rec.autos.simulators

"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
the....." - Ash

Douglas,

My experience with this card is that I have the same processor, P4 2.0a NW,
and initially
I had a few small problems with the card (drivers).  After a few swap outs
for the card, I'm not so sure
it was the card.  Anyway, I first had the Ti4600, and it looked great, and
ran really fast.  When
I swapped out the card, the store didn't have that same card in stock, so I
settled for the
Ti4400.  Let me tell you, there weren't any difference in the video quality,
and wasn't much
difference in the frame rate!  I may have gotten about 5 or so more fps with
the 4600.
When your already getting anywhere from 60 to 140 fps in N2002, I personally
don't think
the 4600 is worth the extra $100.  This performance is reflected upon using
just N2002 however.
Other games you may see different results, though you did mention N2002, and
that's
what I've been running exclusively over the last few months.  So, I just
kept
the 4400, and am very happy with it, and have another c-note in my pocket.

Hope this helps.

Thanks......

"GLeger"

The best thing about GeForce 4 is not nessesarily the extra speed (who the
hell can notice going from say 30 to 50 fps?) but the quality of the image.
You can quite happily run all modern games at high res with FSAA on and all
the lovely effects with hardly any frame rate loss, simply superb!

Some Call Me Tim

  I haven't seen the GF4 yet, but the fsaaaaa on my gf3 is less than ideal.
I've totallyl turned it off since the framerate loss  is not compensated by
the supposedly clearer visuals.  (sorry had to sneek in a 3dfx plug)  I've
heard the 4 doesn't slow down much so that's a plus...I just got spoilt
using a V5 even at lower rez's and only 2xfsaa.
  After all that whining, I will say tho...I AM QUITE HAPPY WITH MY PRESENT
NVIDIA card.  Framerates in the 80's which is something I would have never
seen with my old voodoo.   Still hoping the speedy nvidia engineers can team
up with the old fsaa guys from 3dfx to produce a trully stellar product.
dave henrie

<rant>
I've got a Ti4600 and the FSAA is a joke.  2x and 3x make barely any
difference (certainly not as much as going one resolution step higher) and
4x kills the framerate, but doesn't look too bad (nothing to get too e***d
about though)  I simply couldn't believe that nVidia could release such a
high end card without full hardware AA.  Lots of arcade machines had that
feature way back in the early 90s.  Also, when the hell are they going to
put overscan mode into their TV-out options?  I seriously hope that there's
a company making viable alternatives to GFs next time I buy a 3D card...
</rant>

I'm running it with both quincunx FSAA and 8x anistropic filtering mostly at
1280x1024 and it just looks fab. It is also hardly any slower than with
basic settings. It only starts to hurt when you get up to 1600x1200 and at
that res you don't really need FSAA anyway. I do angree it well worth having
anistropic filtering as this makes the textures look much nicer.

My GeForce 4400Ti cost me 229 which is lot of dosh but I think it's been
worth it to upgrade from my old GeForce DDR. If you've already got a
GeForce3 It's probably not worth the upgrade.

Some Call Me Tim

Except if you turn on anisotropic filtering. The R8500 still outperforms the
GF4 4600 even with ansio on because it uses a more efficient method of doing
aniso. The GF4 of course kills the R8500 with FSAA on though. I'll wait for
the next round before upgrading again, but my take is if you own an R8500
use aniso but not FSAA and if you own a GF4 use FSAA but not aniso.

But as I said, take this comment with a grain of salt, I'm just reporting my
personal experience.

Achim