everyone-------say hello to my new ti4200 for $22 shipped

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
If this email address is valad, you will see 11 screenshots totaling 3.5 megs! many of them in 1024x768x32 all details to max cause I have chosen to run games that mode. 1280x960 drops my fps to about 25. 15fps for 1600x1200. Id rather run 1024x768 with all eye candy. This means NO lodbias tweaking either. full blown maximum eyecandy except for aa/af. not bad, game looks fantanstic and runs that way too.

---

I just got them... The graphics look like crap.. Are you sure they are maxed out without AA/AF? :)

They are about 300KB each I am going to upload now and link them..

I tried Farcry at 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF and setting in the game AA/AF to max...

I hovered around ~30-35fps...

This is with a stock 3.2Ghz too :) and stock video card...

nice, what do you get without aa/af and at 1024x768?

Here are TB's pics.. I didnt even look at them all.. Just one or two..

http://sharky.nuclearfallout.net/TB1Ghz/

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
nice, what do you get without aa/af and at 1024x768?

---

Why would I run it at such a low resolution that I never game at?

EDIT:
I ran it to see what it could do with 1024x768 at max details with ZERO AA/AF I am scoring between 70-80FPS...

thanks very much for hosting those images. if you have 30 seconds just to see what fps you get at 1024x768, itll be nice to know. you may be getting 30fps in 1600x1200 where I get 15, but what would 1024 get you? 45fps when im getting 40? high res is more of a GPU limitation while medium and low res is a cpu limitation. You have twice the gpu that I do and a faster cpu, hence your getting double the fps I am in 1600x1200. still a ti4200 isnt bad for $60 compared to $220 for a 9800p :) I can live with 40fps at 1024x768 max details, honestly looks great and those looking at my screenies will agree. dont mind the two 1600x1200 shots, those suck cause I used low details. the 1024x768 ones were max details

..................

My LineageII screenshots are like 20x better...

Got to love the added ram :)

http://home.comcast.net/~blah/res.jpg

http://sharky.nuclearfallout.net/TB1Ghz/enterjungle.jpg


This is my favoriate screenshot. It is not blurry at all and was taken in 1024x768 everything maxed out. 38fps is VERY respectable. I dont gain much more running 800x600, perhaps another 10fps cause my cpus a bottleneck. at high res, the gpus starting to feel the load, hence my 15fps in 1600x1200. I am not gonna spend $220 for a 9800 pro so I can get the same performance in 1600x1200, 1024x768 looks almost as good. when the final comes out, it should run even better. also im set for doom3 and hl2, the two major upcomming games. by the time hl3 and doom4 and next gen games come out, ill upgrade in 2006 anyway. im fine for this generation of all upcomming games.

Your screenies don't agree with you, the game seems to be crying out for AA/AF (or is this another game that doesn't support those?)

So much for your 1600x1200 gaming, maybe now you'll appreciate that 3Dmark isn't the be all and end all benchmark to judge games by.

John

If you're happy with that quality of screen then sure, your 4200 ROX.
Have you even seen the quality shots Opstar posted in his "guess the video card thread".
It looks like a different freekin' game. This presumably is partly because the Ti4200 doesn't support any of the new directx9 features that the new generation of cards do.
Believe me I have no problem with people choosing lower quality as a price compromise, I have, but don't delude yourself that you are getting 9800 performance from a $60 card.
Not only that but your continuous pimping of your Ti4200's might make less informed people who come here for advice think that they can run newer games at decent quality without having to buy a new card.

It can do 1600x1200 just fine, but with all details to max I get 15fps, half of what colossus gets, but his card is faster and so is his cpu, but costs 3x what mine does too ;) I can run 1600x1200 at reduced details, but then 1024x768 at max details outperforms colossus 1600x1200 performance and looks almost as good. Colossus doesnt even run 1024x768 because he wouldnt gain many more fps anyway. Id however like a screenie from anyone, especially colossus on what "high quality" is because this is what I game at 1024x768!!!!!!! must be the .jpg lowering the quality, but its every bit perfect in the game. Ive gotta see what im missing but I doubt im missing any :D

Opstar's shots
far cry thread

It doesn't look almost as good.

By definition you must be missing out on some graphical features because your card just does not support them. They weren't in existence when it was made.

Your games will look that quality forever regardless of what new features are implemented by programmers. The difference will, I expect, be even more visible when new games that fully utilise DX9 functions are released.

I don't deny you get playable frame rates at 1024 with max details, but max details on a 4200 aren't comparable to those on a 9800.
I got playable frame rates in Splinter cel 1024 using by Geforce 2 ultra. I get similar playability with my 9600XT now but the game looks a bit different.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
It can do 1600x1200 just fine, but with all details to max I get 15fps, half of what colossus gets, but his card is faster and so is his cpu, but costs 3x what mine does too ;) I can run 1600x1200 at reduced details, but then 1024x768 at max details outperforms colossus 1600x1200 performance and looks almost as good. Colossus doesnt even run 1024x768 because he wouldnt gain many more fps anyway. Id however like a screenie from anyone, especially colossus on what "high quality" is because this is what I game at 1024x768!!!!!!! must be the .jpg lowering the quality, but its every bit perfect in the game. Ive gotta see what im missing but I doubt im missing any :D

---

You do know that you cannot do 1600x1200 just fine... 15fps is not fine! Nor is it playable... So not you cannot do 1600x1200...

Even my 1024x768 is about 2x faster then you :)

already saw opsars shots, he ran them in medium details, mines in high details so mine looks better. farcry is not dx9 and im missing nothing, if I am, id like a screenshot with an arrow pointing to whatever I am missing. there may be trivil differences such as more realistic shadows or slightly glossier reflections but id be hard pressed to notice :) and I already know I can do 60fps in 1600x1200 with low quality. I get 15fps only cause of max quality. I doubt colossus gets 80fps in 1024x768, if so then his gpus limiting him as well if he loses half the fps going from 1024x768 to 1600x1200! I lose more than half the fps. 40 at 1024, 15 at 1600!


edit: maybe colossus is right, a 3.2c is way faster than any athlon xp and its his cpu making up most of the extra fps :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
already saw opsars shots, he ran them in medium details, mines in high details so mine looks better. farcry is not dx9 and im missing nothing, if I am, id like a screenshot with an arrow pointing to whatever I am missing. there may be trivil differences such as more realistic shadows or slightly glossier reflections but id be hard pressed to notice :) and I already know I can do 60fps in 1600x1200 with low quality. I get 15fps only cause of max quality. I doubt colossus gets 80fps in 1024x768, if so then his gpus limiting him as well if he loses half the fps going from 1024x768 to 1600x1200! I lose more than half the fps. 40 at 1024, 15 at 1600!


edit: maybe colossus is right, a 3.2c is way faster than any athlon xp and its his cpu making up most of the extra fps :eek:

---

NOW YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIAR!!!!!!!!

You need to open your eyes AND read.. I said between 70-80fps.. And yes my card is just that much more powerful then yours!

"It can do 1600x1200 just fine, but with all details to max I get 15fps"

You've just contradicted yourself, 1600x1200 at 15fps is not 'fine' at all, it's unplayable, just face up to the fact you can't do all this 1600x1200 max details games playing that you've been boasting to everyone you're going to do.

Also, Farcry is a DX9 game, it makes use of PS2.0.

John

liar? just supprised. guess its the combo of your cpu and gpu giving twice the performance over me. If I had a 9800 pro id still get nowhere near your fps. a bit more than what my ti4200 gives. instead of your 30fps in 1600x1200 and 80fps in 1024x768 id get 25fps in 1600x1200 and 55fps in 1024x768. sorry for doubting you and your cpu power. nice performance there :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnmcl7
"It can do 1600x1200 just fine, but with all details to max I get 15fps"

You've just contradicted yourself, 1600x1200 at 15fps is not 'fine' at all, it's unplayable, just face up to the fact you can't do all this 1600x1200 max details games playing that you've been boasting to everyone you're going to do.

Also, Farcry is a DX9 game, it makes use of PS2.0.

John

---

I can do 1600x1200 not at max details!!!!!!!!!! Once I get an a64, ill be able to run 1600x1200 just fine at max details. colossus can cause hes got 3.2GHz over my 2.09GHz. His card does help out, especially in aa/af but his cpus the real deal. I can live with 40fps anyway, ill be done with that game way before I get an a64, I dont need 200fps LOL

You haven't even clicked on the link have you? That's just rude.
OPstar's first shots were mediums.
He posted highs later on in the thread together with the setup options he used.
Just to save you the trouble of actually clicking the link these were them
Renderer - Direct3D9
Anti-Aliasing - High
Texture Quality - Very High
Particle Count - Very High
Special effects Quality - Very High

Ohh hell you get the point.
The very fact you clearly haven't even looked at the screens I directed you too, yet still claim yours are better just further goes to illustrate your partialy delusional state when it comes to your graphics card. It also makes you look quite silly.
As John said Far Cry is DX9, at least partially.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
I can do 1600x1200 not at max details!!!!!!!!!! Once I get an a64, ill be able to run 1600x1200 just fine at max details. colossus can cause hes got 3.2GHz over my 2.09GHz. His card does help out, especially in aa/af but his cpus the real deal. I can live with 40fps anyway, ill be done with that game way before I get an a64, I dont need 200fps LOL

---

No, no and no! You were the one boasting about being able to do max details at 1600x1200, which you cannot do! You cannot play the game 'fine' at 1600x1200 you have to lower details to do so, there's a big difference there which I'm sure you're aware of but won't admit.

The fact that you have to keep going about getting an a64 shows you are also aware your Ti4200 is inadequate, otherwise you wouldn't need to keep upping your cpu power to try and squeeze performance out of it.

And remember, Intel are crap, you have a mighty AMD! In other threads you're quick to slate Intel C processors, obviously you now realise you were wrong there.

Give up this Ti4200 crap, play the games as you want to play the game, I don't really care, just stop with the posts about your 'mighty' ti4200, because you know fine it isn't that great.

John

Tbird... based on your last couple of posts, does that mean that if I play far cry demo when my CPU is at 2.5ghz I'll run just a tad bit slower than Colossus' rig at the same settings?

I don't think so.

ok I didnt think he had more images than in the first post. they look exactly like mine, both screenshot and in game except his jaggies are blurred and his are 1600x1200 while mines 1024x768. If you can honestly see any differences over his screenshots to mine, please crop out an area and draw an arrow pointing to the difference(besides aa) cause I cant tell!


edit: farcry may be very optimized for Intel cpus so thats why colossus fps are so high. as for yours, your using only 200fsb while im using 220 so you wont get much difference over me, id recon wed both have the same performance despite my 340/700 cause of your cpu advantage, even at lower fsb. ok I admit I was wrong, 1600x1200 at max details is somewhat blocky at 15fps, can we move on now? I am not complaining, the ti4200 still runs it fine, it just needs a better cpu to really shine, not that my cpu is bad either. my IQ is just as good as anyones(minus aa)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnmcl7
No, no and no! You were the one boasting about being able to do max details at 1600x1200, which you cannot do! You cannot play the game 'fine' at 1600x1200 you have to lower details to do so, there's a big difference there which I'm sure you're aware of but won't admit.

---

Thank you very much for posting that...

15fps is playable in some situations. Most of the time its not playable because the mouse lags with it, but in some other games like... LineageII (damn I swear I'm obssessed with that game), the mouse pointer is programmed so that the mouse pointer always run smooth even if the frame rate is 1fps :eek: Plus you can zoom in and zoom out of your character and IMO it doesn't feel as laggy (graphics wise) when its zoomed out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz

edit: farcry may be very optimized for Intel cpus so thats why colossus fps are so high. as for yours, your using only 200fsb while im using 220 so you wont get much difference over me, id recon wed both have the same performance despite my 340/700 cause of your cpu advantage, even at lower fsb. ok I admit I was wrong, 1600x1200 at max details is somewhat blocky at 15fps, can we move on now? I am not complaining, the ti4200 still runs it fine, it just needs a better cpu to really shine, not that my cpu is bad either. my IQ is just as good as anyones(minus aa)

---

FSB is not everything! I can be at 180Mhz FSB and still be faster then yours at 220 FSB :)

You would need to push that CPU around 2.55Ghz to compete against my 3.2c :) Atleast!

Then we have the video card factor... My card is 50 - 150% faster then a GF4 4200 (depends on game)... So with all that in mind.. You are still going to say your rig == my rig performance?

Please tell me I am reading the above post wrong... I dont want to die laughing tonight...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
You would need to push that CPU around 2.55Ghz to compete against my 3.2c :) Atleast!

---

I know, I'd say around 2.58GHz... Last time I checked 2.55 is Right between a 3.0C and 3.2C :)

btw: that's with HT enabled... I destroyed all stock P4Cs in sandra scores when they are not enabled ;)