First GF4 Ti 4200 PREView
- Thread starter mat
- Start date
I just don't quite understand this. They say it's a reference board and the fan doesn't look like what would be on a GF4 reference board (I can't recognize it, looks vagually familiar, like the GF3 reference fan). They say it has a 250mhz core, faster than initially indicated, and 250mhz DDR memory, but it's not BGA, there's only 64mb of it, and no ram heatsinks. It just doesn't look anything like a GF4 Ti board. So is it really some sort of weird Chinese knockoff? And they hint at a $150 msrp, which makes absolutely no sense. Who would pay twice as much for the extra 25mhz (plus the extra 64mb) you get with a 4400? Who would pay $30 more for an MX460? Sh*t, MX440s are going for $179 retail right now. Anyway, if this is the real deal, it confirms something I thought all along - no way they could put out a card with 128 mb of 250mhz DDR memory for under $200...
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Yes, looks good! I'm a bit disappointed though that they didn't include score for any NON Radeon "LE" Radeon 8500 boards. (Both 64 and 128 Mb versions).
Edit: Especially because I just noticed the preview ti-4200 board was 64 MB, I was assuming 128. Comparing it to a 128 MB Radeon LE is just wrong. They should have benched it against the 64 MB Retail Radeon.
I'm anticipating that by the time the Ti-4200 is available, the Radeon 8500 (non LE) and GeForce4 Ti-4200 will end up at close to the same price range. Currently the Radeon 128 MB 8500 LE Retail can be had for $160, and the 64 MB Radeon 8500 (non LE) even less.
The 128 MB Radeon 8500 non LE can currently be had for $235.
Once the Ti-4200 is on the shelves, I suspect we'll see some price adjusting from ATI. "Competition is good!"
Finally, we'll have a couple "very capable" parts competing in the sub-200 range.
Edit: Especially because I just noticed the preview ti-4200 board was 64 MB, I was assuming 128. Comparing it to a 128 MB Radeon LE is just wrong. They should have benched it against the 64 MB Retail Radeon.
I'm anticipating that by the time the Ti-4200 is available, the Radeon 8500 (non LE) and GeForce4 Ti-4200 will end up at close to the same price range. Currently the Radeon 128 MB 8500 LE Retail can be had for $160, and the 64 MB Radeon 8500 (non LE) even less.
The 128 MB Radeon 8500 non LE can currently be had for $235.
Once the Ti-4200 is on the shelves, I suspect we'll see some price adjusting from ATI. "Competition is good!"
Finally, we'll have a couple "very capable" parts competing in the sub-200 range.Joe DeFuria
Legend
I agree sort of. The MX 420 is their sub $100 card, the MX 440 is the $100-150 card...and the MX460...well, as I suspected all along, I don't see anyone selling the damn thing. The MX 460 is truly a card without a market.
I just read this from FiringSquad:
Strange line-up that only highlights nVidia's odd challenge to bring a direct competitor to the Radeon series. The 128 MB, more expensive card, might actually be slower in most cases? (Lower memory clock?) What's up with that?
Again, the 64 MB Ti-4200 should be directly compared with the Radeon 8500 64 MB retail, not the 128 MB Radeon LE. The 128 MB Ti-4200 should be compared against both the 128 MB Radeon 8500 LE and the 128 MB Radeon Retail.
Well, ATI is doing: The Radeon 8500 LE MSRP is $199, and can be had for $160. That's exactly 128 Mb, 250 Mhz DDR.
That's ATi, and nVidia seems to live in a different world. ATi could put out their 8500 with 275mhz DDR memory at $299, but nVidia charged $100 more for their Ti 500 with only 250mhz memory. My guess is that the charge their boardmakers much more than ATi does, which has been confirmed by Hercules and others.
You're right about the nature of this 8500LE response. I do applaud nVidia for putting out a cheaper 64mb version of the card, which makes it the practical choice in their lineup, but I don't like the way that they seem to be discouraging memory overclocking here to protect their higher-priced cards. And they just couldn't resist putting out a slower 128mb version, which will sell on that spec alone. Gotta take advantage of the uninformed... 8)
After the nForce420 fiasco, we get this geForce3/4 mess. It's a nice effort to have a product for every market space, but this is getting out of hand. nVidia is now at the point where they not only have more than one product for each market segment, but they have products with no market space, which, incredibly, is not only a consequense of fact # 1!! Someone at nVidia lost it somewhere along the way...
That said, the 64MB 4200 will be one sweet deal, wish I had some money to upgrade from this GF2.
That said, the 64MB 4200 will be one sweet deal, wish I had some money to upgrade from this GF2.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Bambers said:How did they manage to get the 8500 to score lower than the ti500 in 3dmark2k1 SE?
And with a core and mem speeds both lower than the ti4600 it the oced 4200 managed to beat it in Dronez.
hmm.
Hmmm Hardocp..Kyle and ATI...that combo doesn't mix at all
Just shows how much the ATi 128mb 8500/8500LE shook 'em up at nVidia. They planned to make $299 the price of admission to the real GF4 club, tried to pan the MX thing off on the rest of us, and at close to $200, and quietly run off the rest of the GF3s at acceptable prices. But then they freaked over the hole in their lineup that was about to be filled by ATi, so slapped together an unrealistic 4200 TBD announcement, which then cast a shadow of doubt on the MX460. So they bring out the 4400, 4600 and 440, and let the middle settle out while the GF3s sold out, ATi got their products in the pipeline, and they scrambled to deliver on the 4200.
Then they finally let people know it wasn't really 128mb of 250mhz memory, rather was 128mb OR 250mhz. And meanwhile the MX460 remains well out of sight and one has to question if it ever will show. So what's left of the originally announced lineup are the two high-end, high-priced Ti cards and the two cheaper (but not cheap), memory-limited MX cards. And even though I think the 64mb 4200 card looks great on specs, the board itself looks slapped together, not a GF4 Ti, not a GF4 MX, no BGA memory, something that didn't exist even on the drawing board two months ago. I don't know what the 128mb board looks like, but maybe it has a PCI daughter card with the extra 64mb wired to the main board...
Anyway, it probably shows again that $150-200 is the sweet spot for gamers, and nVidia's attempt at screwin' 'em to the wall with no choice but to pony up the extra for a 4400, live with the MX limitations, or help clear out the supplies of GF3 cards didn't work out as planned.
So what? Not sure I'm following you. As in, who cares about real products that are on the market, let's speculate about the sixteen pipeline, quad texture units per pipeline, 512mb of 400mhz DDR II memory, etc., etc. board that surely will be out by the fall? As in, all that matters are the highest-end cards and what they can and can't do, and who cares about sub-$200 cards? As in, who cares about what inspires these companies to put out the products they do put out, even though the forces at play (sales, market share, money) drive all of their R&D and result in essentially everything we talk about here?
But I guess you're right, who cares? I guess your question will go unanswered...
It really is too bad Nvidia hadn't released this at the same time as the 4600 and 4400. Ah well . Here's some numbers you may have NOT seen... :
System: Athlon 1800+ XP, 256MB PC2400 DDR , nForce mobo , onboard sound , 30GB UDMA100 2MB cache, 7200RPM, 9.5ms DiamondMax Plus hdd
Quake3 PR 1.30 Demo four max settings
32bit 4x FSAA
1024x768 no anisotropic filtering 89.0
1024x768 4x Anisotropic filtering 72+ Fps
1024x768 8x anisotropic filtering 67.4 fps
1280x1024 no anisotropic filtering 46.0 fps
1280x1024 4x anisotropic filterintg 36+ fps
1280x1024 8x anisotropic filtering 33.6 fps
By way of comparison a Ti4600 gets 114.0 and 64fps without anisotropic filtering 1024x768 and 1280 and my Ti500 gets 76 1024 and 39 fps 1280 without anisotropic filtering at 4x FSAA
System: Athlon 1800+ XP, 256MB PC2400 DDR , nForce mobo , onboard sound , 30GB UDMA100 2MB cache, 7200RPM, 9.5ms DiamondMax Plus hdd
Quake3 PR 1.30 Demo four max settings
32bit 4x FSAA
1024x768 no anisotropic filtering 89.0
1024x768 4x Anisotropic filtering 72+ Fps
1024x768 8x anisotropic filtering 67.4 fps
1280x1024 no anisotropic filtering 46.0 fps
1280x1024 4x anisotropic filterintg 36+ fps
1280x1024 8x anisotropic filtering 33.6 fps
By way of comparison a Ti4600 gets 114.0 and 64fps without anisotropic filtering 1024x768 and 1280 and my Ti500 gets 76 1024 and 39 fps 1280 without anisotropic filtering at 4x FSAA
