View Full Version : GF4TI4200 vs GFFX5600
Im building a budget/gaming PC for a friend, and the following two cards fit his budget and needs. He does NOT want ATI nor anything more expensive than what I'm listing. Which would you choose for overall best game play? This card will be paired with an AthlonXP 2400/266fsb
Prolink GFFX 5600 128DDR Vivo for $147us
Leadtek GF4 TI4200 128DDR for $120
digitalwanderer
06-19-03, 08:29 PM
5600 Ultra or a vanilla 5600? :eek2:
we're talking about non-ultra, i know the ultra is only $160us, but when i say he's on a budget i mean it.
digitalwanderer
06-19-03, 08:46 PM
Damn. I think the vanilla 5600 is still faster than a GF4 ti4200, but not by much....does he want/need the vivo and is it worth the extra cash to him? If so, go with the 5600.
EDITED BITS: Doh! What kind of CPU are you gonna be teaming this card up with and how much memory?
AthlonXP 2400 266fsb, Crucial 512megs DDR2100
And he doesnt need the VIVO, that is simply the cheapest GFFX5600 that Newegg has
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Damn. I think the vanilla 5600 is still faster than a GF4 ti4200, but not by much....does he want/need the vivo and is it worth the extra cash to him? If so, go with the 5600.
EDITED BITS: Doh! What kind of CPU are you gonna be teaming this card up with and how much memory?
If he's planning on keeping it for any length of time, I would definately go for a DirectX 9 card.
I would go with the 5600 if he doesn't want to go with an ATI card. The 5600 is slower than the ti4200 under default IQ settings, but based on game benchmarks (though there are questions on how valid any benchmark is right now) the 5600 is better when AA/AF are turned on. I don't know how viable a DX9 card a 5600 would be, but I do favor it over the ti4200 because the added ability to run at higher IQ settings.
Well, I would go with the ti4200. It's a good card and doesn't differ from the plain 5600 too much. I am building a new comp in less than a month, and I will be putting in a ti4200 for now. I just don't think that the FX5600 is such a great card. Just my opinion...:p
i would go with the fx... the fx still has drivers that will continue to push out better performance, the geforce4 is done in that area, also the 5600 has dx9 support... although very slow... i guess you could watch 3dmark03 or sumthin:D
StealthHawk
06-20-03, 04:14 AM
Ok, the big question is obviously, does he intend to play games with FSAA/AF on or off?
Tsunami
06-20-03, 04:22 AM
almost certainly go for the 5600 may not be fastest card out but it can handle intense graphics so give the pc a nice 5600:angel:
also keep in mind it's a geforce fx brilliant
:rw::rw: owned:
There is lso a Leadtek ti4200 with VIVO for the same price as the 5600.... actually $1 more..., but for the same price I would go with the 5600.:p
So I guess 2 questions.... does he need the VIVO and
Originally posted by StealthHawk
does he intend to play games with FSAA/AF on or off?
chigger_ns
06-20-03, 07:17 AM
The vivo function is cool! But the 4200 is a good card and a great overclocker. ..... try the 5600 it is newer chip style, and newer drivers may bring out new functions like software changing your fx 5600 into a 5900 ultra:afro:
heh, softmod... if only... :rolleyes: :D:)
BigFish7
06-20-03, 09:30 AM
if i were you i would look for the new revision
INSIDE FX5600 Final( INSIDE FX 956F)
GeForce FX5600
core 350MHz
700MHz(128MB, 2.8ns FBGA)
Video Out : D-Sub / TV-Out / DVI(DVI-I) / VIVO
sure worth a buy :)
digitalwanderer
06-20-03, 10:13 AM
I finally decided, but it was TOUGH!
If I had to choose between JUST THOSE TWO cards, I'd get the 5600. The advantages of better AA & AF coupled with the power of his CPU to be should provide for better quality gaming than the 4200 could do. :)
I may be loooking into the same card..the 5600..maybe Ultra....How does my system look for it?
~Q~
Geforce4ti4200
06-23-03, 02:07 AM
Get the ti4200, its like 33% faster in everything. directX 9 games wont be out for 2 years and by the time they come, that card will be like $75. For todays games the ti4200 is the best midrange card
nrdstrm
06-23-03, 03:19 AM
Ummm...Have you seen Star Wars Galaxies yet? I have seen the game on my system (FX5900Ultra DX9a) and my friends system (Ti4200 DX9a) and there is a huge difference. The first thing I noticed was the water. They have special DX9 Water if your using a DX9 Card. This game uses quite a bit of DX9. I think many other games releaseing before XMAS will use DX9 Extensivlely (Based on what I saw at E3). I'm not saying they WON'T PLAY on a DX8 Card, but they will look a HELL of alot better on a DX9 Card!!!
NRDSTRM
Geforce4ti4200
06-23-03, 03:28 AM
this isnt good, well unless I get an fx5200 cause its the cheapest direcxtX 9 card. Looks like I get the choice between using my ti4200 or an fx5200. speed vs quality, but not both!
ChrisRay
06-23-03, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Do you actually think a gfFX5200 will play SWG well? From what I hear it is very demanding.
Sony Computer Online Entertainment is very much in bed with Nvidia, Everquest, Everquest 2, And Star Wars Galaxy are very much optimised for Nvidia cards.
So yes, I do believe this game will run well on a Geforce FX 5200. Most MMORPG do not require more than 10-20 FPS to be acceptable playing. Because MMORPG do not need fast frame rates
faraday
06-23-03, 09:21 AM
Since the NDA has been lifted...
Believe me you're wrong. It's very demanding. Its not very similar to other mmorpg's, the devs said no actual system could ever play the game with every setting topped without lagging the crap out of the pc.
I was in BETA, with a amd 1800+@2600+ and a radeon 9500 and 512 DDR333 I lagged the crap out of my pants in cities with default settings, even people with radeon's 9700 would lag.
People with nvidia cards didnt see much of an improvement, an fx5600 was barely able to run the game at 20fps with default specs.
They did mention the game ran pretty well on a 9800pro or a 5900ultra (they testes both - the devs), but still couldnt max out the settings.
So forget about the 5200, unless you want to play with everything down to minimum.
ChrisRay
06-23-03, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by faraday
Since the NDA has been lifted...
Believe me you're wrong. It's very demanding. Its not very similar to other mmorpg's, the devs said no actual system could ever play the game with every setting topped without lagging the crap out of the pc.
I was in BETA, with a amd 1800+@2600+ and a radeon 9500 and 512 DDR333 I lagged the crap out of my pants in cities with default settings, even people with radeon's 9700 would lag.
People with nvidia cards didnt see much of an improvement, an fx5600 was barely able to run the game at 20fps with default specs.
They did mention the game ran pretty well on a 9800pro or a 5900ultra (they testes both - the devs), but still couldnt max out the settings.
So forget about the 5200, unless you want to play with everything down to minimum.
SWG is no different than what Sony Online Entertainment does everytime they release a new game. They try and take advantage of new features, When Luclin Was released 2 years ago, People said the exact same thing, Yet the game was buggy and unfinished, What else is new with Sony games :rolleyes: You can't even Play the latest Everquest with everything maxed out without systems crawling. Dependent on how many models. I would be very surprised if Sony is too stupid not to use clip planes.
Again, Show me ONE MMORPG that requires High frame rates? I don't deny that newer games require more power than old. But MMORPG are mostly limited by CPU rather than GPU
If you can't run the game at 20 FPS in low resolution. The it's a CPU bottleneck. Hell Even Everquest chokes at times on my Athlon XP 2000+ And its a 4 year old game.
Sony Likes high polygon counts on player models. Everything I've seen from this game suggests its more CPU limited,
While this does not mean you'll be running running the new game at highest possible settings, I have no doubt that running this game at 10 FPS will be more than sufficient,
MMORPG do not require high movement rates, Sony is not stupid. They will make this game run.
StealthHawk
06-23-03, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Sony Likes high polygon counts on player models. Everything I've seen from this game suggests its more CPU limited,
While this does not mean you'll be running running the new game at highest possible settings, I have no doubt that running this game at 10 FPS will be more than sufficient,
MMORPG do not require high movement rates, Sony is not stupid. They will make this game run.
From what I've seen/heard Sony makes games that like fast CPUs and large amounts of RAM. Why should they skimp of fast video cards? Let's face it, anyone who can pay $15/month can afford a state of the art system too.
I think SWG will be "playable" on many systems. Just not with all/most of the eye candy on.
ChrisRay
06-23-03, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
From what I've seen/heard Sony makes games that like fast CPUs and large amounts of RAM. Why should they skimp of fast video cards? Let's face it, anyone who can pay $15/month can afford a state of the art system too.
I think SWG will be "playable" on many systems. Just not with all/most of the eye candy on.
You'd be absolutely correct, However sony does design there games for the lowest of standard, Everquest can "still" be run on my Voodoo2, Providing you have a much faster system to make up for the loss of hardware transform and Lighting.
But Sony is known for bigger textures, bigger Polygon counts, and well as you stated, Faster CPUS
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.