nV News Deals Shop Archive Search Files Forum Feed Articles IRC Chat GeForce.com


Search Site
Ads by Google
Links To NVIDIA
Drivers
Products
Communities
Support
NVIDIA Blog
News Room
About NVIDIA
GeForce Technology
CUDA
DirectX 11
Optimus
PhysX
SLI
3D Vision
3D Vision Surround
Articles
GeForce GTX 580
GeForce GTX 570
GeForce GTX 560 Ti
GeForce GTX 480
GeForce GTX 465
GeForce GTX 460
GeForce GTS 450
GeForce GTX 295
GeForce GTX 280
GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GT 240
GeForce 9800 GTX
GeForce 9800 GX2
GeForce 9600 GT
GeForce 8800 Ultra
GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 GTS
GeForce 8800 GT
GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8500 GT
GeForce 7950 GX2
GeForce 7950 GT
GeForce 7900 GTX
GeForce 7900 GS
GeForce 7800 GTX
Watercooling Project
My Book 500GB
Raptor Hard Drive
Guide To Doom 3
EVGA Stuff
EVGA E-LEET
EVGA Precision
GPU Voltage Tuner
OC Scanner
SLI Enhancement
EVGA Bot
EVGA Gear
Reviews and Awards
Associates
Benchmark Reviews
Fraps
GeForce Italia
GPU Review
Hardware Pacers
LaptopVideo2Go
MVKTECH
News3D (NVITALIA)
OutoftheBoxMods
OSNN.net
Overclocker Cafe
PC Extreme
PC Gaming Standards
PhysX Links & Info
TestSeek
3DChip (German)
8Dimensional
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 Shootout - Page 6 of 9

QUAKE 3 PERFORMANCE

Despite the fact that the engine is a number of years old, Quake 3 remains one of the chief benchmarks used in the industry. With the latest 1.32 patch release installed, I used timedemo four to test each card. Initially, this test looked to place little to no stress on either of these cards. With no enhanced image quality settings enabled, each card broke the 200fps barrier at a resolution of 1024x768. Even at the high resolution of 1600x1200, each card was able to maintain a frame rate above 150fps.

The true potency of the timedemo is not realized until we enable enhanced image quality settings for each card. Using the maximum value for both antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, we begin to see the cards "break a sweat". At a resolution of 1024x768, we find each card offering above 100fps which is impressive. Raising the resolution to 1280x1024, we find frame rates hovering around 60. As such, the gameplay with this combination is sure to be fluid enough for any hardcore gamer to be satisfied.

Utilizing a resolution of 1600x1200 or higher illustrates a slightly different situation. Here, frame rates are closer to 40, which certainly is still playable. Though many will be happy gaming at this speed, there are some (myself included) who prefer the more fluid gameplay which 60fps brings. As a result, the optimum combination for speed and visual quality looks to be a resolution of 1280x1024 with every image quality setting enabled and maximized.

Quake 3

Quake 3 Performance
Average Frames Per Second

Resolution No AA
No Aniso
4X AA
8X Aniso
1024x768
Abit Stock 200 93
EK Stock 202 101
Abit Max OC 202 101
EK Max OC 204 114
1280x1024
Abit Stock 181 50
EK Stock 186 58
Abit Max OC 186 54
EK Max OC 190 66
1600x1200
Abit Stock 146 33
EK Stock 154 38
Abit Max OC 155 38
EK Max OC 168 44

JEDI KNIGHT 2 PERFORMANCE

Easily one of my favorite games in recent years, Jedi Knight 2 was an easy selection for a benchmark in this shootout. Based upon the Quake 3 engine, this game brings great graphics to a creative storyline. One thing I noticed during testing was that the latest patch seemed to change the lighting effects of the lightsaber. Here, there now was an impressive glow around the core of the handle and the once solid beam of light now gradually fades along the edges. Though some might not even notice, I really thought this was a great addition and added even more to the realism of the game.

As far as benchmarks are concerned, the cards tested were more than up to the challenge of this benchmark. Although the results for all resolutions without image quality settings enabled were certainly high, I did expect them to be a bit higher especially at 1024x768. Checking the FRAPS log file, I found that in every instance, the maximum frame rate reached at every resolution was 92fps. In practice, this cap will have no adverse effects upon gameplay. However, I would definitely be more comfortable if this were an option which could be selected.

Utilizing the 2X setting for antialiasing we find some impressive results throughout every resolution. Here, frame rates are still above 80 are the images in the game look incredible. Raising the bar even further, I then enabled 4X antialiasing as well as 8X anisotropic filtering. Here, there was little to no performance drop at a resolution of 1024x768. Raising the resolution to 1600x1200, we find the first real division between the two cards. Here, the Abit card offers great performance with an average framerate of roughly 45. Though ample enough for most gamers, some would much prefer to be closer to 60fps. As such, the overclocked EK card with a framerate of 56 is a more viable option for those individuals.

Jedi Knight 2

Jedi Knight 2 Performance
Average Frames Per Second

Resolution No AA
No Aniso
2X AA
No Aniso
4X AA
8X Aniso
1024x768
Abit Stock 86 86 75
EK Stock 88 88 86
Abit Max OC 87 87 85
EK Max OC 88 88 87
1280x1024
Abit Stock 83 82 64
EK Stock 86 86 71
Abit Max OC 86 85 67
EK Max OC 88 87 82
1600x1200
Abit Stock 81 81 45
EK Stock 86 86 47
Abit Max OC 85 84 46
EK Max OC 87 87 56

RETURN TO CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN PERFORMANCE

Here, we have one of the most addictive games I have ever played. One of the many games using the Quake 3 engine, Return to Castle Wolfenstein really illustrates how far an engine can come when it is tweaked and enhanced over the years. The graphics in this game are excellent, and the lighting effects really add to the dark storyline.

While testing this game, I was surprised to find the same 92fps ceiling found testing Jedi Knight 2. As it turns out, the limiting factor is actually a variable which can be set within the appropriate config.cfg file for both Jedi Knight 2 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. As such, maximum frame rates can be achieved by raising the value for "seta com_maxfps" to some large random number such as 300. In doing so, the actual frame rate limitation can be seen without being skewed by some forced performance ceiling.

Both cards exhibit stellar performance at each resolution with enhanced image quality settings disabled. Enabling 2X antialiasing, we find every resolution up to 1600x1200 offering a minimum of 80fps. However, raising the resolution to 1600x1200 we begin to sense how taxing the benchmark is becoming. With maximum image quality settings enabled, we see a rather large drop in performance. Here, only the overclocked EK card comes close to the 60fps barrier at 1024x768. Above that resolution, each card looks to be straining to maintain high framerates. In this case, the optimum combination of performance and image quality would be either 1600x1200 with no antialiasing/anisotropic filtering or a resolution of 1280x1024 with 2X antialiasing.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein

Return to Castle Wolfenstein Performance
Average Frames Per Second

Resolution No AA
No Aniso
2X AA
No Aniso
4X AA
8X Aniso
1024x768
Abit Stock 89 88 48
EK Stock 90 90 51
Abit Max OC 90 89 50
EK Max OC 90 90 59
1280x1024
Abit Stock 87 79 29
EK Stock 90 83 32
Abit Max OC 89 82 31
EK Max OC 90 85 34
1600x1200
Abit Stock 78 38 14
EK Stock 82 45 18
Abit Max OC 80 42 17
EK Max OC 87 46 23

Next Page - Comanche 4, BF1942, And UT2003 Performance


Table of Contents

Last Updated on November 28, 2002

Copyright 1998-2004. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in any form or medium without written permission of the site's owners is prohibited.

Privacy Policy


FastCounter by bCentral

 Visitors Are Online
Powered by Perlonline.com
Shopping.com
What Are You Shopping For?



Categories
Graphics Utilities
Add-In Cards