Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
Its compatible with DX9 and is often faster than the ti4600. 
It is defenitaly the best graphics card price and performance wise. Currently only the 9700pro is faster. 
Consider these:
$65 Sapphire Radeon 9000 64MB, no DVI
$69 Sapphire Radeon 9000 64MB
$78 Sapphire Radeon 9000 64MB, VIVO, no DVI
$84 Sapphire Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB
$87 Sapphire Radeon 9000 128MB
$93 Sapphire Radeon 9000 Pro 128MB
$72 Sapphire Radeon 8500LE 64MB
$73 Sapphire Radeon 9100 64MB
$168 ATI Radeon 8500DV 64MB All-in-Wonder
$88 Sapphire Radeon 8500LE 128MB
$89 Sapphire Radeon 9100 128MB <--Excellent value
$260 ATI Radeon 8500 128MB All-In-Wonder
$85 Gainward GeForce3 Ti200 64MB, no DVI
$93 Palit GeForce3 Ti200 128MB, no DVI
$146 Leadtek GeForce3 Ti200 128MB
$149 Leadtek GeForce3 Ti500 64MB
$109 Compro GeForce4Ti 4200-8X 64MB
$119 Compro GeForce4Ti 4200-8X 64MB VIVO
$120 Abit GeForce4Ti 4200-8X 128MB <--Excellent value
$154 Aopen GeForce4Ti 4200-8X 128MB VIVO
$185 Pine GeForce4Ti 4400 128MB
$185 Gainward GeForce4Ti 4800SE-8X 128MB VIVO
$219 Chaintech GeForce4Ti 4600 128MB
$226 Compro GeForce4Ti 4600 128MB VIVO
$253 Albatron GeForce4Ti 4800 128MB VIVO
$141 Sapphire Radeon 9500 64MB
$162 Sapphire Radeon 9500 128MB
$201 ATI Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
$242 Sapphire Radeon 9700 128MB
$296 FIC Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB
$379 ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB All-in-Wonder
$404 PNY GeForceFX 128MB
im picking between the gf 4 ti 4200 8x 64
or gf 4 mx 440 8x 64
or ati radeon 9000pro 128
.
An important point is that the Rad9100 is NOT an rebadged Rad8500 but often a Rad8500LE, often slower due to clocks being below 250/250. The Rad9000 only operates like a Rad7500 with DX8 support and is way too slow for moderately serious gaming. As for the Rad9000PRO is certainly much faster and it isn't a bad card at all, however even a Rad8500LE/9100 @ 230/230 easily gives 275/275 Rad9000PRO a run for its money but do beware as some Rad8500LE are clocked as low as 230/166 while some Rad9100 are clocked as low as 230/200, that's an awful perf hit and cheap RAM will kill your o/c. At least Rad9000PRO are far more consistent than the Rad8500/9100 so if you don't want to take a risk or do your homework then Rad9000PRO is a decent choice. Anybody think 3dfx/GF-FX (nVidia) are going to rerelease the GF3 as a GF4TI4000 or GF4MX580 LOL!
The 4200 is decently faster than the Rad9100/8500 even if their clocks are where they should be, the GF4TI take MUCH better advantage of a faster CPU. However as JustAnEngineer points out the price diff tends to even that one out.
The 4200 64MB vs 128MB has always been of big debate and there's no bad buy as such. Put simply the reason is the 4200_64MB come with higher default clocks and hence slightly faster (and more o/c'able) RAM than the 4200_128MB. However 4200-8X_128MB SHOULD correct this and use the higher clocks and faster RAM meaning you no longer have to compromise, as always there are a few skanky co's. Even concentrating only on the clock speed and perf diff of 4200_64MB and 4200_128MB it shows the 4200_128MB is generally the much better buy. Although few games currently use more than 64MB gfx RAM some do (and this will become more common) esp if you don't want to compromise detail sliders. Add to this the fact that GF4TI archy much like Rad8500 (but not GF3 nor Rad9000PRO) actually gain a little perf whether or not the extra RAM is called upon by the game/app. This makes the perf diff very slight even if the 64MB card is clocked higher (stock or at default) and expect perf to plummet on the 64MB card as soon as more than the 64MB is needed. Once more than 64MB is needed expect a 4200_64MB o/c'ed to 300/600 to drop to stock 4200_128MB perf levels (250/444), since most 4200_128MB tend to hit about 300/550 they are clearly the better choice esp considering the minimal cost. Of course there are enhanced 4200 cards using BGA RAM and the longer 4400/4600 PCB design which almost always yield at least GF4TI4600 perf BUT much like the faster GF4TI the added costs is much better put towards Rad9500PRO - 9700PRO which are MUCH more superior cards in every dept. Well Albatron are a fine brand but they do have a dizzying array of gfx cards, esp 4200 based ones. The one you suggest would seem to be a traditional 4200-8X_128MB with 250/500 clocks and the faster TSOP 3.6ns RAM. Basicly it is a fine card but is unlikely to be any better than any other manu's 4200-8X_128MB providing the manu uses 250/500 and 3.6ns (which they all should). It's pretty certain to use 3.6ns type RAM if using 250/500 clocks, do note 8.0GB/s means it has 500mhz RAM while 'up to 8.0GB/s' often means it is 444mhz RAM which only the 4200_128MB (ie non-8X) should use. Even so those aren't hugely slower so check the prices on them too (if they're still available). The only 4200's to be worth the extra money are the ones using BGA RAM and the longer PCB design but you may find a Rad9500PRO costs VERY little more and is MUCH superior to all the GF4TI.
This card will last and is a decent card. Its biggest set backs are lack of DX9 support which is unlikely to be of any use for at least 9 months and the big hit that comes from running any more than low-medium AA+AF. Without your current system, likely near future upgrades and reqs it's hard to say how it will last you, Rad9500PRO or Rad9700 will certainly last much better but then they cost more to begin with.
It seems a good card but without competative prices it's hard to say specificly whether it's worth the cash. How much do other 4200-8X_128MB cost and also the other versions of GF4TI4200 and Rad9500PRO?
The GF4MX420 is a medium speed GF2 card (between GF2MX and GF2TI)with enhanced '2D' image quality, TVout, dual display (where applicable) and hw DVD playback. Any GF4TI4200 is MUCH faster and more capable, GF4MX are DX7 while GF4TI are DX8, and it's definitely wise to have at least DX8. dma101 wrote:in the reviews on this site they say the gf-r ti 4200 64 is better then the 128
any body think the same thing
