TI 4600 and N2002

Was wondering if anyone is running the new TI 4600 video card and what there thoughts are on it. Am interested in getting one and am wondering if Nascar 2002 would make good use of it. It is a fair outlay of change and I want to make sure that I will really notice the difference from my Radeon 64MB. TIA. Douglas

N2002 is also very CPU dependant, so putting a fast card in a sub-standard pc will not really improve things. But the ti4600 is as good as it gets today and works very well with N2002 if you have the rest of the system to go with it. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Douglas <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N1jG8.110829$[email hidden]... > Was wondering if anyone is running the new TI 4600 video card and what there > thoughts are on it. Am interested in getting one and am wondering if Nascar > 2002 would make good use of it. It is a fair outlay of change and I want to > make sure that I will really notice the difference from my Radeon 64MB. TIA. > Douglas > >

Yes I see what you mean regarding the cpu being important, was running on a 1Gb system and have since upgraded to a P4 2Gb Intel and can notice the changes. Was hoping that the Ti would make as noticeable an impression or am I wishfully thinking/hoping.

"Douglas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5sjG8.20847$[email hidden]... > Yes I see what you mean regarding the cpu being important, was running ona > 1Gb system and have since upgraded to a P4 2Gb Intel and can notice the > changes. Was hoping that the Ti would make as noticeable an impression oram > I wishfully thinking/hoping. > > > 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.

Hey thanks for the tip, right now with the 7500 and everything turned way up I am seeing from 35 to 45 so the numbers you are telling me are inviting.............and the 4400 might be the way to go. Thanks...... "GLeger"

GLeger is right: the Ti 4400 will give you 90-95% of the Ti 4600...for 75% of the cost. Go for it. "Douglas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:07mG8.21608$[email hidden]... > Hey thanks for the tip, right now with the 7500 and everything turned wayup

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I am seeing from 35 to 45 so the numbers you are telling me are > inviting.............and the 4400 might be the way to go. > > Thanks...... > > "GLeger" > >

4400Ti is practically the same as 4600ti apart from clock speed (the mem chips are very slightly quicker) and will clock quite hapily iup to 4600 speeds and even slightly higher. 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

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 4400Ti is practically the same as 4600ti apart from clock speed (the mem > chips are very slightly quicker) and will clock quite hapily iup to 4600 > speeds and even slightly higher. > > 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 theimage. > You can quite happily run all modern games at high res with FSAA on andall > 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

The only way to get a nVidia card look like our late, lamented Voodoos is to forget the FSAA and crank the anisometric filtering up to the max. It requires more electronic horsepower than trilinear FSAA, but it looks a *lot* better than FSAA...IMO. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JZzG8.124$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 4400Ti is practically the same as 4600ti apart from clock speed (the mem > > chips are very slightly quicker) and will clock quite hapily iup to 4600 > > speeds and even slightly higher. > > > > The best thing about GeForce 4 is not nessesarily the extra speed (who

the

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 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 compensatedby > 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 MYPRESENT > 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 canteam > up with the old fsaa guys from 3dfx to produce a trully stellar product. > dave henrie > >

> The only way to get a nVidia card look like our late, lamented Voodoos isto > forget the FSAA and crank the anisometric filtering up to the max. It > requires more electronic horsepower than trilinear FSAA, but it looks a > *lot* better than FSAA...IMO. <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 excited 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>

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AtLG8.92794$[email hidden]... > The only way to get a nVidia card look like our late, lamented Voodoos isto > forget the FSAA and crank the anisometric filtering up to the max. It > requires more electronic horsepower than trilinear FSAA, but it looks a > *lot* better than FSAA...IMO. >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

There's always ATI. For that matter, the Voodoo community is still going full-blast. "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:acg6p9$pcnu6$[email hidden]... > > The only way to get a nVidia card look like our late, lamented Voodoosis

Quoted text (9 lines)

> to > > forget the FSAA and crank the anisometric filtering up to the max. It > > requires more electronic horsepower than trilinear FSAA, but it looks a > > *lot* better than FSAA...IMO. > > <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

excited > 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 thatthere's > a company making viable alternatives to GFs next time I buy a 3D card... > </rant> > > >

[email hidden] wrote: > 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! > Another improvement on the GF4 is the quality of DXT compressed textures. GF1s, 2s and 3s all have a hardware fault that causes compressed textures to decode into 16bit, so in particular the skies in N2002 look really horribly banded. But the GF4s decompress them properly, and the skies look a lot smoother. Radeons have always done this properly, btw.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > 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 theimage. > You can quite happily run all modern games at high res with FSAA on andall > the lovely effects with hardly any frame rate loss, simply superb! > > 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.

> > Except if you turn on anisotropic filtering. The R8500 still outperformsthe > GF4 4600 even with ansio on because it uses a more efficient method ofdoing > aniso. The GF4 of course kills the R8500 with FSAA on though. I'll waitfor > 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. > > As I said I still get very good frame rates with BOTH FSAA and Anistropic 8x on. Some Call Me Tim

I say this carefully and ask everyone to take this comment with a grain of salt, but Aniso for me in N2002 makes dearly little difference in framerate. I am not sure whether the drivers used in that fairly old review were fully up to scratch. But as I said, take this comment with a grain of salt, I'm just reporting my personal experience. Achim "Shodan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > The best thing about GeForce 4 is not nessesarily the extra speed (whothe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 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 > > 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 ofdoing > aniso. The GF4 of course kills the R8500 with FSAA on though. I'll waitfor > 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. > >

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > As I said I still get very good frame rates with BOTH FSAA and Anistropic8x > on. I'm just stating the strenghts of the GF4 compared to an R8500. If a GF4 4600 performs slower than an R8500 with aniso on then it's not such great buy because the R8500 is alot less moola than the GF4.

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:acln50$qmtrs$[email hidden]... > I say this carefully and ask everyone to take this comment with a grain of > salt, but Aniso for me in N2002 makes dearly little difference inframerate. > I am not sure whether the drivers used in that fairly old review werefully > up to scratch. > > But as I said, take this comment with a grain of salt, I'm just reportingmy > personal experience. > > Achim That may well be true as the article is from February. I'm getting my numbers from here http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/geforce4-17.html#anisotropic _performance And the number in Q3 1024x768 32bit are: R8500 8tap aniso = 188.7 GF4 4600 8tap aniso = 116.7 Is it possible for new drivers to improve by at least 72fps to equal the R8500 score? He goes on to say that because the framerate is so fast he couldn't comapare the quality so the R8500 numbers may be suspect. But all he had to do was take screen shots to compare the quality so I find his comment suspect and think he is Nvidia biased. He also says: Anisotropic filtering does enable a significantly better image quality, but at the same time, it gobbles up a consinderable amount of processing power.

72 fps truly is a lot. Those older drivers would have had to have been deeply beta to be that much slower than the current ones (28.32 here). Aw well, another one of these mysteries <g> Achim "Shodan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > That may well be true as the article is from February. I'm getting my > numbers from here >http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/geforce4-17.html#anisotropic

Quoted text (10 lines)

> _performance > > And the number in Q3 1024x768 32bit are: > R8500 8tap aniso = 188.7 > GF4 4600 8tap aniso = 116.7 > > Is it possible for new drivers to improve by at least 72fps to equal the > R8500 score? > > He goes on to say that because the framerate is so fast he couldn't

comapare > the quality so the R8500 numbers may be suspect. But all he had to do was > take screen shots to compare the quality so I find his comment suspect and > think he is Nvidia biased. > > He also says: Anisotropic filtering does enable a significantly betterimage > quality, but at the same time, it gobbles up a consinderable amount of > processing power.

I find myself having to wait to see if the new Matrox card is all it's cracked up to be. On paper, it looks like they may finally have a competitive card, and may even kick everyone's butt! Not to mention but I would dearly love to have that Matrox video quality back. I remember using Millineum 2D cards several years ago and no one can touch Matrox on visual clarity and text sharpness. Those folks really have their act together in this area. nVidia cards don't have great 2D. ATI is definetely better. -Larry <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > 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. > > > > > > As I said I still get very good frame rates with BOTH FSAA and Anistropic8x > on. > > Some Call Me Tim > >