ti4400 not much different then Radeon 7200?

[Hippey]

Alright now, no flaming please. This is just a question thread really, rather then an attack on nVidia.

I had the Radeon 64mb DDR ViVo card and just got a MSI ti4400 128MB DDR card.

Now with the radeon, I was getting 900-1000 3dmark score under Win2k SP2. With this card, I get 6500. So it's about 6.5 times faster right??

Well only thing is, I don't see the performance in my games. I still get pretty much the same frame rates in Americas Army and Neocron.

I can't seem to break more then 30fps in Americas Army at 1024x768x32 unless I stare at the floor.

So my questiion is. Is my $350 CAD investment worth it?? This is my system, maybe it's too much of a bottleneck for the card, but I don't think so


Abit KT7
AMD Thunderbird 1ghz (100x10)
512MB PC133
MSI Geforce4 ti4400 128MB DDR
Win2k Sp2

 

[ben6]

You really need a faster CPU with a Geforce4 or Radeon 8500/9700 for that matter . And preferably DDR memory as well...

 

[Nagorak]

Well, like ben6 said you are CPU limited... But is your investment worth it? Basically if you'd upgraded your processor you'd have been graphics card limited. If $350 Canadian was all you could spend the better plan would have been to get a Ti4200 + faster processor (and DDR+new mobo if you could squeeze it in). If you can afford to spend more than upgrade your processor to a cheap 1800+ to unlock the performance of that video card.

 

[Hippey]

ahhh.. well then I guess I was wrong. it IS too much of a bottleneck. Well, even though I can't squeeze in a mobo and chip atm, at least I know the video card has a lot more potential once I get a better CPU/RAm. Thanks

 

[Pete]

You're CPU-limited, so your minimum and average frame rates should be about the same. On the plus side, you can probably max your res and/or FSAA and not take a framerate hit. So go ahead, crank the 4400 res as high as your monitor will let you, and throw in some aniso for good measure.