• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

GF4 Equivalent from ATI?

L

Little Grabbi

Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
565
Okay, my GF4 just got fried, and the guy who did it agreed to buy me an equivalent card. Question is:

What ATI card is equivalent (or slightly superior) in Performance to a GF 4 4200 w/ 256 MB ram?

kthx.
 
I'd say a Radeon 9600 np.

My friend has one, and I have a Ti4200, and on comparable systems (2500+, 1GB of ram) we have comparable framerates.
 
Isnt it a 9200 the equivalent? If I'm not mistaken, its a modern 8500 core. Someone confirm this please.
 
Originally posted by Gakoe
Isnt it a 9200 the equivalent? If I'm not mistaken, its a modern 8500 core. Someone confirm this please.
Click to expand...

the 8500 was comparable (with the latest drivers!) to a GeForce 3, if that.

A comparable card would be the 9600 pro.

No ti4200 was made with 256 megs of ram. I believe that the 9600 pro DOES come with 256 megs of ram if you want it, however.
 
No the 8500 is the closest. It´s superior shaders really comes to use with todays games. It´s almost dead even between the 8500 and ti-4200 really. the only reason the Geforce 3 could compete since it took a while for the 8500:s drivers to come up to par.
 
Ditto. The 8500 is very close to the same performance as the GF4 4200 series. The problem is that you can not find an real 8500 anymore. The 9000 and 9200 series of cards are basically crippled 8500s missing one TMU unit and usually clocked at 8500 LE or lower speeds. The 9100 is a 8500 LE, but the clock speeds can vary greatly, especially with the memory speeds. Some 9100s were clocked to 8500 LELELE speeds (LELELE = slow).

If you can not find a 8500 or a good 9100, then think about a 9600 NP. With the larger passive heatsink, these are nice $100 USD cards with full DX 9.0 support and can overclock to close to 9600 Pro speeds.
 
the 8500 is pretty close, but I would have to say 9600 pro, its just about there in dx8, but blows it away with dx9 support, and antaliasing/aniosotropic filtering performance. Doesn't cost an arm and a leg either.
 
Well , thanks for the information. I ordered a 9600 Pro from this idiot, and I'll be recieving it within the week... At which point I will chuck that crappy GF2 mx that's in my box right now... Imagine, an XP 3200+ CPU, whti that board...
 
Yeah, the 8500 was actually better than the ti4200 in most things. Especially AF, AA it sucked in, but the 8500 was able to beat the ti4600 in some occasions. You got one heck of a deal to get the 9600pro, that card runs circles around the ti4200.
 
Originally posted by oqvist
No the 8500 is the closest. It´s superior shaders really comes to use with todays games. It´s almost dead even between the 8500 and ti-4200 really. the only reason the Geforce 3 could compete since it took a while for the 8500:s drivers to come up to par.
Click to expand...
Even with the latest drivers, the 8500 isn't on the same level as the GF4 ti4200. I'm not a fan of Toms, but their VGA Charts are actually good for looking at low end cards. The 4200 pounces the 8500 in pretty much every game.
 
The Radeon 8500 was slower than GF4 when Anand and Tom did their pre-reviews of it using the Cat 2.4's (or earlier even before the Cats)

Since then it has driver speed has greatly improved. It is definitely at least Ti4200, with some benchies. At 32 bit colour, high AF and AA it usually bests a Ti 4600 with better image quality. ATi old cards are slower in 16-bit colour games (like anything originally made for 3DFX, like Everquest) and with no AF.

With the last set of Cat 4.2's UT2003/4 engine games using a Radeon 7500/8500 (and 9000/9100/9200) got a very decent and noticable 10 to 15 percent increase in speed over the Cat 4.1's. They must be at least twice as fast as the two year old Cats.

Toms gave the FX5800 (you know, the really slow, loud one) the "Card of the year award" if that means anything to you. It really turned off a lot of people.

But regardless, I wouldn't get anything less than a Radeon 9600 if you are a halfway serious gamer and are looking at ATi.

Edit: Take the benchmarks using the latest available drivers from both sides. A lot of GF4 users stop at about 3x.xx or 4x.xx Nvidia Detonator drivers because the newest ones actually slow things down (but they also improve image quality too, to a level closer to that of ATi) Nvidia peeps tend not to care about it though...
 
8500 is slower than ti 4200/4400/4600.. enuff said!

A 9600 Pro that you went with is however pretty cool ;)
 
The 8500 is still a very good card, and except for the craptacular DXIW, it's handled everything I've thrown at it. I upgraded to it from a GF3, and I could tell a big difference. I don't notice as big of a diff with my Ti4600/P4 2.4B/i865PE for comparison.

It's not the latest and greatest, but it's still a helluva card.
 
Didn't [H] recently do a review of the Asus 9800xt and compared Radeon 8500 and Geforce 4 ti 4600 performance? They seemed pretty close to me when I read the review
 
Originally posted by KickAssCop
8500 is slower than ti 4200/4400/4600.. enuff said!

A 9600 Pro that you went with is however pretty cool ;)
Click to expand...

Not in shader intensive games and as we all know most modern games do love shaders ;)

If I would pick between a ti-4200 or a 8500 I would definiatly pick the 8500. A bit more IQ and faster aa and anisotropic without having to use the blurry quincunx to not kill my performance like on the ti-4600 I had.

That said yes the ti-4600 is usually faster than the 8500 but the ti-4200 that one looses more often than not to the 8500.
 
When the 9500 PRO came everyone agreed it was indeed a fair bit faster than the ti-4600. Is the 9600 PRO really that much slower than the 9500 PRO??
 
Originally posted by oqvist
Not in shader intensive games and as we all know most modern games do love shaders ;)

If I would pick between a ti-4200 or a 8500 I would definiatly pick the 8500. A bit more IQ and faster aa and anisotropic without having to use the blurry quincunx to not kill my performance like on the ti-4600 I had.

That said yes the ti-4600 is usually faster than the 8500 but the ti-4200 that one looses more often than not to the 8500.
Click to expand...
And what reviews show this? To me, it looks like the 8500 gets pounced in every game save one.

UT2003
8500 - 39.8
ti4200 - 54.4

BF1942
8500 - 94.9
ti4200 - 94.6

Call of Duty
8500 - 67.7
ti4200 - 70.6

Quake3
8500 - 126.7
ti4200 - 168.6

Warcraft III
8500 - 47.4
ti4200 - 52.8

Command & Conquer: Generals
8500 - 37.7
ti4200 - 39.1

Halo
8500 - 25
ti4200 - 28

Nascar
8500 - 40.8
ti4200 - 51.6

X2
8500 - 26.3
ti4200 - 39.1

Aquamark
8500 - 19237
ti4200 - 15597
 
Originally posted by oqvist
When the 9500 PRO came everyone agreed it was indeed a fair bit faster than the ti-4600. Is the 9600 PRO really that much slower than the 9500 PRO??
Click to expand...

Well, the 9600 PRO is slower than the 9500 PRO, even though the 9600 PRO runs at a higher GPU core clock speed. That's because the 9600 PRO has only four texturing pipelines, versus the eight texturing pipelines of the 9500 PRO. The 9500 PRO itself is a crippled edition of the 9700 PRO, running at a slightly slower clockspeed than the 9700 PRO and accessing its memory at only 128 bits versus the 256-bit memory bandwidth of the 9700 PRO.
 
They made 256mb ti4200s??? :confused:

Originally posted by Little Grabbi
Okay, my GF4 just got fried, and the guy who did it agreed to buy me an equivalent card. Question is:

What ATI card is equivalent (or slightly superior) in Performance to a GF 4 4200 w/ 256 MB ram?

kthx.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top