Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 I know this is slightly off topic but the reason for wanting the comparison is so that my new machine will run CMBB as smooth as silk. I recall seeing a table someone kindly posted to this bulletin board which compared the speeds of all the different (recent) video cards. Does anybody know where I can find that topic or able to post a link so I can see how the various video cards compare? Thanks, in anticipation. Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 same for the Mac please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Reich, About two - three weeks ago, I purchased GeForec4-Ti4200-128 meg from FTI (Future Technologies) Computers for $160 plus about $10-20 shipping. You might be able to get it even cheaper now from there or elsewhere. The 4200 has all the bells & whistles of the GF4s, it is faster than GF3s & GF2s, and it doesn't cost an arm & a leg. It is good bang for the buck. Cheers, Richard [ July 06, 2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 It is amazing that I say that, but you might want to look at an ATI offering for CMBO and CMBB if you are concerned about best price/performance. They have one Radeon 8500 (LE?) card with 128 MB of memory, which is price-reduced because it has a slightly lower clockspeed. This is exactly what you want for CMBO and CMBB if you are into mods. I picked it up for $199, I think it is $149 now. Now, I used to hate, and I mean *HATE*!!!, ATI because there drivers were so increadbly crappy and they refused to fix them, but I bought said card and the drivers are just fine. The drivers even work on my unspupported Win95c, no install trouble, no needless crap installed, no mucking around with the rest of the system. You don't get fog in CMBO, though (but smoke you do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumrox Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Here are some scores from Madonion.com's 3DMark201 benchmarking tool. All these tests are from Duron 950 machines. The "Score" column is compared to my system using a GF2 GTS-V, a slightly slower member of the GF2 GTS family. You can download the utility from madonion.com 3DMark Score Chipset 6401 219% NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600 6128 210% NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400 5976 204% NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 5409 185% ATI Radeon 8500 5187 177% NVIDIA GeForce3 5131 175% NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200 4969 170% NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500 3706 127% NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 460 3654 125% NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra 3547 121% NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440 3272 112% ATI Radeon 7500 3208 110% NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/Pro/Ti 3136 107% NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420 2924 100% NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS/Pro/Ti 2691 92% ATI RADEON DDR 2656 91% NVIDIA Quadro2/Pro 2634 90% NVIDIA GeForce DDR 2550 87% NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400 2448 84% ATI RADEON SDR 2266 77% NVIDIA GeForce SDR 1649 56% 3dfx Voodoo5 5500 1624 56% STMicro KYRO II 1494 51% STMicro KYRO 1467 50% NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 100/200 1422 49% ATI RADEON VE 1350 46% NVIDIA RIVA TNT2/Pro 1273 44% NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Ultra 1150 39% 3dfx Voodoo4 4500 1017 35% Matrox G400 956 33% ATI RAGE 128 PRO 884 30% NVIDIA TNT2 m64 666 23% ATI RAGE 128 364 12% S3 ProSavage 286 10% Generic VGA [ July 06, 2002, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: dumrox ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 6, 2002 Author Share Posted July 6, 2002 Thanks for the responses to date. Because I have a limited budget, I'm wondering whether getting a 64MB GeForce4 Ti4200 Dual VGA (more expensive by about A$140)) is significantly faster than the older but with more memory 128MB GeForce3 Ti200 AGP card. Does anybody have any good information on these two cards? Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 What are important attributes to Video cards -- I mean besides 'frames-rate?" I just bought a Geforce4 420, and it consistently gets bad reviews, but I don't understand why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 The MX440 in my new machine is going to be almost 6 times faster than my current card! :cool: I'll actually be able to scroll around on huge maps now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthVader Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Geforce-4 ti4400 is impressive..most impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 In case my previous post didn't mak it clear: For CMBO you don't need the speed as on Quake or 3Dlab benchmarks. You want plenty of fast memory, but not neccessarily high clock speed. The Geforce 3 is a ripoff, as is the Geforce 4 MX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Video Card Specs and Ratings Jim, the 64MB Ti4200 is an excellent card. It'll handle any game nicely. The 128MB version will run some games (Return to Castle Wolf and Jedi Knight 2) at high resolutions and high detail a bit faster than the 64MB version, but I personally don't think it's quite worth the extra expense right now. [Edit] Grrr. Misread your post. I'd have to agree with jiggles below, the Ti4200 may not be worth the extra expense. But for most games I don't think the extra 64MB on the GF3 Ti200 is crucial. Of course there's nothing wrong with having more onboard mem. [/Edit] PL, the GF4 MX series gets bashed (a bit unfairly, IMO) because even though it's called a "GF4", it doesn't support Pixel or Vertex shaders which are important specs for upcoming games like Doom 3 and Unreal 2003. The MX420 itself has extremely low memory bandwidth and doesn't perform much better than a GF2 MX400. You can actually get a GF2 GTS-V from Newegg for ~$47 that will outpace the MX420! For an inexpensive card look at the MX440 or (if you can live without fog in CM) the Radeon 8500LE. - Chris [ July 06, 2002, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Wolfe ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiggles Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Thanks for the responses to date. Because I have a limited budget, I'm wondering whether getting a 64MB GeForce4 Ti4200 Dual VGA (more expensive by about A$140)) is significantly faster than the older but with more memory 128MB GeForce3 Ti200 AGP card. Depends what you mean by "significantly" I'd say. Looking at the benchmarks posted above it looks like the GF4 is about 15% faster than the GF3. Is this 15% worth your A$140? Only you can answer that! Of course it's possible those benchmarks don't reflect the performance of CMBB. If you've using the hi-res texture mods, maybe having the extra memory will help. It's not all in the graphics card though. The benchmarks above might will be different has you increase the processor power. I'd expect the higher-end cards to pull away with faster processors. I've just upgraded my CPU/motherboard/memory underneath my GF3 and the game feels much smoother. I can turn on 4x FSAA and anisotropic filtering (both of which make the visuals much, much better), without feeling too much pain. Whatever you do don't buy an ATI, you'll miss the fog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: In case my previous post didn't mak it clear: For CMBO you don't need the speed as on Quake or 3Dlab benchmarks. You want plenty of fast memory, but not neccessarily high clock speed. The Geforce 3 is a ripoff, as is the Geforce 4 MX.The Geforce 3 is a good video card, the Gforce 4 mx is not my cup of tea. The Geforce 4 ti 4200 is great for most bang for your buck, and the ti 4400 and 4600 are the best around. There are more to video cards then high clock speeds Redwolf. Pixel Shaders and what not to name one of the many nice options offered the on the new video cards. I myself have a GeForce 4 ti 4400, the leadtek one. Though not many games take advantage of all it's features, and yes it is fast, i scored a little over 9000 in 3dmark 2001, the card does make every other game title i've played look better. I do not think it is necessary for anyone to have cutting edge technology to play CMBO, but it does'nt hurt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Thanks for the responses to date. Because I have a limited budget, I'm wondering whether getting a 64MB GeForce4 Ti4200 Dual VGA (more expensive by about A$140)) is significantly faster than the older but with more memory 128MB GeForce3 Ti200 AGP card. Does anybody have any good information on these two cards? I have the Geforce 3 Ti200 from PNY. I think it's got only 64 megs of DDR. I love the card. Everything I have is super smooth, Even Neverwinter Nights. I bought it a few months ago for $120, it should be a bit cheaper now. At this point however, if I had to buy a new card I would get teh Geforce 4ti 200. At $140 it's a great deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by Gaylord Focker: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: In case my previous post didn't mak it clear: For CMBO you don't need the speed as on Quake or 3Dlab benchmarks. You want plenty of fast memory, but not neccessarily high clock speed. The Geforce 3 is a ripoff, as is the Geforce 4 MX.The Geforce 3 is a good video card, the Gforce 4 mx is not my cup of tea. The Geforce 4 ti 4200 is great for most bang for your buck, and the ti 4400 and 4600 are the best around. There are more to video cards then high clock speeds Redwolf. Pixel Shaders and what not to name one of the many nice options offered the on the new video cards. I myself have a GeForce 4 ti 4400, the leadtek one. Though not many games take advantage of all it's features, and yes it is fast, i scored a little over 9000 in 3dmark 2001, the card does make every other game title i've played look better. I do not think it is necessary for anyone to have cutting edge technology to play CMBO, but it does'nt hurt either. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMcGuire Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 For CMBO only, a GF2 is just fine, I have two GF2 machines that run huge maps with no problems. A GF3 is even better, my wife's GF3 box runs CMBO perfectly. A GF4 MX is a ripoff as redwolf notes, the GF3 is cheaper and faster. A GF4 Ti4200, Ti4400, or Ti4600 is as good as it gets, but won't make much difference in CMBO. I have a Ti4600 in my new machine and frankly I can't see much difference in CMBO between it and my wife's slower machine with a GF3. If you play other more video-performance-intensive games though, one of the real GF4's can't be beat. ATI continues to have serious driver problems, and since there are faster GeForce cards available at similar prices, why trouble yourself? Don't just take my word for it : http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002584 Finally, when you do decide, check pricewatch.com to find the lowest prices. I saved over $100 compared to store prices by ordering from a site listed on pricewatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Why does anyone consider the GeForce 3 a ripoff? I have a GeForce3 Ti500 and it's done wonders for my gaming. I run CMBO with everything and I mean Everything modded and almost all of them are hi-res. I've run some pretty big battles without a hitch or any sign of stuttering. For my money my Ti500 is the best $199 US I've spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: I recall seeing a table someone kindly posted to this bulletin board which compared the speeds of all the different (recent) video cards. Does anybody know where I can find that topic or able to post a link so I can see how the various video cards compare?I suspect this is the thread you are looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by Andreas: same for the Mac please!Andreas, I suspect that almost any 16mb card will work with the new game, but my bet is on either the 64mb 3 TI from NVidia usable in every AGP Mac, the ATI 8500 64mb, or the 128mb NVidia 4TI, all of which AI have in machines and seem to push enough data to make them work for CMBB. Of course when I get CM:BB I will let you know, but I am betting the farm on my 64mb 8500 and my 128mb NVidia 4 TI. I have some bets on frame rates if you want to e-mail me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Crierie Posted July 7, 2002 Share Posted July 7, 2002 DO NOT GET ATI! DO NOT GET ATI! DO NOT GET ATI! DO NOT GET ATI! DO NOT GET ATI! Have I made my opinion clear? Good! ATI's are pieces of $*&(% that don't even support fog in a lot of games, such as CM:BO and CM:BB. Stick to GeForce and you'll be fine! [ July 06, 2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cull Posted July 7, 2002 Share Posted July 7, 2002 My nickel's worth: The Ti4200 is my (near) future card. I do a lot of paying attention to the latest gossip from the experts, and it seems to be the best bang for the buck right now, and for the near future. Any card more beefy than that isn't worth the extra moolah, unless you just have to have the bleeding-edge stuff. I currently run the GeForce3 Ti200 (VisionTek's--it is flawless!), and it is an absolute gem-of-a-steal now. Probably still viable for awhile, and dirt cheap---hell, practically free. Just depends on how much you want to spend, as usual. I am in the MX-bashing camp, but only if you want to run newer, 3D-intense stuff. If that's the case, please please don't get an MX. I used to have some links to some tech stuff as to why, but just trust me. As mentioned, the MX line is pricey, but missing some newer technology---vertex/pixel processing, etc. If you're only concerned with CM, then no worries. Save a bunch of cash and go with a new lower-end (or old higher-end) card; it hardly matters which. Oh by the way, if you're willing to sell your soul (as a friend of mine did), you can grab the Ti4200 (or maybe any of the newer cards) and get a pretty major rebate by signing up for two years of MSN internet service. I refuse, but it is a good deal--I think he got 70 or 80 bucks back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumrox Posted July 7, 2002 Share Posted July 7, 2002 In Rune's "Sneak Preview" thread, he mentions the specs of the two machines that were running the CMBB preview: "We ran it on two computers networked so they could play tcp/ip. First computer is a Pentium 800, 256megs of memory with a GeForce 3TI. The second computer was a Pentium 266, GeForce card, with 512 megs of memory. Both ran the scenarios that were picked flawlessly. I picked one gor them to play 2 person, and 2 others they got to pick at random. " P266 w/ GeForce GTS is a pretty modest rig and it reportedly ran everything smoothly. I don't think cutting edge cards will be required to enjoy CMBB. I am hoping my Athlon 600 w/ GF1 will work well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted July 7, 2002 Share Posted July 7, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: The Geforce 3 is a re-labeled Geforce 2 re-engineered for cheaper manufracturing. As of now in the Best Buy near me, there is no Geforce 3 offering which has a better price/performance ratio than a Geforce 2 model, because the 2's prices have been dropped although they were more expensive to produce.Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. All reviews/comparisons of Geforce 2 and 3 cards have the Geforce 3 well out-performing the Geforce 2 cards. Check out the results of these Elsa cards: Elsa Geforce Comparison Also, besides just plain better performance, the Geforce 3 cards have the nFiniteFX technology which allows allows programers to create an infinite number of custom effects. In other words, some really cool 3D ****. Read here for more on the nFiniteFX Engine. None of the speed critical features you mention are used by CM. I was only giving recommandations for cost-effective CM solutions, and a irrationally discounted lower clockspeed card with much memory is exactly that. True, but one shouldn't buy a video card so that his current games run OK, he should buy the card because his future games will run smooth and in high resolution. Planning for the future is the most important thing when choosing a video card. Considering I bought(online) my GeForce 3 ti200 at $120 several months ago, the price has probably dropped a few more dollars. It is more than affordable and still an excellent card for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 7, 2002 Share Posted July 7, 2002 Originally posted by Pak40: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: [qb] The Geforce 3 is a re-labeled Geforce 2 re-engineered for cheaper manufracturing. As of now in the Best Buy near me, there is no Geforce 3 offering which has a better price/performance ratio than a Geforce 2 model, because the 2's prices have been dropped although they were more expensive to produce.Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. All reviews/comparisons of Geforce 2 and 3 cards have the Geforce 3 well out-performing the Geforce 2 cards. Check out the results of these Elsa cards: Elsa Geforce Comparison </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted July 7, 2002 Share Posted July 7, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: In case my previous post didn't mak it clear: For CMBO you don't need the speed as on Quake or 3Dlab benchmarks. You want plenty of fast memory, but not neccessarily high clock speed. The Geforce 3 is a ripoff, as is the Geforce 4 MX.The Geforce 3 is a good video card, the Gforce 4 mx is not my cup of tea. The Geforce 4 ti 4200 is great for most bang for your buck, and the ti 4400 and 4600 are the best around. There are more to video cards then high clock speeds Redwolf. Pixel Shaders and what not to name one of the many nice options offered the on the new video cards. I myself have a GeForce 4 ti 4400, the leadtek one. Though not many games take advantage of all it's features, and yes it is fast, i scored a little over 9000 in 3dmark 2001, the card does make every other game title i've played look better. I do not think it is necessary for anyone to have cutting edge technology to play CMBO, but it does'nt hurt either. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts