Geforce 4200 or 5x00?

[Slickone]

Is the Ti 4200 still a good card for the money, or would something like a Geforce fx 5800 128mb, that seems to sell for about the same price, be better? No ATI please.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Text

 

[Slickone]

I'm a little confused about the different GF FX versions. What's the difference in the 5600, 5700, and 5800?

 

[SneakyStuff]

The 5700 ultra and above are really the only cards that beat the TI series in terms of performance gained. Anything below that, a GeForce 4 TI would be much better.

 

[Slickone]

How do you know if the card is an ultra or not, considering ebay and pricewatch sellers don't always tell? And are some of the 5800's not as good as the 5700 Ultra? Is there a good list somewhere of all the cards?

 

[Schadenfreudex]

ti4200 or 5900 skip everything in between.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Slickone
How do you know if the card is an ultra or not, considering ebay and pricewatch sellers don't always tell?

if it does not state its an ultra, then it is not. If they dont tell, then its not an ultra, basic marketing. 5200 sounds better than 5200 non ultra.


differances
ultra versus non ultra, only differance is clockspeeds and sometimes memory chips.

5200 64bit edtion, slow card, worse than a geforce2 ultra
5200 128bit edition, decent card, comparable to a geforce4 mx
5600/5700, same thing as a 5800, except it does not feature a extra TMU, so its a 4X1 archetecture
5800 is the same thing (save clockspeeds) as a 5900, cept it has ddr2 memory and half the memory bus. slower than 5900
5900/5950, 256bit memory bus, 4x2 archetecture, cream of the crop of the FX line.

each one has differances in clockspeeds, but that is a basic layout of the archetecture.

basically, they all suck, save what im about to tell you.

get a 5900xt for $180, if you cant afford that, geforce4 TI4200 for around $70

 

[Slickone]

How can they all suck, when looking at Tom's charts, the GF FX 5600 Ultra FC (?) and 5700 and up are faster than the Ti4200? And then considering some of those (up to 5800) are about the same price as the Ti4200 aren't they? And they aren't the LE version.

Why would you say they all suck? BTW, I don't plan to get Doom3 or Far Cry this year since I have plenty I need to play first. The newest things I'll have for quite awhile are FS2004 and Call of Duty.

I see there's a 5950 ULTRA 'GT' also. I wish they'd just stick to numbers to make it easier.

 

[Slickone]

^

 

[GeneralGrievous]

If you are going Nvidia the only good choice is a 6xxx card. The 5xxx suck and the 4xxx lack directx9 support.

 

[Slickone]

I'm looking for a little better answer than 'they suck'. It's already been mentioned anyway. See my post 3 up.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

They suck because every 5xxx card is outperformed (sometimes significantly) by its Radeon counterpart. But if you are anti-ATI then I guess they will be fine for you.

 

[Johnbear007]

Exactly, the 5 series blows compared to the ATI competition, but if you are determined to go nvidia get a 5900. Dont get a 5200 or 5600 they REALLY suck

 

[Gamingphreek]

The 59xx series isn't that bad. Yeah ATI wins more benchmarks than not, but both cards are very good for the money you pay. The 5900XT is a bit cheaper and still comes with VIVO, the 9800Pro is a bit faster and a bit more expensive, even more so with VIVO.

-Kevin

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: Slickone
How can they all suck, when looking at Tom's charts, the GF FX 5600 Ultra FC (?) and 5700 and up are faster than the Ti4200? And then considering some of those (up to 5800) are about the same price as the Ti4200 aren't they? And they aren't the LE version.

Why would you say they all suck? BTW, I don't plan to get Doom3 or Far Cry this year since I have plenty I need to play first. The newest things I'll have for quite awhile are FS2004 and Call of Duty.

I see there's a 5950 ULTRA 'GT' also. I wish they'd just stick to numbers to make it easier.

You can get a brand new retail 4600 on ebay for a $100

Here shows you what you need to know, I think digit-life has a similar group of benchmarks. The only thing Tomshardware video benchmarks are good for is to print them out in case you run low on toilet paper.

 

[PG]

They suck because every 5xxx card is outperformed (sometimes significantly) by its Radeon counterpart. But if you are anti-ATI then I guess they will be fine for you.

That's not true in all cases, it depends on the benchmarks used. For Doom3 Nvidia is a good choice and the 5900XT will beat a 9700 Pro at high res and while using AA and AF. Check out the facts: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/doom3_perf2/page11.asp

 

[Cawchy87]

by 3-4 fps though. and a 9700pro goes for ~130 while a 5900xt still goes for ~175. I would take the 9700pro over the 5900xt if it had quality samsung chips.

 

[PG]

by 3-4 fps though. and a 9700pro goes for ~130 while a 5900xt still goes for ~175. I would take the 9700pro over the 5900xt if it had quality samsung chips.

Can you show me a link of where you can get a 9700 Pro for $130? I've never seen one that low. I've seen refurb 9700 Pro's and refurb 5900XT's for about $135 to $140 at Newegg but that's it and it's rare. They have a few 9700 refurbs right now for about $150 and even an AIW for $153.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
They suck because every 5xxx card is outperformed (sometimes significantly) by its Radeon counterpart. But if you are anti-ATI then I guess they will be fine for you.

Well if your pro-ATI maybe that's why you say all 5xxx's suck.

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
Exactly, the 5 series blows compared to the ATI competition, but if you are determined to go nvidia get a 5900. Dont get a 5200 or 5600 they REALLY suck

No, I don't want a Radeon. I've experienced too many driver/compat. problems when I had one, and have seen many more online (still do).
And I wasn't planning to get a 5200 or 5600. You skipped the 5700/5800, which were the two I showed interest in above. Though I think the "5600 Ultra FC" did show faster than the 4200.
If a 5700 is as fast as a 4200, about the same price as a 4200, but has DX9 support, how could that suck?

 

[Cawchy87]

where did you find a 5700ultra for the 60-70 dollars?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
get a 5900xt for $180, if you cant afford that, geforce4 TI4200 for around $70

I concur, and add the 6800NU in the pricebracket above that.

You should reconsider ATi though. Much better $/performance.

- M4H

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: PG

by 3-4 fps though. and a 9700pro goes for ~130 while a 5900xt still goes for ~175. I would take the 9700pro over the 5900xt if it had quality samsung chips.

Can you show me a link of where you can get a 9700 Pro for $130? I've never seen one that low. I've seen refurb 9700 Pro's and refurb 5900XT's for about $135 to $140 at Newegg but that's it and it's rare. They have a few 9700 refurbs right now for about $150 and even an AIW for $153.

I got my 9700np for 110 from newegg. pretty good deal if you ask me. got it running at 360/310 so mem isn't quite pro speeds but its close enough and the GPU clocked pretty good which is more important in newer dx9 games

 

[Falloutboy]

but if your insisting on nvidia wait a couple mounths a snaga 6600gt for 200 bucks thats going to be your best bet

 

[Childs]

Wait another month or so and go with the 6600 series. No benches yet, but I'll bet the farm that it beats the last generation stuff hands down.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Childs
Wait another month or so and go with the 6600 series. No benches yet, but I'll bet the farm that it beats the last generation stuff hands down.

Doesn't it only have 128MB of 128-bit DDR though? I can see it choking in AA/AF situations versus a 256-bit 9700/9800.

- M4H