TI4200 64MB or something else?

[Windfire]

Myself and several friends are eagerly awaiting the release of the $179 TI4200 at the end of the month. This card seems to offer an exceptional bang/buck ratio.

I wanted to hear from anyone that fealt there was better deal or imminent piece of hardware that we should postpone this purchase.

FYI, my CPU is a Northwood P4 2GHz. My friends range from P3 850s to P4 2GHz.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That card, if it releases without any new competition, would indeed be the sweet-spot for bang-for-the buck, imo.

When it comes out, you should watch ATI prices though. If the Radeon 8500 (retail clock, 275/275) drops to sub $150 levels, that is also exceptional bang for the buck. (Less of both bang and buck than the Ti-4200).

As for "waiting"...Rumors are floating that ATI will be announcing something by month's end, but they are just that, rumors. Unless we get some official announcements from ATI or someone else by the time the 4200 starts shipping, then I wouldn't bother waiting.

The only thing I would NOT do, is pre-order. I don't recommend pre-ordering anything. Wait for the products to ship, evaluate the other products and prices on the market, and then go for it. Good luck!

 

[pascal]

Probably by may the GF3Ti200 will be the best bang for the buck with low buck. After the GF4Ti4200 be available my guess it will be sub $100 (today is $112).

I mean the price/performance will be the same as the GF4Ti4200 with much lower price.

If someone is looking for a minor upgrade now and a major upgrade by q4/2002 or q1/2003 (maybe some DX9 card) then the savings will be good.

 

[NTD]

Don't bother with the 64MB version, at least according to HOCP's&Tom's tests. The 64megger is really lackin in AA performace and JKII is slow as hell at higher resolutions. The other GF4's hardly take a hit with 2xAA or QC but the 64MB 4200 takes a HUGE hit. Suprising and disappointing, since the 128MB version has slower RAM (atleast according to the specs, Gainward might go their way again).

 

[Mark N]

Don't bother with the 64MB version, at least according to HOCP's & Tom's tests. The 64megger is really lackin in AA performace...

Where do you get this? The TH test doesn't even use a true 64megger, rather clocks up the memory on their 128mb version for benchmarking. And they don't even do this under the AA tests. HardOCP's test is only on the 64mb version, so again no comparative results. FiringSquad does benchmark both cards against each other, and the only place where the 128 beats the 64 is in Comanche4 at 1600x1200. The 64 beats the 128 in AA tests on Q3 in 2X, 4X and TwinCunts, all resolutions. I just don't see the extra 64mb as a real asset yet, but faster memory always is.

 

[Windfire]

Huh?

NTD,

Huh? I've read those articles and others--none say that (Tom's doesn't even really use a 64MB board--he emulates it). The 64MB cleans house compared to the 128MB board in 95% of the tests (I only recall one test at 1600x1200 Comanche--and only on FS) where the TI4200 128MB wins. Big whoop--one whole test.

Heck, the 64MB board often beets the originally spected TI4200 w/ 128MB 500MHz RAM!

I think you must be reversing the 64 and 128 versions.

 

[MPI]

I think he means hardocp's review, especially the JK2 benches, where the 64M 4200 gets 33.7fps in 1600x1200 and the 128M 4400 gets 74.1fps. Ok, the 4400 is clocked faster but not THAT much faster. 1280x1024 is also pretty bad.

The Radeon 8500 clocks in with some horrible results aswell, even though it sports 128M. The texture upload bug again?

http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/nvidia/gf4ti4200/index2.html


But I wonder in this case if they really used texture compression or not? They didn't say exactly. The game defaults to it, though.

 

[Randell]

Well using TC, my 64meg 8500LE pulls in 68 fps at 1024x768 with Highest Texture setting in win 98se 9021 drivers.

 

[Mark N]

I think he means hardocp's review, especially the JK2 benches, where the 64M 4200 gets 33.7fps in 1600x1200 and the 128M 4400 gets 74.1fps...

Yeah, I guess that makes some sense. But that's pretty thin evidence of a real problem with 64mb cards. In any case, I do think it's a little irritating that nVidia has presented this choice between 128mb and a card that is a bit slower in almost all current games, or 64mb and a card that is a bit faster but might have this sort of liability down the road. I would have preferred that the 128mb card be clocked at 250mhz (as originally announced) but be priced a bit higher, so customers could make a direct dollar choice on the extra memory.

Seems like this was one of those "decisionmaking by committee" things that was purely marketing-driven - have to hit the $199 price point, more memory sells better despite the speed loss, don't want to just put it out at lower specs than announced and take the heat for not delivering, why not just put it out with less memory but at the expected speed, hey let's just do both! Seems like the result of overpromising and not really delivering.

Or maybe quite intentional - create some doubt and second thoughts in the minds of purchasers, who will then be more likely to upgrade sooner to get more speed or more memory capacity or whatever. It seems like they are begrudgingly offering up these cards and want to make sure that everyone knows it's sort of a compromise board, only released because of ATi, reinforced by its GF3 throwback look with that fan and old-style memory modules. nVidia seems to like making their customers a bit uncomfortable with what's currently in their box after a few months because of what's out there now. Just keep baiting the hook... 8)