PDA

View Full Version : Will a GeForce 4 be good enough?



XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 01:53 AM
Will a GF 4 MX 440 64 mb DDR be good enough to run the game under 1024x768 32-bit color with the highest level of detail? Thanks

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 01:53 AM
Will a GF 4 MX 440 64 mb DDR be good enough to run the game under 1024x768 32-bit color with the highest level of detail? Thanks

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 01:55 AM
No


the MX is a GF2 on steroids .. it is fast, but does not have the pixel shadars necessary to render "perfect" landscape so that option will be disabled if you use a MX

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:12 AM
I can't even say how much you must stay away from any MX, those things are pure junk from a gaming standpoint, unless you will run a IL2 at 800x600 with no sliders reading excellent. Even the GeForceFX 5200 can't run Unreal 2003 at anything more than 800x600 with decent frame rates.

Your best tip, stay away from the low-range of 3D cards (MX, GF5200, <9700), they do terribly. You can get a GeForce4 Ti4600, which I have now, for $200. But I myself want to upgrade to a card that will give the same fps as I have now with the ability to do 4X Aniso and some AA on. That may be the ATI 9700 or GeForce 5600 for about $200-300 [128 or 256).

Generally, expect to pay close to $200 for decent performance, you can get good (30+) fps at 1600X1200 with all sliders maxxed, except for perfect landscape (for a GeForce TI4600), given your processor is at least 2.4Ghz. A 9700 or GF5600 will be better.

You need to supply some more info to allow a more accurate prediction (OS, memory, processor), IL2 puts a good amount of load on the CPU as well.

Message Edited on 07/28/0309:16PM by Flightvector

ZG77_Nagual
07-29-2003, 02:22 AM
You can get a 9700 for around 200 - or a 9500 or 9600 pro for even less.
frankly an 8500 would be better than an mx.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:23 AM
I use a G4 TI4800 run all settings maxed and adverage 60FPS. And a little less in cockpit mode.(TI4800 is just the TI4600 with 8x agp)

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:27 AM
actually a 9500pro and a ti4600 are pretty much on par performance wise so I would not see the 9500 pro as a low performance card

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:35 AM
what are the clock speeds of your 4800?

Hawgdog
07-29-2003, 02:43 AM
*sniff* *sniff*

this is almost troll like LOL

The card will work, but NOT on max settings, you will need to run medium for it to work, and you'll need to use 16 bit not 32
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz took the bait /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center></script>IDC
Completely disorganized,and coming to a base near you
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.adelphia.net/~hawgdog/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:55 AM
Interesting... I built a computer for the person who first showed me IL2. He has a TNT2 in it, and it ran pretty well at 16-bit 800x600 (by pretty well i mean that there were no slow downs). Thinking that GF4 mx 440 was way better, I hoped for it to be enough. Hmm, guess I was wrong... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Anyway, I am not really a game maniac to spend $200 on a video card. Maximum I can sped is about $60. On eBay, it is possible to get an ATi RADEON 9000 64 MB DDR for this price. Would it be any better? Thx

HWF

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 02:59 AM
You should be able to run on excellent settings (not perfect) at that resolution and 32bit color. I run at medium detail and 800x600x32bit with a truely ancient graphics card (64mb Rage Fury Maxx) and still get 30fps average in cockpit. A GF4 MX440 is around 10 times as fast. And for a mere $35 U.S. I don't think a GF4 MX440 is that bad of a deal.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:14 AM
If I am right, no GF4s even TI support perfect mode?

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:18 AM
GF4 TI support perfect mode - you need to be in open-gl to get the option

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:19 AM
wrong i have a ti 4600 and can run perfect mode ok, a little low on fps in version 1.0 but ok in beta 08,and also the ti 4800 is a ti 4400 with 8x agp the 4600 is faster..

<p align="center">http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/images/419x100phantomfighters01.gif (http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/default.asp)

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters (http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/)

http://phantomfighters.sqhq.net (http://phantomfighters.sqhq.net/)</p>

<center> <a
AMD 2400+ @ 200x11 GF4 ti 4600 SB augidy 1gig DDR PC 3200

<center>3D mark 2001 SE (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6439379) </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:23 AM
GeForce 4 Ti's do, I have one and it works fine in Perfect mode, but GeForce 4MXs are so much more anemic than its name implies and slower than the fastest GeForce 2s, they don't even support pixel shading.

And WTE, heh, about the 9500 Pro, the complexity of ATI's product selection must be getting to me, but yes it is on par and better in many areas compared to a Ti4600.



Message Edited on 07/28/0310:26PM by Flightvector

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 03:26 AM
get ur self a GF4 Ti4200 128 meg non-mx

thats all ya need for your system

<center>http://www.2001exhibit.org/science/img/sm_hal_9000_art.gif <marquee>The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 series has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the word, fool-proof and incapable of error...Edited 00/00/00 00:00AM </marquee></center>

Hawgdog
07-29-2003, 03:28 AM
I had a Ti4200 run perfect,but at only low 20's FPS.
takes some tweaking, but can be done
go to tech section and do some searching, yes the search engine is VERY lame, but does work sometimes

<center></script>IDC
Completely disorganized,and coming to a base near you
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.adelphia.net/~hawgdog/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:49 AM
Welshman_PF wrote:
- wrong i have a ti 4600 and can run perfect mode ok,
- a little low on fps in version 1.0 but ok in beta
- 08,and also the ti 4800 is a ti 4400 with 8x agp the
- 4600 is faster..
-Wrong! The TI4800 is the same as the TI4600 with 8x it is the TI4800SE that is the same as the TI4400 with 8x..look it up before u speak. I think i know what I have and bought.
- <p align="center"><a
- href="http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/defa
- ult.asp" target="_blank"><img
- src="http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/image
- s/419x100phantomfighters01.gif" alt="Phantom
- Fighters" width="419" height="100" border="0"></a>
-
- <a
- href="http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/"tar
- get="_blank">http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighte
- rs</a>
-
- http://phantomfighters.sqhq.net (http://phantomfighters.sqhq.net/)</p>
-
- <center> <a
- AMD 2400+ @ 200x11 GF4 ti 4600 SB augidy 1gig DDR
- PC 3200
-
- <center><a
- href="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=64
- 39379">3D mark 2001 SE</a> </center>
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:26 AM
I have a Ti4200 with a 2000XP and can run in perfect, but for decent fps I run one notch down from perfect and in 1024x768x16 bit with quincunx and get around 40-50 fps. 32bit chews up your fps for little advantage IMO, although it does lessen the banding in the sky.

JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:50 AM
Yes, a GeForce 4 MX 440 with 64Mb of Ram will run FB fine. When you say maxed, this would be excellent with the MX card, as it cannot run perfect settings. Il2 is not that demanding of your graphics card, it is more dependant on your amount of ram and processor speed. For example:

My second computer is a 2.0Ghz P4, 400 fsb, with 512 Mb of pc2100 ram and a geForce 4 MX 420(yes,a 420, not even a 440), and it runs Forgotten Battles with hardly a hiccup.

With medium settings and 1024x769 x 32 bit. You want more than this, and the place to get it is more memory and a better proc rather than a new video card. Unless you want perfect settings, FB runs great on slower machines. I would recommend at least a P4 2.4Ghz or an Athlon XP 2400+.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:55 AM
With the specs in my sig FB runs in 1024x768x32 w/ excellent settings, and 4xAA at a pretty good frame rate (around 50-60). Also save up for a Ti4200, MUCH better then the POS GF4MX series, and you can get one for about $110. Also Radeon 9000/9200 series suck too, so stay away from them (though if I had a choice between MX and Rad, I would go with Rad, since it has DX8 support).

P.S. also you can get either a GF3 Ti200 or a Radeon 8500/9100 for about $80, and they are much better then the GF4MX and Rad 9000/9200.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 04:59 PM
So, am I getting this right?

A Geforce MX440 (not SE) will run ok under medium level of detail and the 1024x768x32bit resolution. However, a Radeon 8500 would be much better? Also, anR8500 is overall better than an R9000? Also, saving up about $15 for Ti4200(this i show much more I need to get this card on eBay) would be a wise choice. Oh and yes, the FX series also sucks so I should not even consider buying it.

Now, I've got another question: Is it more importaint to have 512MB of memory than to have a better video card?

Thanks
HWF

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:12 PM
No , save you money and get a better card . It will be worth the wait..


Harpoon

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:13 PM
FB can and will munch up quiet some RAM, so the more the better. I have 1,5 Gig Ram and a ti4200 128MB and run FB on perfect without problems (except for the occasional stutter). Couldn't say which of the two is more important though.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 05:52 PM
homeworldfan wrote:
- Anyway, I am not really a game maniac to spend $200
- on a video card. Maximum I can sped is about $60.

You should get a GF3Ti200

http://www.target-sale.com/tusa/items/videoagp/i03979.html

$56

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:11 PM
Yeah, I've thought of buying a Ti200, but wouldn't an R8500 be better?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2744754015&category=40158

Pretty sure I'll buy this one. Still, what is more importaint, memory or video?

ZG77_Nagual
07-29-2003, 07:21 PM
don't listen to rbj - hes DOGmatic and CATegorical -everyone else on the thread is reasonable.

I have actually tested radeon 9000, 9000pro, 8500, 8500le, 9600, 9700 and 7200s and gf4mx. I agree, stay clear of the radeon 9000/9200 - these are dummed down 8500s.

The 8500 128 is very good (so is the 64)
The 9600 is pretty good too
I even had an 8500 le that overclocked like crazy and ran Il2 on that for quite awhile.

If you can find an 8500 (not le - because unless you get lucky it's slower) they are great cards.

so, in conclusion for ati cards

8500,9100,9500,9600,9700 pro or non for the 9s - NOT le for the 85

I currently see the 9100/128 for $64 on pricewatch

Stay away from anything that says 'mx'

Others have more experience with the nvidia cards - I quit using them when ati got their act together with the Radeon but I do have some in house.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 07/29/03 02:24PM by ZG77_Nagual

Message Edited on 07/29/0302:27PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:29 PM
Dude, don't buy that used ATI card for $60 (after the $10 shipping charge) You can get one brand new for only $5 more. Plus if you buy an ATI card, you'll be sorry!



<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:32 PM
I doubt that it will run ok under medium at 1024x768x32, prolly at 800x600x16. If you can, then get a Ti4200, if not then an 8500 or GF3. The only cards that are good in the FX series are the 5900 series (new 5600s are also pretty good).

homeworldfan wrote:
- So, am I getting this right?
-
- A Geforce MX440 (not SE) will run ok under medium
- level of detail and the 1024x768x32bit resolution.
- However, a Radeon 8500 would be much better? Also,
- anR8500 is overall better than an R9000? Also,
- saving up about $15 for Ti4200(this i show much more
- I need to get this card on eBay) would be a wise
- choice. Oh and yes, the FX series also sucks so I
- should not even consider buying it.
-
- Now, I've got another question: Is it more
- importaint to have 512MB of memory than to have a
- better video card?
-
- Thanks
- HWF
-
-



AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:35 PM
My research a year ago told me to avoid the Geforce4 MX cards and get a Geforce3 Ti200. My wife ruled out getting a Geforce4 TiXXXX. So, now I've got a GF3 Ti200 now and together with an 2000XP+ I'm quite happy with FB performance.

Personally, I think Ubi/Maddox made a mistake upping the graphical demands for FB over IL2. I've got several friends who want to play FB and would fork out the 30-40 for the game, but lose interest when I tell them they'd probably need to spend 100+ to upgrade their system for a decent FPS. I've even been told that my system is quite up to some people's standards for FB!!!!

McN

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:41 PM
My XP1900+ system with a GF3Ti200 ran IL2 at excellent settings at 1024x768x32. (3Dmark 2001 score of 7000)

Since I upgraded to a GF4Ti4400 I play at 1152x864x32 (3Dmark 2001 score of 10000)

I could play higher resolutions, but I don't like to go below 30 fps over forests.

I would offer to sell you my GF3ti200 for $20 but there was a problem where sometimes (rare but true) the fan would not start when the computer was turned on. This was after like 7 months and I think it was because of dust buildup. I have since cleaned it and it would probably work fine.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:45 PM
It is 8500 then. Can it be overclocked BTW? I mean enough to get a resonable increase in performance?

Anyway, it looks like the best solution for the funds I've got. THX

PS. 2RBJ: Why do you dislike the ATi cards so much?

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:54 PM
I don't dislike ATI. In fact I give kudos to them. They are good competition for Nvidia (makes them stay on their toes) But I would never buy from ATI. They have bugs in popular games. I always go for stability and compatability, and thats why I choose Nvidia.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 07:54 PM
Hi Guys, Newbie issue but I have a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 and I can't find the listing for it in the drop down menus in configuration when I install it...Can only see up to GeForce 3...nothing about GF 4 Ti 128???

Any helpful words of advice about how I run IL2 on this card without it crashing every two minutes...

Maybe it is something else:

I have Athlon 2100XP, 512 Ram, Hercules 7.1 sound card and 5.1 surround speakers (anyone know best setting for sound aswell?), Windows XP, Direct X 9.1, 1meg ADSL...

Your help comments would be appreciated greatly, I love this game and am very frustrated after not being able to fly a full mission??? :-(

Anyone bought IL2 Forgotten Battles, does this sort out the issue?

Thank you, your help will be appreciated, then maybe I can come kick some butts...

K.

ZG77_Nagual
07-29-2003, 07:55 PM
8500 is a bit hard to find - I have one - an 8500 128 in my FB server but I'm hanging on to it - you might have better luck locating a 9100. As allways - make sure you get it from a place you can send it back to if you don't like it. Both cards overclock nicely with rage3dtweak. Just watch them for graphic weirdness if fb - if it shows up notch em down a bit.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 08:06 PM
Alright then, I am gonna buy the 8500 from eBay (from some seller who I can return the card to if it is defective or anything), and then overclock it. I wonder whether my other system chars are ok:
Duron 800
PC2100 512MB

I hope I'll be able to get an Athlon 2400+ soon enough.

HWF

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 08:52 PM
Just get the 9100 from newegg.com. It's the same thing as 8500. Also Kevster just put it on maximum settings. Back when the 1st IL2 came out the best card out was the GF3 Ti500.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 09:02 PM
A bit too expensive. Also, since the 8500 and 9100 are the same thing (according to you) the 8500 is the better choice since it is cheaper.

Hawgdog
07-29-2003, 09:06 PM
Click the link to http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_ts&id=zxrlm get help with Nvidia card settings, spent alot of time working these out.
I had owned Nvida cards up until my ATI. IF, and IF you are starting out you cant go wrong with Nvidia chipsets, lots of makers use them. Limiting yourself to 60.00 will hurt. I'd say wait as long as you can and get a card in the 100.00 range, you'll be happier longer. That 60.00 card will quickly frustrate and you'll wind up buying another card all too soon. Dont get used unless you KNOW the card is ok.
You dont need alot ofhttp://www.gifs.net/animate/flickingdollars.gif
to get the ATI card. My personal preference now. I run a hacked 9700pro Tyan card. I'll start a thread on that if someone wants.

<center></script>IDC
Completely disorganized,and coming to a base near you
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.adelphia.net/~hawgdog/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 09:17 PM
What is so bad about the ATI 9000 and 9200? I was considering a 9200 because it looks like it should run FB very well at 1024x768x32bit at excellent detail and I can afford it. I am limited to $60 U.S. and that is the end of it. I can't afford $100 unless I put off getting a new graphics card for another year /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

Message Edited on 07/29/0303:20PM by Maj_Death

ZG77_Nagual
07-29-2003, 09:21 PM
there about like the 8500le - actually in my tests slower than the 8500le but somethine was up with the one I had - it overclocked to like 285/300. I don't know what they were thinking with that naming/numbering convention.
The 9000s aren't bad though - I've run fb on them with no problems - just not stellar performers.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 09:39 PM
Hawgdog wrote:
- I'd say wait as long as you can
- and get a card in the 100.00 range, you'll be
- happier longer. That 60.00 card will quickly
- frustrate and you'll wind up buying another card all
- too soon.


Well, how can a person who lived without a 3d accelerator for more then 3 years of playing games get frustrated with not-perfect-enough graphics. This card will be the FIRST accelerator I will buy in my life! I do not think I will need a card that costs 100 bucks. As I said before, I dont play games day and night, and really dont need a good card. I just need the best one I can get for my $60 (shipping included).

HWF

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 09:50 PM
Does anyone know what the "Pro" in ATI 9700 Pro gets you? And has anyone tried out the 9800 128 or 256? -jim-

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 12:21 AM
It won't run FB well at 1024x768x32 at excellent settings, it takes a GF4 Ti to do that (GF3 at least). What's so bad about them? Well let's see they are worse then the 8500 which came out in 2001, kinda crappy eh?

Maj_Death wrote:
- What is so bad about the ATI 9000 and 9200? I was
- considering a 9200 because it looks like it should
- run FB very well at 1024x768x32bit at excellent
- detail and I can afford it. I am limited to $60 U.S.
- and that is the end of it. I can't afford $100
- unless I put off getting a new graphics card for
- another year /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif .


AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:35 AM
hey Homeoworldfan, if your gonna play Homeworld 2. u better think about saving a few more bucks. You dont want to miss out on any of that action.

Really though, for 80 bucks u can get a 64meg, ti4200. That will do you right and hold you for a little while. Pretty sure it would be better then the 8500. BTW,Wasn't the 8500 considered a dismal failure? Is that not true? Seems I've read that a few times at various places.



Message Edited on 07/29/0307:38PM by Supr

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:37 AM
OK.

here is a summary of all the cards i know of. Since I am neither a fanboy of nvidia or ATi, you might find this useful.

Nvidia

GeForce3 series- An excellent line of cards. A little old but for DiretX8.1 games(like FB), they are still more than competitive.

GeForce 4 MX- Not complete crap like some people will tell you, but I would not recommend them either. They are actually from an older generation of cards than the GeForce3(the MX is based on GeForce2 and not even on the GeForce4 Ti series). Unless you are REALLY on a budget, dont bother.

GeForce4 Ti series- GeForce3 on steriods. These cards have few extra features over the GeForce3, they are simply faster. The GeForce4 Ti4200 cards are some of the best bang for your buck out there. If you dont mind not having DirectX9 support, this is the card for the gamer on a budget.

GeForce FX 5200 series- the 5200 is really vanilla. Its the DirectX9 equivalent of the MX cards. The ULTRA version of the 5200 is worth a look, but overall I would recommend a GeForce4 Ti4200 over it.

GeForce FX 5600 series- The 5600 isn;t worth your time, but the ULTRA version is again, worth a look.

GeForce FX 5800- Do not buy this card.

GeForce FX 5900- Looks to be everything the 5800 was supposed to be. The cheapest versions are over $300, but its one of the best cards you can get today.

ATi

Radeon 8500-9200 - They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The orignal 8500 is probably the best one of the bunch, but you are going to have trouble finding one. many 8500 cards are signifcantly underclocked. Make sure you know the clock speeds before you get one. However, the GeForce 4 Ti cards are arguably a better buy than any of these. my recommendation would be to stick with Nvidia over these offerings from ATi.

Radeon 9500/9600 - An excellent line of mid range cards. if you can find a 9500 Pro still for sale, its worth it. I would recommend these over their Nvidia equivalents(the FX 5600s).

Radeon 9700/9800 - Awesome cards. I am using a a 9700 Pro right now, and am very happy with it. Some drivers issues with FB, but nothing terrible.

The difference between the Pro and non Pro versions(or ULTRA and non Ultra versions) are clock speeds. The Pro or Ultra versions of a card are faster than their little siblings. Thats it.

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 01:57 AM
Quake897 wrote:
- It won't run FB well at 1024x768x32 at excellent
- settings, it takes a GF4 Ti to do that (GF3 at
- least). What's so bad about them? Well let's see
- they are worse then the 8500 which came out in 2001,
- kinda crappy eh?

Why? What is it that makes an 8500 better than a 9200? Sorry but I just have a hard time believing a 9200 is slower than an 8500 from a year before.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

Message Edited on 07/29/0307:58PM by Maj_Death

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 05:41 AM
Please dont even remind me of Homeworld.2. It will be ages before I'll save up another $50 bucks for the game and every second of this long wait will be extremly painful. IMO, Homeworld is the best game ever by far (at least in the strategy line).

As for the Ti4600 64MB, it is not even an option. As I said before, I can only buy a card for $60 with shipping included. I could of course not buy a card at all, for now, but I really want to play FB as well as Warcraft 3 (I've got a 2MB S3 card that cant even run Warcraft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif ). You know how it is - just cant wait lol.

HWF

PS Can we please not turn this thread into an argument? If you want to know whether a 8500 is better that a 9200 look up some statistics. I am sure each of the cards have their own disadvantages.



Message Edited on 07/30/0304:42AM by homeworldfan

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 05:50 AM
possibly consider a second hard GF3 or ti4200, you see them for sale online a bit

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:02 AM
I run il2 fb on a GeForce 2 mx 400 64 mb with a athlon 1.333 ghz and it runs fine for DF and some coops.

I run it with excellent setting 1024x 768(or whatever) 16 bit.

I would think a Geforce 4 would do better, the frames I get are from 15 to 50 /i/smilies/16x16_robot-very-happy.gif

<Body bgcolor="red">

http://www.vfa25.com/griffon/newsig.jpg

www.vfa25.com (http://www.vfa25.com/)

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:07 AM
How are you having a hard time? The 8500 was the top of the line ATI product until the 9700 pro came out. It's like saying that you can't believe that a GF FX 5200 is slower then a GF4 Ti4600, or a GF3 Ti500. Just in case here are some quotes from Anandtech:

On the Radeon 9200:

The final product of the day is ATI's Radeon 9200, based on the RV280 core. The Radeon 9200 is nothing more than an AGP 8X version of the Radeon 9000, yet it carries a higher model number; marketing at its best, go figure.

On the Radeon 9000:

You can already tell a lot about the purpose of the chip by its name; the R200 was the Radeon 8500, ATI's once top of the line part and the addition of the 'V' to any of ATI's codenames dictates a lower-priced, value part. Incrementing the R200 codename by 50 and adding a V leaves you with the impression that in some ways the RV250 is superior to the R200 found in the Radeon 8500, and in some ways it's worse.

...ATI has taken a bit of a better approach, and instead of making the RV250 a non-DX8 part, they removed one texture unit from each pixel pipeline... etc.

As production of the 9000 series boards ramps up, ATI will slowly begin phasing out the Radeon 8500 and 8500LE. Not only can the cards outperform the new 9000 line but they are more expensive to make, so as soon as possible ATI will be phasing out the old 8500 and 8500LE parts.





AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:10 AM
Hmm, I see two things:

1. Many people run the game under 16bit. Is there little difference between the 16- and 32-bit graphics modes?

2. GeForce3 Ti200 seems to be a great card. Is it better then ATi 8500 by fps under 1024x768x32?


HWF

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 06:13 AM
When the GF3 first came out it was a lot better then the 8500, but later the Radeon drivers got a lot better, and as it stands an 8500 (non-le) can beat a GF3 Ti500 (Best model)

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 07:49 AM
homeworldfan wrote:
- Hmm, I see two things:
-
- 1. Many people run the game under 16bit. Is there
- little difference between the 16- and 32-bit
- graphics modes?
-
- 2. GeForce3 Ti200 seems to be a great card. Is it
- better then ATi 8500 by fps under 1024x768x32?
-
-
- HWF
-
-

Well, I have a Ti200 and until recently had been running at 32 bit in medium settings, someone suggested I tried 16 bit mode. I now fly in excellent settings with very good fps.

16 bit results in a "barring" effect. It is sort of remeniscent of that expensive writing/printing paper you get and isn't really noticable.

OJ

XyZspineZyX
07-30-2003, 08:24 AM
Here is what you need to do:

Look for a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 instead of the 8500. if you can get one of these for the same price, its a better card than the 8500. If not, go with the 8500. For $60, its the best you are going to get. Just remember that both of these cards are DX8.1 and do not support DX9. If you want a DX9 card buy either a 9500 Pro or a 9600 pro(The 9500 is actually better). Mow a few lawns, put in a few extra hours at work, whatever. A 9600 Pro will run you roughly $200.

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 05:11 AM
Hey, I just found out that I could buy 512MB of SDRAM in fry's for $40, so I am able to add $20 to my $60 limit, which is just enough to buy a 9200. Is it much better then 8500, and can IT run the game at maxed settings?

HWF

PS Sorry for bringing this question up again, still cant decide, lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 05:16 AM
Get a GeForce 4 Ti4200 128Mb video card. You will not be let down. Its still a great card.

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 05:39 AM
Well

I've run two geforce 4 tis, one a gainward 64mb ti4200, the other a msi g4 ti4400, and I also ran a radeon 8500LE, I had all three and two identical systems at that time (build them as a side job) and compared thouroughly using IL-2 (FB wasn't out yet), For my needs (2xaa hate jaggies, and 4xaf) the 8500 (also superior DVD playback) won-I sold the two g4s and kept the 8500.

I personally wouldn't buy another card from nvidia unless it was 40% better (using legitimate benchmarks and reputable drivers) than the ati offering. I also don't trust them after their driver scandals and cheating and implied litigation because of futuremarks accusation of cheating (which they did and wouldn't admit to, like a child, not a million dollar corporation).

The catalyst drivers are now more stable and are updated with WHQL certification more often than the Detonators (which I always disliked).

So-I say pick up a 8500 (non LE) over those g4s /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rogo




<center><img src =http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/LAGIF-small.gif>

<center><img src =http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/Rogo_s%20Sig.jpg>


"Those who long for exaltation look upwards. But I look downwards for I am the exalted." This was a quote from Nietzsche as he flew in his FW190 @ 20,000ft looking downwards.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 05:43 AM
2 Rogodin

But, umm.... I was asking whether a 9200 was better then a 8500... ... ...

Thx for info though

HWF

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 05:45 AM
^LMAO GF4s are a lot faster then an 8500, w/o AF it's on par with 9500/9600 series. What did you severly underclock the GF4s when you tested it?

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 05:46 AM
Well I just got a Xtasy9600np256MB card... I havent opened it yet.. I got it from Comp USA... I am thinking of taking it back and getting the 9500Pro128.. The 9500 has 8 Pixel pipes and the 9600 has 4 but the 9600 runs at a higher bandwidth... so I am in a spot hee.. I havent opened it up yet because Comp USA has a 15% restocking fee if you open the product..unlike Best Buy.. I got the Xtasy 9600np for $149 after a rebate.. The Xtasy 9500Pro128 is going for $180... I canget a 9600Pro128 from Best Buy for $163.. help me out here guys..................... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Will I even be able to benifit from the 256MB on the 9600np card or will the 9500Pro128 or the 9600Pro128 be a better card.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 07:11 AM
Here you go Bearcat:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/vga_card_guide-12.html

I guess the benchmarks won't surprise you much, still a tough call as to what you should do. Everyone will always tell you to get the most expensive card, but that's only relevent if you have unlimited money to spend on stuff like this. I don't so I always have to compromise.

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 09:35 AM
Interesting to find someone with the name Homeworldfan around here.

Yea, I like icecream. So what of it?

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 02:24 PM
A Geforce 4 MX will be ok if that's all you can afford.
I have it and I'm running the sort of settings you talk about.
People ask if a particular cheap card can do certain things and some come into the thread to answer that there are better cards out there.
We know there are.
If people could afford them they would buy them you know?


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 07:38 PM
no

---------------------------------------
A to the K to 4 to the 7 little
devils dont go heaven Freedom got a AK
---------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2003, 08:38 PM
i dont know what the song and dance is about hi resolution is at all,i have the exact exact same card but i only run the game at 800X600 perfect settings.I have no frame skip or pauses.One or two jagged edges dont make a good game a bad game and it dont make you a better pilot.