GF 4 Ti4600 vs GF FX5200 ?

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:32:30 GMT
"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:


BZZZTTTT! Wrong.

The 4600 is most assuredly DirectX 9 compatible. It does not provide
hardware acceleration of all new features of DirectX 9, but that is not
necessary for _compatibility_, only for optimal performance.



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:28:59 -0000
"martin" <knobcheez@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


Which would you rather have, a two year old Corvette or a new Fiesta?
That's the nature of the comparison you're making. The 5200 is a dog.
Stick with your 4600.



--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I bought an ASUS Geforce 4 Ti 4600 128MB over a year ago. Paid over £300
quid for the bugger but it was well worth it. Great card.

Know I see you can pick up GF FX5200 128MB from dabs for just over £60.

Does anyone know if this card is significantly faster than the GF4 Ti 4600
because I'm putting together a second system and wondered which one to swop
around?

Thankyou

GeForce FX Graphics Core:
5200 Ultra Memory Bandwidth:
Fill Rate:
Vertices per Second:
Maximum Memory:


256-bit
10.4GB/sec.
1.3 billion texels/sec.
81 million/sec.
128MB




GeForce4 Ti 4600 Vertices per Second: 136 million
Fill Rate:
4.8 billion AA samples/sec
Operations per Second: 1.23
trillion
Memory Bandwidth: 10.4
Gb/sec
Maximum Memory: 128 mb

But if it is a GeforceFX5200 (non-ultra), then it is worse than the Ultra
version.


"martin" <knobcheez@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:beOxb.704$VF6.582@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
4600
swop

The fx5200 is a basic card. No comparison to the (at the time) top of the
line ti 4600.
While the 5200 is a DX9 card, it just doesnt have the grunt to play DX9
games. Not good for anything above light gaming, and a downgrade from a
ti4600

I have a 4600 and have tried the 5200. The 5200 is crap.

"martin" <knobcheez@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beOxb.704$VF6.582@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
4600
swop

The Ti 4600 is FASTER than the FX 5200 by quite a bit. But the 5200 is DX9
compatible and the 4600 is not.

--
DaveW



"martin" <knobcheez@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beOxb.704$VF6.582@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
4600
swop

The fillrate is probably more than 3 times the GeforceFX5200 with that card
you have.

"martin" <knobcheez@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:beOxb.704$VF6.582@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
4600
swop

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:56:59 GMT
"Lenny" <you@wish.haha> wrote:


Not really--semantics doesn't mean what you think it means. Etymology
comes closer.


"People in general" don't give a hoot in Hell whether it accelerates
or not--if they have a computer at all they are happy with whatever Dell
or Gateway, or DECPaqard or IBM or their local cloneworks put in it.
The only people who _care_ about hardware acceleration are hardware
geeks and people in the hardware/gaming scene.

The only issue related to DirectX 9 compatibility that "most people"
care about is whether they need to buy a new video board before they
accept DirectX 9 from Microsoft Update, and to assert that only the
GeforceFX and Radeon 9500 and later boards are "DirectX 9 compatible"
will lead such people to believe that they do need to do so. This is
good for the video board manufacturers but it means that they waste time
and money that they do not need to waste.


So how many applications are there currently on the market which will
not run satisfactorily on a Ti4600?


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:28:59 -0000, "martin"
<knobcheez@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


Bwahahah That's FUNNY!!

Good thing you asked before you wasted your money... the Ti4200 smokes
the 5200 Ultra... shesh, the 5600 is still slower and sometimes the
5600Ultra is *SLOWER* than the Ti4200.

Get a 4200 for a second machine... about 100pounds or less.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!