I paid $270. including tax for mine, at my local store. They are however now listed online for $239.99.Quote:
Originally posted by lightbulb8817
How much at BB? hehe
Printable View
I paid $270. including tax for mine, at my local store. They are however now listed online for $239.99.Quote:
Originally posted by lightbulb8817
How much at BB? hehe
What are you talking about? I've never seen a benchmark where the 4200 beats the 9600pro? :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
exactly. I dont know why you guys get all excited about a 9600 pro, its slower than a ti4200 without aa/af
Tadaa:Quote:
Originally posted by Farmer_BOB
What are you talking about? I've never seen a benchmark where the 4200 beats the 9600pro? :confused:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...ournament_2003
Also see the following pages for some more scores. Well, it's the AGP8X version of the ti4200, but anyway. As you can see the ti4200 and the 9600 Pro are very close when there is no AA and AF involved, and the ti4200 sometimes beats the 9600 Pro.
That's weird? I thought the 5600Ultra was the heir to the 4600's throne (that could be the 1st revision of the 5600). Why is it losing to a 4200? Plus, now I know why I said that, I'm a Anandtech fan, 'cause I think Toms is cooked (not just vid cards, everything in general). Here's Anand's benchies...click here. The 4200 is close to the 9600pro, 'cause the 9600pro is supposed to match up with the 4600. Anand's benchies are more reflective of how I remember the benchies/performance of cards to be.
Your link's UT2003 Fly By at 1024x768 with the 4200 at 102FBS and the 9600 Pro at 92FBS hardly a differance to me.Quote:
Originally posted by Jonas79
Tadaa:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...ournament_2003
Also see the following pages for some more scores. Well, it's the AGP8X version of the ti4200, but anyway. As you can see the ti4200 and the 9600 Pro are very close when there is no AA and AF involved, and the ti4200 sometimes beats the 9600 Pro.
Now look what the 9600 does to a much faster Ti 4600 in the same test but with the eye candy turned on.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...xaa8xaniso.gif
And look at the overclocked 9600 it beats a Ti 4600 in any test.
Quote:
Originally posted by dimmy32
The ti4200 runs most current games pretty well, in fact it's a very fast graphics card...some of the newer games ( bf 1942 ) tend to lag at times , but not much.
I do not notice any lag on my 4200. I play at 1024*768 max everything 2x AA.
The only lag I get in desert combat is of the network connection type.
But the V8420 deluxe was one of the better cards that came out last year.
My card has a easy time with BF 1942 at 1024x768 at max detail so a Ti4200 should breeze through that game.:)
I guess you like sacrificing frame rates. My ti4600 is running bf1942 fairly well, but slows down quite a bit if I turn on AA/AF.Quote:
Originally posted by crashed13
My card has a easy time with BF 1942 at 1024x768 at max detail so a Ti4200 should breeze through that game.:)
lightbulb8817
Can you post the link to your statement:
"Yeah, Tomshardware.com says the 9600 XT will be the 1st main stream card to be faster than the 9700 Pro."
&, for those who are interested in how the it4600 stags up against the 9600 pro.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic..._guide-12.html
Let just say it stags up very well.
I have AA & AF tuned off but I always play at 40-70Fps so slow down is hard to impossible notice.Quote:
Originally posted by lightbulb8817
I guess you like sacrificing frame rates. My ti4600 is running bf1942 fairly well, but slows down quite a bit if I turn on AA/AF.
I run my ti4200 @ 1280 X 720 ( higher res ) with quinqux AA on, no aniso ....the slow dows are sporatic, and happen when there's a lot of stuff going on , but nothing to really bother me. Overall the ti4200 runs everything pretty smooth . :)
My Ti4200 (128/4x agp) on my AMD 2600 runs perfect at those resolutions in both classic BF1942 and DC. It had SOME slowdowns on my old XP1500 system, but since i put in new proc/mb combo it has run like a charm all the time. I'm still considering a 9600 in the future for the extra DX9 eye candy, but then again I may wait til next year for new ATI and Nvidia chips, as well as the S3 and XGI cards, then make a decision. I'd stick with the 4200 for a while longer, overclock it a little if you need to, and wait until the FOUR new chip releases :).
Same here. My ti4200 is just a great card for the price (at the time). I've been wanting to upgrade but so far nothing sticks out. Now before you flame me for that last statement we have to compare apples to oranges. Remember that the ti4200 was the "budget" gf4 card. To compare it to the $275 9700 pro or the $350 9800 pro is just not gonna cut in in my book. That and the 4200 is almost two years old. The fact that the 4200 is still being mentioned after all this time is a testimony in and of itself. I would love to find another one of these so called "budget" cards that will give me another two years or so of great gaming experiences without breaking the bank. Now if the real world gameplay experience of the 9600xt is that of the real world gameplay of a 9800np (not any of these "tom's benchmark said this" or "anandtech's said that" nonesense) then this very well could be the new "4200". It would have to be priced right as well. The good news is that HL2 and D3 won't be out for just a bit giving more time for the 9600xt and 9700 pro to come down in price. One last thing: Has anyone noticed that ATI seems to discontinue good cards before they have a chance to come down in price. Take the 9800np for example. A great card that was just starting to come in at under $200 get's discontinued and in it's place is some crummy version. Any thoughts?Quote:
I run my ti4200 @ 1280 X 720 ( higher res ) with quinqux AA on, no aniso ....the slow dows are sporatic, and happen when there's a lot of stuff going on , but nothing to really bother me. Overall the ti4200 runs everything pretty smooth .
Ooops, it was actually anandtech i got the info from:Quote:
Originally posted by john99
lightbulb8817
Can you post the link to your statement:
"Yeah, Tomshardware.com says the 9600 XT will be the 1st main stream card to be faster than the 9700 Pro."...
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890&p=3
"ATI is also announcing the Radeon 9600 XT; a much more exciting derivative of the Radeon 9600 Pro based on a low-k dielectric 0.13-micron process. The benefits of a low-k dielectric are mainly related to shielding from crosstalk in high transistor density chips; the benefit of a low-k process is mainly the ability to scale up clock speeds, which is why you will see that ATI is able to clock the 9600 XT at 500MHz. According to ATI, the Radeon 9600 XT should be the first mainstream part to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro in all situations – not bad for a $199 card."
will someone explain the logic how going from a 9600 pro at 400/600 to 500/600 of the xt, another 100MHz core means the difference between getting eaten by a 9500 pro and eating a 9700 pro :confused: