View Full Version : GeForce4 Ti4200 VS RADEON 8500LE
X-bit labs has posted a review NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4200 64/128MB vs. ATI RADEON 8500LE 64/128MB Review.
"Well, NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4200 based graphics cards, the best value and most affordable among all NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium solutions, have finally started selling in the mass market. We decided to see how fat are the 64MB and 128MB versions and if they can compete successfully with their rivals from ATI: RADEON 8500LE 64MB and 128MB. Check out this really exciting race now! "
You can read it all here (http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/ti4200-rad8500le/)
A good review, but they didn't compare what is probably the most important feature of the bottom high-end market: price/performance. The cheapest 64MB 4200 is $150, with only a DB15 conxn; the cheapest 8500 (250/275) is $99, with DB15, DVI, and TV-out. 128MB 4200's go for $200, while 128MB 8500's go for $160. I'm talking about full 8500s, not the 250/250 versions they compared. I suppose it's because it's a Russian site, so American prices aren't the be-all end-all concern.
The race is a little closer than their review portrays, though it's true that GF4s seem to OC better than 8500s.
Much closer I would say. Based on that review and with a quick look at pricewatch I would definatly choose the R8500LE.
Altho I just skimmed thru the review it seems a fair and good review to me. Yes it didn't take into account price/performance but that was good. For graphics card especially it is impossible and stupid for a website targetting a large international audience to do any kind of price/performance analysis. Pricewatch prices apply only to USAmericans (and perhaps Canadians) and only to a limited number of them at that (because a significant number of people are not willing to go with many of those stored). At least, in the USA and Canada tho, there is some corelation between pricewatch prices and prices outside pricewatch (I think) but once you go to other countries, there isn't any real corelation (I'm talking about graphics cards here altho it also applies to other things somewhat except CPUs). There is even less corelation when you start talking about specific unusual versions of the card such as the Radeon 8500 250/275. So their review was good IMHO. Perhaps they could have mentioned that you should consider the price/performance and given a pricewatch and Russian example but it should have only been a minor part of the review. Especially since we are comparing a ATI & a Nvidia here. I don't have anything against ATI but the simple fact is they are a lot less popular then Nvidia and so in many places, you will find the Nvidia cards tend to be a lot more common and hence often a lot cheaper (relatively) compared to the ATI cards. For example, when I got my Gigabyte Radeon 8500LE, there was no Geforce 4 Ti4200 yet (came quite soon after tho) however there was the Geforce3 Ti200 and it was significantly cheaper then the Radeon. I'm still not sure whether I made the right decision getting the Radeon but nevermind. Perhaps I should have waited and got an even cheaper then b4 Ti200 or a Ti4200 for the same price (and still is last time I checked).
With the UT2003 shootout, it is clear that the Gf4Ti4200 outperforms the 8500 128MG in high details (closing in closer on medium detail, though)
I had this choice to debate awhile ago. I got the 4200, oc'd it to 4400 specs.
The 4200 is just a newer chip, more features, etc, and the price was right. Couldn't go wrong.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.