds)...........HOLY MOTHER OF
DOG!! :Q ......................DID I SAY I WAS SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It plays UT2K3 like butter with everything cranked, Nascar 2003 is the same, I am pulling out all of my
older games and playing them again .

At this point I have no reason to get an FX or R350 when they finally do come out because the Ti4200 has yet
to stumble on anything I throw at it........I loved my 8500 and I regreted selling it ...that regret has long since
vanished now that I have the 4200 running.

All told the upgrade costed me $35...wow what an upgrade!!
Is it worth going from an 8500 to a Ti4200? You have no idea how profound the difference is.

My urge is to say "ATI never again" but I dont want to eat my words so I will just say "Thanks for helping me
get lost in my games again Nvidia!!"

Did you go from a 64MB 8500 to a 128MB Ti4200? If so, I'd say you might get a similar (if smaller) improvement going from the 64MB 8500 to the 128MB 8500 because of the large texture sizes in (especially) Unreal II. My 128MB 8500 has no trouble with Unreal II at 1024x768 (hi details - even at stock - 275/275 - speeds).

 

[BentValve]

Did you go from a 64MB 8500 to a 128MB Ti4200? If so, I'd say you might get a similar (if smaller) improvement going from the 64MB 8500 to the 128MB 8500 because of the large texture sizes in (especially) Unreal II. My 128MB 8500 has no trouble with Unreal II at 1024x768 (hi details - even at stock - 275/275 - speeds).

First of all my 8500 was a 64mb card and the Ti4200 is 64mb as well.

128mb is ram is never EVER needed at 1024x768 not even with Unreal 2. The Ti4200 is a HUGE improvement over the 8500...its that simple. Please dont try and reason this into something that it is not, I realize that this board is full of ATI freaks but its not fair to comment on
a card that you have not used.
Please dont even reply to my comments unless you have experienced a properly installed Ti4200 first hand.

 

[hclarkjr]

thanx bentvalve for sticking up for the 4200, was getting lonely against all these ATI folks

 

[AtomicDude512]

Originally posted by: chocobaR
I'd personnally get a Radeon 9500 Pro now or wait just a little for the price to come down. I don't think going from 8500 to Ti4200 is worth it.

Ya, at www.newegg.com the Radeon 9500 Pro 64MB OEM is only $22 more than the Ti 4200 a couple of days ago. Plus the 9500 is DX9 and gets about 2x score on 3DMark03, if you like benchmarking.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
thanx bentvalve for sticking up for the 4200, was getting lonely against all these ATI folks

Fact is, Nvidia isn't cutting it these days. I just ordered a couple of 64MB 9100s recently for $72 each. I have yet to see a 4200 for less than $120 or so. So those of you who adamantly defend the 4200 because it's "just a little more expensive" and "beats the 8500" are simply fan boys. You could use your very own logic to support getting a 9500 over a 4200. The 9500 is "just a little more expensive" and "beats the 4200" quite soundly.

 

[hclarkjr]

could you please post some links to how the 9500 beats the 4200 soundly?