Initial impressions upgrading from GeForce3 Ti200 to GeForce 4 4400

My base system: Athon XP 1600+ Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb) EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr) Windows XP Home Ok, I had a Hercules GeForce 3 Ti200 in this system. Installed the new Gainward GeForce 4 card this morning. The Herc card was not overclocked, and I have not overclocked the Gainward card yet. I left all my settings the same on the Gainward card to get a good comparison 1280x1024x32 display vsynch disabled in opengl and d3d blend on the mimpapping 29.42 official det drivers ( I did uninstall and reinstall) No AA 3d mark 2001 with Geforce 3 Ti200 - app 7150 3d mark 2002 with GeForce 4 4400 - 9999 ( let's call it 10k) :) I was pretty impressed, I really was expecting less of a difference, like upper 8k to lower 9k. Ok, so that's just a benchmark, let's compare 2 of my most played games. Nascar 2002 - running in opengl 1280x964x32 - testing at Michigan GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged mid 70 fps GeForce 4 4400 - averaged around 140 fps I was stunned, practically doubled my framerates here. F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full field of ai GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so dispay was increased some) Pretty darn significant performance increase. That's all I have done so far, I figured this would be the best way to compare apples to apples. Needless to say, I am very impressed initially. I truthfully did not think I would see that big a performance increase. I am very satisfied so far with my decision to upgrade. I look foward to playing around now with fsaa and overclocking this card, with the GeForce 3 Ti200 it would not overclock well at all, and running any fsaa would kill the performance of it. Did I really need the upgrade? Heck no, my games were certainly playable with the previous card. But I sure am pleased with what I have, if you are running a similar system and have the extra money, then you too will probably be pleased with the upgrade.. Gotta run do some errands with my daughter, I'll try to report more later tonight or tomorrow. Don Burnette

"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full > field of ai > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > dispay was increased some) What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. - David Cook

Well, I have a Athlon XP 1800+ and a GeForce 4 Ti4400 and at 1024x768x32 with Quincunx 4xAA enabled I average around 38fps in N2k2 with all settings on (including 3d audio), 32 drivers up front, 8 in rear and 87% view distance. The lowest I have ever seen it fall with smoke and a huge pile up is around 24fps. I don't see how anyone can run N2k2 without AA of some kind--it is jaggy as all hell without it! -- --------------------- Rob Berryhill "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full > > field of ai > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > > dispay was increased some) > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > - David Cook > > >

"David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. Jut wondering why anyone would want to run FSAA if they can run @1280? I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would be slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA the ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just to run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit would be worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to bring that # down a bit). Jon

My difference wasn't quite as large since I upgraded from a GF3 Ti500, but still pretty solid. The 128MB RAM really made a difference in quality I believe. Far less 'smudging' of graphics going on. I _think_ mipmapping is what does this. Whatever it is, it's a lot happier now :) The improvement's in 2D quality really jumped out at me. They have really cleaned up the Analog signals on the GF4 cards, and I think it's every bit as good as ATI's now. Just to save you the trouble, I tried overclocking mine to 300/600, which matches the Ti4600. I'm not an overclocker, but I wanted to see how much difference it made. It made very little difference. Hardly worth the risk at all. Everything is back to stock now (275/550). -Larry "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> My base system: > Athon XP 1600+ > Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb) > EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr) > Windows XP Home > > Ok, I had a Hercules GeForce 3 Ti200 in this system. Installed the new > Gainward GeForce 4 card this morning. The Herc card was not overclocked,

and

Quoted text (30 lines)

> I have not overclocked the Gainward card yet. I left all my settings the > same on the Gainward card to get a good comparison > 1280x1024x32 display > vsynch disabled in opengl and d3d > blend on the mimpapping > 29.42 official det drivers ( I did uninstall and reinstall) > No AA > > 3d mark 2001 with Geforce 3 Ti200 - app 7150 > 3d mark 2002 with GeForce 4 4400 - 9999 ( let's call it 10k) :) > I was pretty impressed, I really was expecting less of a difference, like > upper 8k to lower 9k. > > Ok, so that's just a benchmark, let's compare 2 of my most played games. > > Nascar 2002 - running in opengl 1280x964x32 - testing at Michigan > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged mid 70 fps > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged around 140 fps > I was stunned, practically doubled my framerates here. > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full > field of ai > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > dispay was increased some) > Pretty darn significant performance increase. > > That's all I have done so far, I figured this would be the best way to > compare apples to apples. Needless to say, I am very impressed initially.

I > truthfully did not think I would see that big a performance increase. I am > very satisfied so far with my decision to upgrade. I look foward toplaying > around now with fsaa and overclocking this card, with the GeForce 3 Ti200it

Quoted text (15 lines)

> would not overclock well at all, and running any fsaa would kill the > performance of it. > > Did I really need the upgrade? Heck no, my games were certainly playable > with the previous card. But I sure am pleased with what I have, if you are > running a similar system and have the extra money, then you too will > probably be pleased with the upgrade.. > Gotta run do some errands with my daughter, I'll try to report more later > tonight or tomorrow. > > Don Burnette > > > >

I'll take 100fps and jaggies :) -Larry "Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JkIU8.1271$[email hidden]... > Well, I have a Athlon XP 1800+ and a GeForce 4 Ti4400 and at 1024x768x32 > with Quincunx 4xAA enabled I average around 38fps in N2k2 with allsettings > on (including 3d audio), 32 drivers up front, 8 in rear and 87% view > distance. The lowest I have ever seen it fall with smoke and a huge pileup > is around 24fps. > > I don't see how anyone can run N2k2 without AA of some kind--it is jaggyas

Quoted text (12 lines)

> all hell without it! > > -- > --------------------- > Rob Berryhill > > "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > > > > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with

full

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > field of ai > > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > > > dispay was increased some) > > > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?

I > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don'tyou

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > > > - David Cook > > > > > > > >

"Jon Van Ginneken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AsIU8.269489$[email hidden]... > "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?I > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don'tyou > > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > > Jut wondering why anyone would want to run FSAA if they can run @1280? > I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered > checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it wouldbe > slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAAthe > ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better justto > run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my > monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit wouldbe > worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels tobring > that # down a bit). I'm running 1600x1200 in F12002 and it's still too "jaggy" for me. NR2002 is even worse IMHO. - David Cook

NASCAR 2k2 is REALLY jaggy. You really want 4xAA and with the GeForce4 you take only a slight performance hit, especially if you use Quincunx (I see only like a 2fps drop) and it's still 4x. Even at 1280x1024 it's almost impossible to see other cars that are very far ahead or behind unless you have AA enabled with N2k2. -- --------------------- Rob Berryhill "Jon Van Ginneken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AsIU8.269489$[email hidden]... > "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you > > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > > Jut wondering why anyone would want to run FSAA if they can run @1280? > I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered > checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would be > slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA the > ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just to > run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my > monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit would be > worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to bring > that # down a bit). > > Jon > > >

Who thought of that name? Quincunx? What does it stand for? Sounds like someting Opie & Anthony would come up with... -Larry "Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XWIU8.1361$[email hidden]... > NASCAR 2k2 is REALLY jaggy. You really want 4xAA and with the GeForce4you

Quoted text (30 lines)

> take only a slight performance hit, especially if you use Quincunx (I see > only like a 2fps drop) and it's still 4x. Even at 1280x1024 it's almost > impossible to see other cars that are very far ahead or behind unless you > have AA enabled with N2k2. > > -- > --------------------- > Rob Berryhill > > "Jon Van Ginneken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:AsIU8.269489$[email hidden]... > > "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? > I > > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't > you > > > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > > > > > Jut wondering why anyone would want to run FSAA if they can run @1280? > > I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered > > checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would > be > > slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA > the > > ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just > to > > run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my > > monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit

would

Quoted text (11 lines)

> be > > worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to > bring > > that # down a bit). > > > > Jon > > > > > > > >

It doesn't look that bad to me. Maybe your glasses need to be 4X ? Just kidding :) -Larry "Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XWIU8.1361$[email hidden]... > NASCAR 2k2 is REALLY jaggy. You really want 4xAA and with the GeForce4you

Quoted text (30 lines)

> take only a slight performance hit, especially if you use Quincunx (I see > only like a 2fps drop) and it's still 4x. Even at 1280x1024 it's almost > impossible to see other cars that are very far ahead or behind unless you > have AA enabled with N2k2. > > -- > --------------------- > Rob Berryhill > > "Jon Van Ginneken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:AsIU8.269489$[email hidden]... > > "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? > I > > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't > you > > > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > > > > > Jut wondering why anyone would want to run FSAA if they can run @1280? > > I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered > > checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it would > be > > slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAA > the > > ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better just > to > > run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my > > monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit

would

Quoted text (11 lines)

> be > > worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels to > bring > > that # down a bit). > > > > Jon > > > > > > > >

"Larry \(The Other Larry\)" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:JYIU8.15843$%%[email hidden]: > Who thought of that name? Quincunx? What does it stand for? > > Sounds like someting Opie & Anthony would come up with... > > Quincunx is the scientific name of the geometric figure used by the the GeForce cards when calculating this type of AA -- an arrangement of dots just like on the 5-side of a normal 6-sided die. I have recently installed a GeForce 3 Ti200, and played around with the FSAA settings, but I must say I can't stand what Quincunx does to the legibility of text on screen (i.e., destroys it!). What good is racing without jaggies if you can't even tell what lap you�re on?? :) -- "Walk like a Syrian" Per Thulin Visit Jane The Hamster (and Pelhamina & Grenville) at http://w1.541.telia.com/~u54108168/ (Spamblock in operation - remove "hamsters" in email address to reply by mail.)

"Jon Van Ginneken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AsIU8.269489$[email hidden]... > > Jut wondering why anyone would want to run FSAA if they can run @1280? > I have a pretty slow system by today's standards so I haven't bothered > checing out what FSAA would look like on my system since I know it wouldbe > slow as a dog, but from what I remember in the old Voodoo5 days w/ FSAAthe > ppl who had it said it looked great, but IMO it looked a ton better justto > run at a much higher res. That said 90fps would be about 5 over my > monitor's refresh at 1280 so I guess a little extra performance hit wouldbe > worth it (but my guess is I would install some of the fancy wheels tobring > that # down a bit). > > Jon Hi Jon, when I had my V5 running with N4 I could either run at 800x600 w/4xfsaa or 1600x1200 with no fsaa and get about the same framerate but the 800x600 on the V5's FSAA was so much better than the 16x12 without FSAA it was a no brainer even on my 19" monitor so if I were you, I'd try it out to see if it floats your boat. -Tim

Don, did you mean 3dMark 2002? According to your tests, you have about a 40% gain with the new card. I've generally found that the gain I get in 3D Mark pretty much reflects the gains I get in games. Your games are showing a much larger increase. This is really puzzling me. Maybe it's a gForce thing? I've ordered an MSI Ti4400 to replace my Radeon 8500. It was supposed to be here last week and now I doubt it's even been sent out (according to their web site) even though they assured me it was sent on Monday. Anyway, it'll give me something else to play around with. A couple nights ago I tried the new Catalyst ATI drivers and my 3DMark went up 400 points even though I took a couple clicks off my FSB (it's 100� in here, you know). I don't know if this link will work, but it should show the scores, 10000 vs. 9600. http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=2867857 -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > My base system: > Athon XP 1600+ > Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb) > EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr) > Windows XP Home > > Ok, I had a Hercules GeForce 3 Ti200 in this system. Installed the new > Gainward GeForce 4 card this morning. The Herc card was not overclocked, and > I have not overclocked the Gainward card yet. I left all my settings the > same on the Gainward card to get a good comparison > 1280x1024x32 display > vsynch disabled in opengl and d3d > blend on the mimpapping > 29.42 official det drivers ( I did uninstall and reinstall) > No AA > > 3d mark 2001 with Geforce 3 Ti200 - app 7150 > 3d mark 2002 with GeForce 4 4400 - 9999 ( let's call it 10k) :) > I was pretty impressed, I really was expecting less of a difference, like > upper 8k to lower 9k. > > Ok, so that's just a benchmark, let's compare 2 of my most played games. > > Nascar 2002 - running in opengl 1280x964x32 - testing at Michigan > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged mid 70 fps > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged around 140 fps > I was stunned, practically doubled my framerates here. > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full > field of ai > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > dispay was increased some) > Pretty darn significant performance increase. > > That's all I have done so far, I figured this would be the best way to > compare apples to apples. Needless to say, I am very impressed initially. I > truthfully did not think I would see that big a performance increase. I am > very satisfied so far with my decision to upgrade. I look foward to playing > around now with fsaa and overclocking this card, with the GeForce 3 Ti200 it > would not overclock well at all, and running any fsaa would kill the > performance of it. > > Did I really need the upgrade? Heck no, my games were certainly playable > with the previous card. But I sure am pleased with what I have, if you are > running a similar system and have the extra money, then you too will > probably be pleased with the upgrade.. > Gotta run do some errands with my daughter, I'll try to report more later > tonight or tomorrow. > > Don Burnette > > > >

"Tim Miser" > Hi Jon, when I had my V5 running with N4 I could either run at 800x600 > w/4xfsaa or 1600x1200 with no fsaa and get about the same framerate butthe > 800x600 on the V5's FSAA was so much better than the 16x12 without FSAA it > was a no brainer even on my 19" monitor so if I were you, I'd try it outto > see if it floats your boat. > > -Tim > I've said it before, and I'll say it again...We need to merge the FSAA of 3dfx with the speed of Nvidia. Nvidia FSAA, at least with my GF 3ti is almost non-existant. dave henrie

"David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full > > field of ai > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > > dispay was increased some) > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? I > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't you > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > - David Cook

Haven't tried 4X yet, however I did just run F12002 in 1280x1024x32 with quincux AA,. and was getting in the upper 50's low 60's. I'll give 4X a try at 1024x768x32 and let ya know. Don Burnette

That's kind of my take also, I played around with AA in N2K2, and while certainly there are some jaggies without it, it doesn't really bother me that bad. I ended up increasing the resolution to 1600x1200x32 with no aa, and am still around 100 fps. It is nice I can now run AA with this GeForce 4 card, but it still is quite a performance hit - although certainly 50-60 fps is playable. Don Burnette "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iSIU8.15838$%%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> I'll take 100fps and jaggies :) > > -Larry > > "Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:JkIU8.1271$[email hidden]... > > Well, I have a Athlon XP 1800+ and a GeForce 4 Ti4400 and at 1024x768x32 > > with Quincunx 4xAA enabled I average around 38fps in N2k2 with all > settings > > on (including 3d audio), 32 drivers up front, 8 in rear and 87% view > > distance. The lowest I have ever seen it fall with smoke and a huge pile > up > > is around 24fps. > > > > I don't see how anyone can run N2k2 without AA of some kind--it is jaggy > as > > all hell without it! > > > > -- > > --------------------- > > Rob Berryhill > > > > "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > > > > > > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with > full > > > > field of ai > > > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > > > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > > > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full,

so

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > > dispay was increased some) > > > > > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002? > I > > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don't > you > > > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > > > > > - David Cook > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iyOU8.24959$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "David L. Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SrHU8.1870$[email hidden]... > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > > > > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with

full

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > field of ai > > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > > > dispay was increased some) > > > > What kind of performance hit would 4XFSAA bring you down to in F12002?

I > > would say 1024x768x32 would be a good starting point for 4XFSAA, don'tyou

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > think? If I could get 40's and 50's with that, I would be ecstatic. > > > > - David Cook > > Haven't tried 4X yet, however I did just run F12002 in 1280x1024x32 with > quincux AA,. and was getting in the upper 50's low 60's. > I'll give 4X a try at 1024x768x32 and let ya know. > > Don Burnette >

Ok, changed my settings in F12002 to 1024x768x32 and enabled 4XAA. Framerates were in the mid to upper 40's. Went back out and changed it to quincunx AA, framerates then went up into the mid 90's, and honestly I thought it looked just as good if not a little better than 4X. After doing that, and changed N2002 to the same resolution and with quincunx AA enabled, testing at Michigan I was in the 130-140 fps range. Basically, at 1024x762x32 with quincunx AA., my framerates are about the same as I was getting in 1280x964x32 with no AA. Now I am uncertain of which I like better, higher resolutions with no AA or lower resolutions with quincunx AA. At this moment I am leaning towards the lower resolution with AA. Don Burnette

My AA question is what does it do to ingame text and menus? I would think AA would be of most use in slow moving games, but these are precisely the ones that use alot of onscreen text. rms [email hidden]

I did not notice any difference in my on screen text to speak of. But then again, my eyes ain't as young as they used to be :). Don Burnette "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b3PU8.2573$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> My AA question is what does it do to ingame text and menus? I would think > AA would be of most use in slow moving games, but these are precisely the > ones that use alot of onscreen text. > > rms > [email hidden] > > >

I just switched from a Radeon to a Ti4200, and I would have to agree with you. nVidia's image quality is quite good now, and in some games it is even better than the Radeon was. "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qAIU8.15836$%%[email hidden]... > > The 128MB RAM really made a difference in quality I believe. Far less > 'smudging' of graphics going on. I _think_ mipmapping is what doesthis. > Whatever it is, it's a lot happier now :) > > The improvement's in 2D quality really jumped out at me. They havereally > cleaned up the Analog signals on the GF4 cards, and I think it's everybit > as good as ATI's now. >

I have an Athlon 1400 and Gainward Ti4200 and frame rates in F1 2002 at 1024x768 are only in the 30's most of the time - in fact drop into the 20's at the start. Drivers are the Nvidia 28.32 ones...256 Mb DDR ram. Wonder if its the difference in cpu, or video 4200 versus 4400 or something else? Most graphics settings are on full - I think the 3d install came out with 40 million thingies per second. V sync disabled, no AA havent checked, but even in practice - no way is it over 50. So how come you get 90? "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> My base system: > Athon XP 1600+ > Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb) > EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr) > Windows XP Home > > Ok, I had a Hercules GeForce 3 Ti200 in this system. Installed the new > Gainward GeForce 4 card this morning. The Herc card was not overclocked,

and

Quoted text (30 lines)

> I have not overclocked the Gainward card yet. I left all my settings the > same on the Gainward card to get a good comparison > 1280x1024x32 display > vsynch disabled in opengl and d3d > blend on the mimpapping > 29.42 official det drivers ( I did uninstall and reinstall) > No AA > > 3d mark 2001 with Geforce 3 Ti200 - app 7150 > 3d mark 2002 with GeForce 4 4400 - 9999 ( let's call it 10k) :) > I was pretty impressed, I really was expecting less of a difference, like > upper 8k to lower 9k. > > Ok, so that's just a benchmark, let's compare 2 of my most played games. > > Nascar 2002 - running in opengl 1280x964x32 - testing at Michigan > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged mid 70 fps > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged around 140 fps > I was stunned, practically doubled my framerates here. > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full > field of ai > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > dispay was increased some) > Pretty darn significant performance increase. > > That's all I have done so far, I figured this would be the best way to > compare apples to apples. Needless to say, I am very impressed initially.

I > truthfully did not think I would see that big a performance increase. I am > very satisfied so far with my decision to upgrade. I look foward toplaying > around now with fsaa and overclocking this card, with the GeForce 3 Ti200it

Quoted text (15 lines)

> would not overclock well at all, and running any fsaa would kill the > performance of it. > > Did I really need the upgrade? Heck no, my games were certainly playable > with the previous card. But I sure am pleased with what I have, if you are > running a similar system and have the extra money, then you too will > probably be pleased with the upgrade.. > Gotta run do some errands with my daughter, I'll try to report more later > tonight or tomorrow. > > Don Burnette > > > >

> Ok, changed my settings in F12002 to 1024x768x32 and enabled 4XAA. > Framerates were in the mid to upper 40's. Went back out and changed it to > quincunx AA, framerates then went up into the mid 90's, and honestly I > thought it looked just as good if not a little better than 4X. > After doing that, and changed N2002 to the same resolution and withquincunx > AA enabled, testing at Michigan I was in the 130-140 fps range. > Basically, at 1024x762x32 with quincunx AA., my framerates are about the > same as I was getting in 1280x964x32 with no AA. > Now I am uncertain of which I like better, higher resolutions with no AAor > lower resolutions with quincunx AA. At this moment I am leaning towardsthe > lower resolution with AA. > > Don Burnette Thanks for the info Don!

"Julian Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IWUU8.756$[email hidden]... > I have an Athlon 1400 and Gainward Ti4200 and frame rates in F1 2002 at > 1024x768 are only in the 30's most of the time - in fact drop into the20's > at the start. Drivers are the Nvidia 28.32 ones...256 Mb DDR ram. > Wonder if its the difference in cpu, or video 4200 versus 4400 orsomething > else? Most graphics settings are on full - I think the 3d install came out > with 40 million thingies per second. From what I'm seeing CPU makes a HUGE difference. I'm still running a 1Ghz and the best score I can muster with 3DMark 2001SE is 5500 on my GeForce 3 Ti200 (XP Home). Don got over 7000 on the same card with his OC'd Athon XP 1600... - David Cook

I don't know Julian, initially I would have thought you did not have Vsynch disabled, but you clearly state you do. My XP1600 is running at 140 mhz fsb (280) so it runs at 1.5 ghz. I wouldn't think there would be that big a difference between my processor and yours, nor between my 4400 and your 4200. The only other thing is I upped my ddr ram from 512mb to 768 mb. I benchmarked with 3dmark 2001 before and after adding the extra memory module, and it made no real difference. You didn't state what operating system you have, if you have XP you may see a benefit by adding another 256 mb of ram. Don Burnette "Julian Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IWUU8.756$[email hidden]... > I have an Athlon 1400 and Gainward Ti4200 and frame rates in F1 2002 at > 1024x768 are only in the 30's most of the time - in fact drop into the20's > at the start. Drivers are the Nvidia 28.32 ones...256 Mb DDR ram. > Wonder if its the difference in cpu, or video 4200 versus 4400 orsomething > else? Most graphics settings are on full - I think the 3d install came out > with 40 million thingies per second. > V sync disabled, no AA > havent checked, but even in practice - no way is it over 50. So how comeyou

Quoted text (23 lines)

> get 90? > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > > My base system: > > Athon XP 1600+ > > Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb) > > EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr) > > Windows XP Home > > > > Ok, I had a Hercules GeForce 3 Ti200 in this system. Installed the new > > Gainward GeForce 4 card this morning. The Herc card was not overclocked, > and > > I have not overclocked the Gainward card yet. I left all my settings the > > same on the Gainward card to get a good comparison > > 1280x1024x32 display > > vsynch disabled in opengl and d3d > > blend on the mimpapping > > 29.42 official det drivers ( I did uninstall and reinstall) > > No AA > > > > 3d mark 2001 with Geforce 3 Ti200 - app 7150 > > 3d mark 2002 with GeForce 4 4400 - 9999 ( let's call it 10k) :) > > I was pretty impressed, I really was expecting less of a difference,

like

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > upper 8k to lower 9k. > > > > Ok, so that's just a benchmark, let's compare 2 of my most played games. > > > > Nascar 2002 - running in opengl 1280x964x32 - testing at Michigan > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged mid 70 fps > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged around 140 fps > > I was stunned, practically doubled my framerates here. > > > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with full > > field of ai > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > > dispay was increased some) > > Pretty darn significant performance increase. > > > > That's all I have done so far, I figured this would be the best way to > > compare apples to apples. Needless to say, I am very impressed

initially. > I > > truthfully did not think I would see that big a performance increase. Iam > > very satisfied so far with my decision to upgrade. I look foward to > playing > > around now with fsaa and overclocking this card, with the GeForce 3Ti200 > it > > would not overclock well at all, and running any fsaa would kill the > > performance of it. > > > > Did I really need the upgrade? Heck no, my games were certainly playable > > with the previous card. But I sure am pleased with what I have, if youare > > running a similar system and have the extra money, then you too will > > probably be pleased with the upgrade.. > > Gotta run do some errands with my daughter, I'll try to report morelater

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > tonight or tomorrow. > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > > >

One other thing I thought of, my motherboard is the KT266A chipset running ddr ram, if your running an older mb with sdram that can make a big difference as well.. Don Burnette "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YqZU8.540911$[email hidden]... > I don't know Julian, initially I would have thought you did not haveVsynch > disabled, but you clearly state you do. > My XP1600 is running at 140 mhz fsb (280) so it runs at 1.5 ghz. Iwouldn't > think there would be that big a difference between my processor and yours, > nor between my 4400 and your 4200. The only other thing is I upped my ddr > ram from 512mb to 768 mb. I benchmarked with 3dmark 2001 before and after > adding the extra memory module, and it made no real difference. > You didn't state what operating system you have, if you have XP you maysee

Quoted text (14 lines)

> a benefit by adding another 256 mb of ram. > > Don Burnette > > > "Julian Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:IWUU8.756$[email hidden]... > > I have an Athlon 1400 and Gainward Ti4200 and frame rates in F1 2002 at > > 1024x768 are only in the 30's most of the time - in fact drop into the > 20's > > at the start. Drivers are the Nvidia 28.32 ones...256 Mb DDR ram. > > Wonder if its the difference in cpu, or video 4200 versus 4400 or > something > > else? Most graphics settings are on full - I think the 3d install came

out

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > with 40 million thingies per second. > > V sync disabled, no AA > > havent checked, but even in practice - no way is it over 50. So how come > you > > get 90? > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:gAGU8.537362$%[email hidden]... > > > My base system: > > > Athon XP 1600+ > > > Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb) > > > EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr) > > > Windows XP Home > > > > > > Ok, I had a Hercules GeForce 3 Ti200 in this system. Installed the new > > > Gainward GeForce 4 card this morning. The Herc card was not

overclocked, > > and > > > I have not overclocked the Gainward card yet. I left all my settingsthe

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > same on the Gainward card to get a good comparison > > > 1280x1024x32 display > > > vsynch disabled in opengl and d3d > > > blend on the mimpapping > > > 29.42 official det drivers ( I did uninstall and reinstall) > > > No AA > > > > > > 3d mark 2001 with Geforce 3 Ti200 - app 7150 > > > 3d mark 2002 with GeForce 4 4400 - 9999 ( let's call it 10k) :) > > > I was pretty impressed, I really was expecting less of a difference, > like > > > upper 8k to lower 9k. > > > > > > Ok, so that's just a benchmark, let's compare 2 of my most played

games.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > > > Nascar 2002 - running in opengl 1280x964x32 - testing at Michigan > > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged mid 70 fps > > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged around 140 fps > > > I was stunned, practically doubled my framerates here. > > > > > > F12002 - running in d3d 1280x1024x32 - Practice at Hockenheim with

full

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > field of ai > > > GeForce 3 Ti200 - averaged upper 50 fps > > > GeForce 4 4400 - averaged low 90's fps > > > ( note: when I reconfigured the 3d, it reset some textures to full, so > > > dispay was increased some) > > > Pretty darn significant performance increase. > > > > > > That's all I have done so far, I figured this would be the best way to > > > compare apples to apples. Needless to say, I am very impressed > initially. > > I > > > truthfully did not think I would see that big a performance increase.

I

Quoted text (10 lines)

> am > > > very satisfied so far with my decision to upgrade. I look foward to > > playing > > > around now with fsaa and overclocking this card, with the GeForce 3 > Ti200 > > it > > > would not overclock well at all, and running any fsaa would kill the > > > performance of it. > > > > > > Did I really need the upgrade? Heck no, my games were certainly

playable

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > with the previous card. But I sure am pleased with what I have, if you > are > > > running a similar system and have the extra money, then you too will > > > probably be pleased with the upgrade.. > > > Gotta run do some errands with my daughter, I'll try to report more > later > > > tonight or tomorrow. > > > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Thanks for the explanation! -Larry "Per Thulin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:JYIU8.15843$%%[email hidden]: > > > Who thought of that name? Quincunx? What does it stand for? > > > > Sounds like someting Opie & Anthony would come up with... > > > > > > Quincunx is the scientific name of the geometric figure used by the the > GeForce cards when calculating this type of AA -- an arrangement of dots > just like on the 5-side of a normal 6-sided die. > > I have recently installed a GeForce 3 Ti200, and played around with the > FSAA settings, but I must say I can't stand what Quincunx does to the > legibility of text on screen (i.e., destroys it!). What good is racing > without jaggies if you can't even tell what lap you�re on?? :) > > -- > "Walk like a Syrian" > > Per Thulin > > Visit Jane The Hamster (and Pelhamina & Grenville) at > > http://w1.541.telia.com/~u54108168/ > > (Spamblock in operation - remove "hamsters" in email address to reply by > mail.)

On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 17:34:04 GMT, "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote: >My base system: >Athon XP 1600+ >Gainward Power Pack Ti4400 ( 128 mb) >EPoX 8KHA+ mb ( overclocked to 140 mhz fsb - 280 mhz ddr) >Windows XP Home Silly question of the day: A while ago I had a P3 500mhz with a V3. I upgraded my V3 to a GF2 GTS and fps in all my games -decreased-. Someone told me my processor was not fast enough to handle the GF2, so I upgraded to a P3 866. Then the GF2 really kicked in and I had a dramatic increase in fps. Now I want to upgrade my gfx card again with a GF4 4200, because I can get it really cheap. But will my p3 866 be fast enough to see an increase in fps with this card, or is my cpu too slow for a GF4? Andre

Depends on the game. I just went from a Radeon (approx. GF2 speed) to a Ti4200 on a 900 mhz system. F1 2001 is definitely faster, and I can push more detail too. NR2002 is a bit faster, but not a huge amount. F1 2002 is about the same as it was. Older non-T&L games are all pretty much unaffected, except in cases where the extra memory on the Ti4200 prevents texture swapping (e.g. Unreal Tournament is MUCH better than it was with the Radeon). Dungeon Siege is the same as it was. Jedi Outcast runs about the same, but again the extra memory prevents slowdowns due to texture thrash. All in all I feel it was a worthwhile upgrade, especially since I plan on upgrading CPU, mobo, and RAM in a few months and I know the performance will scale up well when I do that. In the meantime I am enjoying being able to use full texture detail, 32 bit color, and Quincunx FSAA in racing games with no framerate penalty. "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Silly question of the day: > > A while ago I had a P3 500mhz with a V3. > I upgraded my V3 to a GF2 GTS and fps in all my games -decreased-. > Someone told me my processor was not fast enough to handle the GF2, so > I upgraded to a P3 866. Then the GF2 really kicked in and I had a > dramatic increase in fps. > > Now I want to upgrade my gfx card again with a GF4 4200, because I can > get it really cheap. But will my p3 866 be fast enough to see an > increase in fps with this card, or is my cpu too slow for a GF4? > > Andre

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:06:53 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Depends on the game. I just went from a Radeon (approx. GF2 speed) to >a Ti4200 on a 900 mhz system. F1 2001 is definitely faster, and I can >push more detail too. NR2002 is a bit faster, but not a huge amount. >F1 2002 is about the same as it was. Older non-T&L games are all pretty >much unaffected, except in cases where the extra memory on the Ti4200 >prevents texture swapping (e.g. Unreal Tournament is MUCH better than it >was with the Radeon). Dungeon Siege is the same as it was. Jedi >Outcast runs about the same, but again the extra memory prevents >slowdowns due to texture thrash. All in all I feel it was a worthwhile >upgrade, especially since I plan on upgrading CPU, mobo, and RAM in a >few months and I know the performance will scale up well when I do that. >In the meantime I am enjoying being able to use full texture detail, 32 >bit color, and Quincunx FSAA in racing games with no framerate penalty.

Cheers.. I'll get the 4200 tomorrow :) Andre

Hmm, I guess I gotta qualify that statement. 3D image quality is definitely better than the Radeon, but it's still not as good in 2D. I just ran a few apps that do 2D charting and graphics, and text and fine lines were much more clear on the Radeon. Six of one, half a dozen of the other - F1 2002 is nearly photo-realistic on the GF4, whereas on the Radeon it looked flat and pixellated. This was not just a matter of detail level, the lighting simply wasn't as good with the Radeon. But I think the old advice still applies - if you want the best gaming card, go for the GF4, but if you want an all purpose card and don't mind giving up a bit of speed in gaming, the Radeon is still a better bet. I won't be returning the GF4, but in fairness I have to say the Radeon still has the edge in 2D graphics. "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ag0m5n$hujbg$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I just switched from a Radeon to a Ti4200, and I would have to agree > with you. nVidia's image quality is quite good now, and in some games > it is even better than the Radeon was. > > "Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:qAIU8.15836$%%[email hidden]... > > > > The 128MB RAM really made a difference in quality I believe. Far

less

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > 'smudging' of graphics going on. I _think_ mipmapping is what does > this. > > Whatever it is, it's a lot happier now :) > > > > The improvement's in 2D quality really jumped out at me. They have > really > > cleaned up the Analog signals on the GF4 cards, and I think it's

every > bit > > as good as ATI's now. > > > >

The GF4 just does it a lot faster :) -Larry "Player" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:55:42 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > posted: > > >Hmm, I guess I gotta qualify that statement. 3D image quality is > >definitely better than the Radeon, but it's still not as good in 2D. I > >just ran a few apps that do 2D charting and graphics, and text and fine > >lines were much more clear on the Radeon. Six of one, half a dozen of > >the other - F1 2002 is nearly photo-realistic on the GF4, whereas on the > >Radeon it looked flat and pixellated. This was not just a matter of > >detail level, the lighting simply wasn't as good with the Radeon. But I > >think the old advice still applies - if you want the best gaming card, > >go for the GF4, but if you want an all purpose card and don't mind > >giving up a bit of speed in gaming, the Radeon is still a better bet. I > >won't be returning the GF4, but in fairness I have to say the Radeon > >still has the edge in 2D graphics. > > You're not talking about the Radeon 8500 obviously because it supports > all the graphics features the GF4 does and a bit more to boot - like > Trueform.

Player <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 03:14:26 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" > <[email hidden]> posted: > > >The GF4 just does it a lot faster :) > > > >-Larry > > Jedi Night 2 > GF4 4200 = 125.0 FPS > R8500 = 123.5 > > RTCW > GF4 4200 = 152.5 > R8500 = 146.1 > > UT 2003 w/anisotropic filtering > (let's just say *they* had to drop the 4200 benchmarks for a reason and > only post 4600 benchmarks) > > GF4 4600 = 45.1 > R8500 = 44.2 > > Now take into account the R8500 is a direct competitor of the GF3 and > not the GF4 and I think it's safe to say that your comment above is > mostly just misinformed bollocks. >

Hmmmmmmmm... OK, I don't have a Radeon card, & I don't have a GF4, either, so this is probably just "mis-informed bollocks", too. OTOH, you didn't say (write, post,?) where you got the above marks, so I'll assume ;) that you aren't describing personal experience (*they*, above). I'll again assume that these #s are from one of the many *unbiased* websites out there. At least 2 people here that post regularly, & have used both cards, have stated that the GF4 cards are much better in the (wait a sec, lemme look... yeppers, we are posting on REC.AUTO.SIMS) games that they use. For someone like me, who is looking to upgrade his vid card soon, information on a newsgroup about the games that interest me is much preferable to the "informed bollocks" that you seem to prefer. Thanks go to the *other* posters on this thread, the info you have given is helpful. Brian

Player <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 14:36:55 GMT, "B.Farmer" > <[email hidden]> posted: > > > >Hmmmmmmmm... OK, I don't have a Radeon card, & I don't have a GF4, either, so > >this is probably just "mis-informed bollocks", too. OTOH, you didn't say > >(write, post,?) where you got the above marks, so I'll assume ;) that you

aren't > >describing personal experience (*they*, above). I'll again assume that these#s > >are from one of the many *unbiased* websites out there. > > > >At least 2 people here that post regularly, & have used both cards, havestated > >that the GF4 cards are much better in the (wait a sec, lemme look... yeppers,we > >are posting on REC.AUTO.SIMS) games that they use. For someone like me, whois > >looking to upgrade his vid card soon, information on a newsgroup about thegames > >that interest me is much preferable to the "informed bollocks" that you seemto

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >prefer. > > > >Thanks go to the *other* posters on this thread, the info you have given is > >helpful. > > > >Brian > > I get well over 100fps in N2002 on an R8500, just how many FPS do you > think you need to get smooth animation? I've owned both a GF3 and a > Radeon 8500, but have not used a GF4. It would be rather dim of me to > switch to a card that gives a small improvemnt now when there are > faster cards just around the corner. And I only switched to the R8500 > because the GF3 gave me the infamous "infinite loop error" under WinXP > on my mb. Buy whatever card you like (I would probably buy a GF4 4200 > if I was buying today), I'm just correcting the previous poster's > misinformed comment about the R8500. In many games the R8500 beats a > GF4 4600 with anisiotropic filtering on and does it at a higher > quality too. GF4 will beat an R8500 at FSAA easily. You weigh out the > odds and choose your poison. Just don't post BS or I will come around > and make corrrections that need to be made. Even a Voodoo5 can hold > it's own in certain games and at certain settings. > > And fuck you and your sarcastic attitude asshole. >

<plonk>

Very selective list of games there :) I guess you read the massive Anandtech article to come up with it ? -Larry "Player" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 03:14:26 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" > <[email hidden]> posted: > > >The GF4 just does it a lot faster :) > > > >-Larry > > Jedi Night 2 > GF4 4200 = 125.0 FPS > R8500 = 123.5 > > RTCW > GF4 4200 = 152.5 > R8500 = 146.1 > > UT 2003 w/anisotropic filtering > (let's just say they had to drop the 4200 benchmarks for a reason and > only post 4600 benchmarks) > > GF4 4600 = 45.1 > R8500 = 44.2 > > Now take into account the R8500 is a direct competitor of the GF3 and > not the GF4 and I think it's safe to say that your comment above is > mostly just misinformed bollocks. > >

No need. I've evaluated both myself. I know where they stand :) Thanks, though! -Larry "Player #2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 17:53:25 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" > <[email hidden]> posted: > > >Very selective list of games there :) I guess you read the massive > >Anandtech article to come up with it ? > > > >-Larry > > That, and every other one available. Perhaps you would like me to post > links showing how well an R8500 performs when usng anisio compared to > a GF4 4600 and with magnified images showing it is using a higher > quality anisio too? Tom's Hardware is so aware of this that he > negelcted to use the R8500 in the anisio tests comparing the Parhelia > and GF4 but used it in the othert tests. Very suspect that. I'm not > saying the GF4 is not faster overall, but to say it is way faster is > not correct.

Player #2 wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > That, and every other one available. Perhaps you would like me to post > links showing how well an R8500 performs when usng anisio compared to > a GF4 4600 and with magnified images showing it is using a higher > quality anisio too? Tom's Hardware is so aware of this that he > negelcted to use the R8500 in the anisio tests comparing the Parhelia > and GF4 but used it in the othert tests. Very suspect that. I'm not > saying the GF4 is not faster overall, but to say it is way faster is > not correct.

You're not suggesting that Tom's Hardware is anything but totally objective are you ? Oh the horror of it all Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Rarely. -Larry "Player #7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 18:23:56 GMT, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)" > <[email hidden]> posted: > > >No need. I've evaluated both myself. I know where they stand :) > > > >Thanks, though! > > > >-Larry > > Do you play anything besides racing sims? I know this is R.A.S., but > surely I am talking to well rounded gamers here, no? Personally, I am > considering downgrading to an MSI GF3 Ti 200 128mb just so I can get > 2D/3D acceleration in Linux. Can't get that with an R8500 or GF4 yet > and a few FPS here or there is no big deal to me. A *lot* of games I > play are 2D only, but I suppose you are not interested in wargames and > strat games so 3D is all that matters to you. It's all about choices, > and no one card is the best at everything.

You are correct I am not talking about the 8500, I went from a 32 meg DDR Radeon (the original part that is now called the 7200) to a GeForce 4 Ti 4200. But I am not talking about graphics features either. What I am really talking about is the sharpness of the rendering and the color saturation. nVidia's products have definitely improved in this regard, to the point where the answer to the question "which card looks better?" seems to depend totally on the game or the application. I still think ATI has a bit of an edge in 2D sharpness and clarity, but there are some 3D games that look distinctly better on the GF4. Also I think older 16 bit color games look a bit better on the GF4. For typical shooters OTOH I did not see any real difference in image quality between the two. I think if I did a lot of video or image editing or other types of graphics work, or if I was still doing 3D level designs for shooters (something I haven't done in quite a while) I would probably prefer the 8500. But lately a large part of my time has been spent playing racing games, for which it is nice to have a card that can do FSAA without a big frame rate penalty. So for now the GF4 fits the bill quite nicely. Next year might be different. ;o) "Player" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:55:42 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > posted: > > You're not talking about the Radeon 8500 obviously because it supports > all the graphics features the GF4 does and a bit more to boot - like > Trueform.

The difference is not going to show up in screenshots. When you look at a screenshot you are still looking at it on your video card, through your RAMDAC, on your monitor. The difference in sharpness and color saturation happens in the RAMDAC and the output drivers, not in the bitmaps that are being generated. Only a direct A to B comparison between boards on the same monitor can show you that. "Player #7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Any screenshots I've seen comparing the R8500 to GF4 show no real > differences. Except if you are comparing FSAA and anisiotropic > filtering. Both have T&L engines, both do bump mapping and both have > pixel shaders. Some say R8500 has richer colours but I am no one to > say either way. Looking at screenshots of games on a GF4 looks no > different than on my R8500 though.

Well I certainly would not recommend that. As I said, which card looks better depends totally on the game or the application. I think the difference is that many game developers use nVidia cards as the reference when they are developing the game, consequently many games are just plain going to look best on an nVidia card. OTOH games or apps that are developed for general use will probably look better on the Radeon. But to be honest I have been told this so often that I am starting to believe it - if you really want good 2D quality you want a Matrox, not an ATI or nVidia product. Too bad Matrox' current cards don't perform worth a damn in games. "Player #7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Well, I'm tempted to go buy a GF4 Ti 4200 just to find out for myself. > But if no impovement is percieved heads will roll. :-)

Stay frosty?...save the world... choices... <vbg> -- Tim White INTRAC Motorsports www.birds-i-view.com/intrac "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I_OU8.265547$[email hidden]... > Basically, at 1024x762x32 with quincunx AA., my framerates are about the > same as I was getting in 1280x964x32 with no AA. > Now I am uncertain of which I like better, higher resolutions with no AA or > lower resolutions with quincunx AA. At this moment I am leaning towards the > lower resolution with AA. > > Don Burnette > > >

Lol, Has been several days since the below post, actually have gone back to higher resolution/no aa for my racing sims. Don Burnette "Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3k%Y8.28422$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Stay frosty?...save the world... > > choices... > > <vbg> > > -- > Tim White > INTRAC Motorsports > www.birds-i-view.com/intrac > > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:I_OU8.265547$[email hidden]... > > > Basically, at 1024x762x32 with quincunx AA., my framerates are about the > > same as I was getting in 1280x964x32 with no AA. > > Now I am uncertain of which I like better, higher resolutions with no

AA

Quoted text (11 lines)

> or > > lower resolutions with quincunx AA. At this moment I am leaning towards > the > > lower resolution with AA. > > > > Don Burnette > > > > > > > >