video card?

InfluXeR · 07-29-2002, 01:46 PM

Alright guys, I am about to build a new PC for myself, and since I haven't done this in a while, I would like to get acquainted with video cards again. I want to spend about $100 (could be a little over) on a video card. I was wondering if I should get a Geforce 3 64 MB ($100), a Geforce 4 MX, or the new ATI Radeon 9000 (I believe thats the one around $100). I hear that the Radeon is now exceeding the Geforce due to Nvidia's partnership with Microsoft concerning the Xbox. Is this true? If so, which is the best buy for gaming (I dont want my graphics to be too exceptional.)

Thanks.

~~DoPeY5007~~ · 07-29-2002, 01:50 PM

I would go the GF3, the GF4mx is just as good as a GF2

sbp · 07-29-2002, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by InfluXeR
I hear that the Radeon is now exceeding the Geforce due to Nvidia's partnership with Microsoft concerning the Xbox. Is this true?

Nvidia is a half step behind in its release schedule now due to its involvement in making XBox chips. Its likely Microsoft is going with Nvidia again for XBox2.

I'd try to get a GeForce 4 Ti4200. Prices should drop once the new Radeons come out.

LegendKiller · 07-29-2002, 02:29 PM

There is no definite reason why they have "missed" their product cycle. Personally, I dont think they have missed anything, a product cycle isn't set in stone and the figures are rough. They come out with 2 products a year, a "new" one and an "upgraded" one. They have done exactly that so far.

The main "issues" that Nvidia faced with the latest generation is that its such a huge step forward. They are bypassing the current gen of process (.15) and going to .13 right off the bat, unlike ATI which just released its 9700@.15 and then will upgrade late winter to .13. By that time Nvidia will have its upgrade, which will probably be at .09.

It wasn't the Xbox that stopped innovation, it just kept going but the process upgrade is holding it back. Much like Seagate, saying the Xbox hard drive held up innovation is totally incorrect.

LK

sbp · 07-29-2002, 02:50 PM

I concur that Nvidia hasn't missed its schedule. They could do a paper launch and still make the schedule. Fact is TSMC {the foundry ATI and Nvidia use} has had problems converting to a .13 micron process.

The NV30 coming out is quite reminscent of the original GeForce coming out.

Time will tell whether Nvidia going with .13 micron or ATi sticking with a .15 micron fab size was wiser.

It might end up the NV30 is more feature rich but slower than the Radeon 9700.

Bires · 07-29-2002, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sbp
I'd try to get a GeForce 4 Ti4200. Prices should drop once the new Radeons come out.

I aggree. You won't be disappointed with the Ti4200. I've owned three ATI cards (including the Radeon), and I've been less than thrilled with their driver installation and stability. This is my first NVidia card and I have been very pleased with it.

PoloM1 · 07-29-2002, 03:31 PM

I would go for the GeForce 3.

LegendKiller · 07-29-2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sbp
I concur that Nvidia hasn't missed its schedule. They could do a paper launch and still make the schedule. Fact is TSMC {the foundry ATI and Nvidia use} has had problems converting to a .13 micron process.

The NV30 coming out is quite reminscent of the original GeForce coming out.

Time will tell whether Nvidia going with .13 micron or ATi sticking with a .15 micron fab size was wiser.

It might end up the NV30 is more feature rich but slower than the Radeon 9700.

Faster than what?

I would rather my picture look awesome and run at a decent FPS than have a picture that looked ok at a high FPS. 3dfx tried to win the "we are faster no matter what" war when they didn't go to 16bit color. Nvidia went to 32 bit, let their gamers take a hit in FPS but had better picture quality.

ATI seems to be doing the same thing, they didn't make many visual changes, just went for FPS. Nvidia is going a different way, Cinematic effects and programmable shaders allow better images, but at a FPS loss.

LK

InfluXeR · 07-29-2002, 09:27 PM

so, how low do you think the price will go to on the geforce4 ti4200 and in how long? just an estimate...

sbp · 07-29-2002, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LegendKiller
Faster than what?

I would rather my picture look awesome and run at a decent FPS than have a picture that looked ok at a high FPS. 3dfx tried to win the "we are faster no matter what" war when they didn't go to 16bit color. Nvidia went to 32 bit, let their gamers take a hit in FPS but had better picture quality.

ATI seems to be doing the same thing, they didn't make many visual changes, just went for FPS. Nvidia is going a different way, Cinematic effects and programmable shaders allow better images, but at a FPS loss.

LK

Faster than a Radeon 9700 obviously.

The stage you are talking about is passé. No longer is it high resolution versus low resolution and anti-aliasing etc. Whats being talked about is turning on anisotropic filtering, anti-aliasing, and the effects to get an awesome picture while having the ability to run it with good frames in 32-bit color high resolution. In short, the whole ball of wax.

LegendKiller · 07-29-2002, 09:40 PM

Even those are "passe" considering there are much better effects that can be enabled that give better images.

The thing that most people do not consider is that the biggest reason why the 9700 got its huge performance jump at ultra high rez and FSAA and Ans is that it got a massive memory upgrade, which really isn't that big of a deal. The DDRII and 256bit combination of the rumored NV30 might be interesting, considering that would double the 9700's bandwidth.

Also, the 9700 didn't intro any amazing new features, while the NV30 will have the second gen programmable shaders and the cinematic effects.

LK

InfluXeR · 07-29-2002, 09:51 PM

so, what would be the difference between getting a geforce4 ti4200 128, and geforce4 ti4200 64?

where is the cheapest place i can get a geforce4 ti4200 64?

skynet · 07-29-2002, 10:14 PM

What ever you buy, Don't buy a geforce4mx.

I think I would go for a Geforce 4 Ti 4200

sbp · 07-29-2002, 10:17 PM

It would be a mistake to say ATI "didn't make many visual changes, just went for FPS" and "the 9700 didn't intro any amazing new features". That basically the 9700 is a fps monster card that can do ultra high rez and FSAA and Ans. That would be like saying well the NV30 is going to get a huge performance jump at ultra high rez and FSAA and Ans also, so thats about all it is too.

The Radeon 9700 supports the Vertex Shader 2.0 standard and Pixel Shader 2.0 specification. In short it will be DirectX 9 compliant just as the NV30 shall be. Now the NV30 will go beyond that.

Also realize that some of the groovy new features won't see action in games anytime soon. Even these passe effects aren't much use if developers don't use 'em. Finally, think developers are going to support 2 specifications? Look back at the Radeon 8500 versus GeForce 3/Ti.

DREDD · 07-29-2002, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sbp
Nvidia is a half step behind in its release schedule now due to its involvement in making XBox chips. Its likely Microsoft is going with Nvidia again for XBox2.

I'd try to get a GeForce 4 Ti4200. Prices should drop once the new Radeons come out.

If there is an Xbox 2...see MS may not be making enough money on the Xbox worldwide to make it work doing an Xbox2...we will have to see what they announce in a couple years.

Bires · 07-30-2002, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by InfluXeR
so, what would be the difference between getting a geforce4 ti4200 128, and geforce4 ti4200 64?

The 128 has more memory for better 4X or better FSAA. With Quincunx, 2X, or no FSAA, the 64 will be faster because it has faster memory (3.6ns), while MOST of the 128's have 4ns memory. The faster memory means wicked good overclocks.

BTW: 3.6ns DDR memory mathematically means the memory should OC to 550. All of the 4200's I've seen reviewed are OCing to >600.

If you plan to use 4X FSAA (I didn't/don't) get the 128M version. If 2X or no FSAA is your bag, get the 64M version.

Quote:

where is the cheapest place i can get a geforce4 ti4200 64?

Pricewatch then Resellerratings.

I bought mine from www.newegg.com because I really like their service and their prices are fairly excellent. Their prices may be a 5-10 more than pricewatch, but the ship fast/cheap and their customer service is what dreams are made of.

07-29-2002, 01:46 PM	#1
InfluXeR Lieutenant Junior Grade Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Currently in Minnesota Posts: 74	video card? Alright guys, I am about to build a new PC for myself, and since I haven't done this in a while, I would like to get acquainted with video cards again. I want to spend about $100 (could be a little over) on a video card. I was wondering if I should get a Geforce 3 64 MB ($100), a Geforce 4 MX, or the new ATI Radeon 9000 (I believe thats the one around $100). I hear that the Radeon is now exceeding the Geforce due to Nvidia's partnership with Microsoft concerning the Xbox. Is this true? If so, which is the best buy for gaming (I dont want my graphics to be too exceptional.) Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-29-2002, 01:50 PM	#2
~~DoPeY5007~~ court-martialled Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Brig Posts: 0	I would go the GF3, the GF4mx is just as good as a GF2

07-29-2002, 02:29 PM	#4
LegendKiller Vice Admiral Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,927	There is no definite reason why they have "missed" their product cycle. Personally, I dont think they have missed anything, a product cycle isn't set in stone and the figures are rough. They come out with 2 products a year, a "new" one and an "upgraded" one. They have done exactly that so far. The main "issues" that Nvidia faced with the latest generation is that its such a huge step forward. They are bypassing the current gen of process (.15) and going to .13 right off the bat, unlike ATI which just released its 9700@.15 and then will upgrade late winter to .13. By that time Nvidia will have its upgrade, which will probably be at .09. It wasn't the Xbox that stopped innovation, it just kept going but the process upgrade is holding it back. Much like Seagate, saying the Xbox hard drive held up innovation is totally incorrect. LK

07-29-2002, 02:50 PM	#5
sbp Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 11,037	I concur that Nvidia hasn't missed its schedule. They could do a paper launch and still make the schedule. Fact is TSMC {the foundry ATI and Nvidia use} has had problems converting to a .13 micron process. The NV30 coming out is quite reminscent of the original GeForce coming out. Time will tell whether Nvidia going with .13 micron or ATi sticking with a .15 micron fab size was wiser. It might end up the NV30 is more feature rich but slower than the Radeon 9700.

07-29-2002, 03:31 PM	#7
PoloM1 Lieutenant Junior Grade Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: With your mom Posts: 125	I would go for the GeForce 3.

07-29-2002, 09:27 PM	#9
InfluXeR Lieutenant Junior Grade Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Currently in Minnesota Posts: 74	so, how low do you think the price will go to on the geforce4 ti4200 and in how long? just an estimate...

07-29-2002, 09:40 PM	#11
LegendKiller Vice Admiral Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,927	Even those are "passe" considering there are much better effects that can be enabled that give better images. The thing that most people do not consider is that the biggest reason why the 9700 got its huge performance jump at ultra high rez and FSAA and Ans is that it got a massive memory upgrade, which really isn't that big of a deal. The DDRII and 256bit combination of the rumored NV30 might be interesting, considering that would double the 9700's bandwidth. Also, the 9700 didn't intro any amazing new features, while the NV30 will have the second gen programmable shaders and the cinematic effects. LK

07-29-2002, 09:51 PM	#12
InfluXeR Lieutenant Junior Grade Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Currently in Minnesota Posts: 74	so, what would be the difference between getting a geforce4 ti4200 128, and geforce4 ti4200 64? where is the cheapest place i can get a geforce4 ti4200 64?

07-29-2002, 10:14 PM	#13
skynet Lieutenant Commander Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 523	What ever you buy, Don't buy a geforce4mx. I think I would go for a Geforce 4 Ti 4200

07-29-2002, 10:17 PM	#14
sbp Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 11,037	It would be a mistake to say ATI "didn't make many visual changes, just went for FPS" and "the 9700 didn't intro any amazing new features". That basically the 9700 is a fps monster card that can do ultra high rez and FSAA and Ans. That would be like saying well the NV30 is going to get a huge performance jump at ultra high rez and FSAA and Ans also, so thats about all it is too. The Radeon 9700 supports the Vertex Shader 2.0 standard and Pixel Shader 2.0 specification. In short it will be DirectX 9 compliant just as the NV30 shall be. Now the NV30 will go beyond that. Also realize that some of the groovy new features won't see action in games anytime soon. Even these passe effects aren't much use if developers don't use 'em. Finally, think developers are going to support 2 specifications? Look back at the Radeon 8500 versus GeForce 3/Ti.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?