• 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 ti or FX5500?

I

InorganicMatter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
15,461
For playing Quake 2/3, Unreal Tournament, and a bit of uber-low-quality Far Cry/Doom 3?

GF4 has 64MB RAM
FX5500 has 256MB
 
FX = Fucking crappy

Get a 4600 for like $60-80 used and don't ever mention the FX5500 again :p

Edit: I'm not sure how much better it would be in Doom3/farcry because the ram difference could be a major leap but my gut says "Ti, Ti !!!"

~Adam
 
well 64mb ram isn't great, but the fx is NOT going to make use of that 256mb ram, I mean it's only useful on high res which will run like crap on an fx5500, so yah. Then again 64mb isn't very good...
 
My Ti4200 64MB runs D3 quite nicely @ 800x600 on the TV. Another vote for the Ti.
 
256mb of ram means nothing on a POS card like that.
I'd say go for the GF4Ti.
 
u won't regret buyin 9600xt or 9800pro to play all classic games and some newer games too. ;)

6600gt is the best choice if u saved some money for this. :)

Edit: 128mb is better than 64mb.
 
Deathjester said:
I would go with a used 9700 pro for $50~



http://cgi.ebay.com/ATI-RADEON-9700...790477046QQcategoryZ27387QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Click to expand...
*coughGBPoundscough*

BigDaddy85 said:
u won't regret buyin 9600xt or 9800pro to play all classic games and some newer games too. ;)

6600gt is the best choice if u saved some money for this. :)

Edit: 128mb is better than 64mb.
Click to expand...
This is going in my Grandpa's computer. Something to keep me from exploding when I'm stranded up there for a week, I'm not about to spend $175 on a card I will maybe use twice a year.

What about GF3 (not 4) ti versus FX5500?
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
The GF4 will probably beat the FX in those really...old..games. But, slap a new game in there don't expect much from the GF4.

And calling the entire FX line crap is STUPID. Thats right, STUPID. It makes me laugh how ppl just jump to conclusions like that, and they never even owned one before. I have an 5900XT and it STILL plays games on my native res 1024x768 on high. Hell HL2 runs on the highest settings possible at completely acceptable frames. My best bench was 102FPS. To bad valve disables DX9 I had no problem playing FarCry on high at all. Or an DX9 game for that matter.

You just need a sift through the bias here and find the best for you. And the FX5500 would be the best for you. Yeah the GF4 could beat it on those games, but once you hit 60 thats all you need. And if you want to play a current game with more eye candy the FX5500 will be capable. The GF4 on the otherhand will have more trouble since its not a "DX9 card".
 
aZn_plyR said:
I vote fx5500..
Click to expand...

Your kidding right? The FX5500 would get ASSRAPED by a Ti4200 64MB AGP card. In every game.

XSNiper said:
The GF4 will probably beat the FX in those really...old..games. But, slap a new game in there don't expect much from the GF4.

And calling the entire FX line crap is STUPID. Thats right, STUPID. It makes me laugh how ppl just jump to conclusions like that, and they never even owned one before. I have an 5900XT and it STILL plays games on my native res 1024x768 on high. Hell HL2 runs on the highest settings possible at completely acceptable frames. My best bench was 102FPS. To bad valve disables DX9 I had no problem playing FarCry on high at all. Or an DX9 game for that matter.

You just need a sift through the bias here and find the best for you. And the FX5500 would be the best for you. Yeah the GF4 could beat it on those games, but once you hit 60 thats all you need. And if you want to play a current game with more eye candy the FX5500 will be capable. The GF4 on the otherhand will have more trouble since its not a "DX9 card".
Click to expand...

No. The FX line was not crap. Your right about that. It was crap when compared to the performance of the Radeon 9000 series. At every price point nVidia cards were dominated. In almost every game. Were they horrible? No. The cards performance compared to ATi cards of the day are often overstated. Still, the fact is that low end FX series cards are virtually useless today on the modern games on all but the lowest settings.

The FX 5500 is nothing more than a souped up FX 5200. Barely even that. 256MB of ram on a 64bit memory bus isn't going to help that card beat a Ti4200. No way. The lower end of the FX series up to the FX 5600 was slower than the Ti4200 that they replaced. Period. End of story. The VGA chart linked above paints a very clear picture. The 5200 Ultra was actually faster than the 5500 BTW and the 5600Ultra was definatley faster than the 5500 and the Geforce 4 Ti4200 raped the 5200 and was neck and neck with the 5600Ultra.
 
I actualy liked the FX line of cards, I had a GeForcec FX 5200 (128MB Verson) and I loved it!
I beat DooM 3 for the first time on that card, after setting up the cachmegs tweak it was gravy at 800x600, Medium Quality, all the extra eye candy turned on, and no AA (turning off shadows would double framerates though)

...Did I mention that it looked WAY better after hooking it up to a TV instead of playing it on my computer screen? :D
 
I'd recommend a 4Ti, although the suggestion to get a used 9700 (or any number over 9500, IMO) is also a good one.

Generally, the FX5600 was considered approximately equal to a GeForce4 Titanium, since the older card was actually faster until you enabled AA/AF. The 5500 is merely an overclocked 5200, which couldn't even hold a candle to the older generation.
 
Unknown-One said:
I actualy liked the FX line of cards, I had a GeForcec FX 5200 (128MB Verson) and I loved it!
I beat DooM 3 for the first time on that card, after setting up the cachmegs tweak it was gravy at 800x600, Medium Quality, all the extra eye candy turned on, and no AA (turning off shadows would double framerates though)

...Did I mention that it looked WAY better after hooking it up to a TV instead of playing it on my computer screen? :D
Click to expand...


You have a crap moniter.
 
i actually own an FX5500 and id say that it did rather well in most games ive tossed at it. i upgraded froma GF4 MX440se so the FX was a much better card. at one point in time i had an FX5700 and i widh i had not killed it. it was a much better card than either of the others. i personally would go with the FX5500 but thats only because ive never run a Ti card, i always thought of them as outdated and expensive. that was ages ago now tho.
 
Booby McNipples said:
The FX cards are great...........FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Click to expand...

And I bet you've never even had a Nvidia card. I call Flamebait on this poster.
 
the fx5900s were ok, but the lower end fx...whoa, just awful. I "upgraded" from a geforce 2mx to an fx5200 and hardly noticed a difference, but that gf2 was <3, best card evar, i still use it in the other PC, plays new games I don't know how. It runs way better than it should...
 
XSNiper said:
And I bet you've never even had a Nvidia card. I call Flamebait on this poster.
Click to expand...
I know this wasn't directed at me, but...

PNY sent me an FX5600 256MB as an RMA on a Ti4400, and I really wish I'd insisted on another Ti instead; the Ti was faster for my applications, since I don't crank up IQ that much (my eyesight isn't good enough for me to be able to tell the difference between 2x and 8x).

I also had a 5950 (overclocked, of course :D), and that was decent. That one held up pretty well against the 9700 and 9800 Pro in my other computers.
 
The TI will defenately win when it comes to old games and no AA/AF, but once you crank things up more it will surely fall behind. At least on higher FX cards. You have to factor in the CPU to.
 
XSNiper said:
And I bet you've never even had a Nvidia card. I call Flamebait on this poster.
Click to expand...

Why yes, yes I have! A 6600gt and an FX5200 as a matter of fact. The 6600gt was a great card but the fx5200 sucked ass. And would you please tell me why anyone would purchase the fx5700, fx5800 or even the fx5950 when they could purchase a 9700pro or 9800pro that would run faster and cooler at a better price?

No matter, I was just quoting Triumph the dog in the first place to lighten things up but some people just don't have a clue. I call "Whiny !!!!!! With No Sense of Humor" on YOU, sir.
 
XSNiper said:
The GF4 will probably beat the FX in those really...old..games. But, slap a new game in there don't expect much from the GF4.
Click to expand...
Thats been my experience, I picked up a 5700U in the FS/FT subforum here for $60 and feel that it was a pretty good purchase for a lowend "gaming" rig (something very much like the OP is doing).
 
Closer call, but I'd still go with the Ti. IIRC:
GF4MX~FX5200<FX5500<GF3Ti<GF4Ti
 
mavalpha said:
Closer call, but I'd still go with the Ti. IIRC:
GF4MX~FX5200<FX5500<GF3Ti<GF4Ti
Click to expand...

This seems about right to me. I know my GeForceFX 5700 Ultra is a BIT faster than my friend's GeForce4 Ti, but that's a 5700U, not a 5500.

Don't the GF4 cards not support DX9 or something like that? The 5500 may be crappier, but it may run a game that the GF4 card won't.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
This seems about right to me. I know my GeForceFX 5700 Ultra is a BIT faster than my friend's GeForce4 Ti, but that's a 5700U, not a 5500.

Don't the GF4 cards not support DX9 or something like that? The 5500 may be crappier, but it may run a game that the GF4 card won't.
Click to expand...
yea and thats why i suggested the 5600...the 5600 should be about as fast as a ti 4600 but it has dx9 support
 
Well the only reason I would suggest the 5500 over the GF4 ti cards is BF2.

Though you would run it at low, you could run it due to the pixel shader support in the 5500. Otherwise GF4Ti > 5500
 
TeeJayHoward said:
This seems about right to me. I know my GeForceFX 5700 Ultra is a BIT faster than my friend's GeForce4 Ti, but that's a 5700U, not a 5500.
Click to expand...
My 5700U is about as fast as my friend's 4600Ti, generally, but thats with DX9 stuff while his is using DX8.
 
I used my GF4 TI 4600 128mb card to play Far Cry and Doom 3 and as long as you don't try to get all the eye candy, you can play them no problem, not great high FPS, but that card served me damn well!

I sure got my 700 bucks outta that ol' boy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top