Is the Ti4200 AGP 4x better than the FX5200 AGP 8x?

[legacy-hughbackov]

Re: Is the Ti4200 AGP 4x better than the FX5200 AGP 8x?

Originally posted by Vive_le_Quebec
Me wondering. I found a Ti4200 on sale but it's only AGP 4x. I know I'll hear a lot of "get something better", but I'm on an extremely tight budget.

If the FX5200 is the "ultra" version of the card with much faster core and memory, then it is a better card because the speed is about the same and it supports Pixel Shader 2.0 whereas the TI4200 does not. If the FX5200 card in question is the standard clock version, then get the TI4200. However, depending on the price of the two cards, I would probably skip both and get the least expensive ATI 9600 or 9800 or Nvidia 5700 or 6200 I could find since those cards are all faster at running Pixel Shader 2.0 games.

[legacy-Panama Jack]

Originally posted by Scottishsniper
The FX5200 up to the 5700 are basically stock budget GF440, 460 and 480s just repackaged on a slightly larger board with more cooling and faster RAM..

I would agree with you on most of that except for the FX 5700. There are two distinct versions of the 5700. You have the standard FX 5700 and the FX 5700LE. The LE version is basically total garbage. It is the scaled down MX version (actually more of an insult to most MX versions of NVidia cards) made mainly for OEM manufacturers who want a dirt cheap card with alot of the newer graphic effects/features. If you have a choice between a 128 meg AGP 8x Ti4200 and a 128 meg AGP 8x FX5700LE you should buy the Ti4200.

But if the non LE version of the FX5700 is on the table buy the FX5700 instead because it out performs the Ti4200 by a considerable margine with more features and better graphic quality.

I replaced my 128 meg GF TI4200 card with a 256 meg GF FX 5700 card about 6-7 months ago and it made my TI4200 card look pale and pathetic when it came to speed and video quality. There are alot of things the TI4200 can't do or is very, very slow at doing compared to an FX5700.

[legacy-element*381]

The FX series was still just a flop.. I'm not saying they're all bad but nVIDIA got KILLED by ATi lineup-to-lineup and none of the FX cards, not even the 5950 Ultra, really shine even to this day.

I mean, at least with the Ti you get some sort of landmark benefit of the FX5200. Ti's were the top cards to have back in the day. FX5200s or any of the FXs were never really that remarkable.

Perhaps it was because nVIDIA didn't know how to play the pixel pipeline game back then right.

Either way you're not really going to be able to expect great performance with games further down the road.

Socket 754 still has a lot of value. The Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego Mobile is coming to the platform soon enough, and no Athlon XP can even COMPARE to a good Athlon 64.

Socket 754 is infinitely better than Socket A in every way imaginable except maybe price. Even if price is a factor, buy a cheap Sempron and overclock it and you'll still KILL many AXP's or Socket A Semprons. Either way, its longevity is still justifiable for buying it.

[legacy-Scottishsniper]

I build systems for gamers and so far everyone has basically asked me the same question. Which is the better card.... well , as both a gamer and a builder the GF4200VTDi Twin is one of the most stable and fastest cards I have come across. Especially on UT2004 and on TW2004 (This is from my own experience.)

My own card is a rare beastie, the MSI GF4200VTDi Twin with 256DDR onboard running on a MSI 64b board with the AMD XP3800/64b CPU and 1Gb of DDR400 and it is the sweetest card I have run in years. I have trialled most of the FX series and ATI Raedons as due course on most games and still want to go back to the 4200 ( but maybe that is just me.)

The FX5200 up to the 5700 are basically stock budget GF440, 460 and 480s just repackaged on a slightly larger board with more cooling and faster RAM..(Supposedly there have been questions asked about it before) the 59xxUs and 68xxUs are the performance cards. Just depends on how much resources you want to throw at it to perform plus how good the Mobo is that you are putting it on.

Remember, the card is only as good as the rest of the equipment it has to work with. First I would check to see which card works with what you have and if possible try them out for your self. Then you can decide which one works better WITH YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT not what works with everyone elses. We all have different systems, so just bear that in mind.

[legacy-alBchu]

cooperative-blogging at it's finest.

it's a bad time to buy hardware - nothing is powerful enough for next-gen games (or even for top end-current generation games

[legacy-Vive_le_Quebec]

You know that guy who said that I should be taken behind the shed and shot? Well, maybe he's right. Because I just went through the entire friggin list of things I wanted to buy, checked it all in my "shopping cart" then froze before clicking on "submit order". I just can't do it. First, all the DVD-/+RW reviews on cdrinfo.com say that most drives don't copy protected discs. And the price for what I was ordering was kind of nuts. It was $544 Canadian for all the parts (that doesn't include a video card). (OK, that includes the shipping and tax. And it does not include the rebates. Those were like $75.)

So, now that I have ordered a video card, I'll probably going to give it to my father because I'm just not going to bother building a system. I have to wait several months before seeing what I can do. I wanted to move so...:bulb:

[legacy-Vive_le_Quebec]

Originally posted by NiTrOcALyPsE
Apparently I came across a pretty decent card a few years ago (GF4 Ti4200). This thread makes me happy.

Now if only I had a faster CPU than this AMD Athlon 1900+ :sour:

Well, if you have a socket A motherboard, I read 3000+ is the limit. That kind of sucks doesn't it? I was thinking of saving money by buying a socket A with a Duron 1.8 GHz. Then I could replace it in a year with a socket 939 (with PCI-E) and a new CPU. The socket 939 right now with the CPUs are just way too expensive for me to bother with for now. The socket 754 are still upgradable and cheaper than the socket 939. If I buy a socket A with Duron 1.8 GHz only to replace it in several months with a socket 754 then I will have lost money buying the socket A for nothing. On the other hand, even if I buy a socket 754, by the time UT2006 comes out, it will be **** anyway. So, the way I look at it, I might just save a lot of money by buying a socket A and Duron 1.8 GHz and just replace it in a couple of years with something that will rip.

Whatever, it's way too complicated. Just like that comment that all the Tis are big. Gee, what am I going to do if I get a microATX motherboard? Is it going to fit on it? :bulb:

So, at the very least, I may as well get a case that can also accomodate a full size ATX motherboard. Why? Because by the time UT2006 comes out, a lot of motherboards then might have two processors. So, I'll have to replace the motherboard and CPU anyway. Cripes. Are you confused yet?

\EDIT: I think I misread about the two processors. But I think if I want to switch to a PCI-E card and a faster processor later on, that will mean a new mobo anyway. So, I guess this confirms I'll go the cheaper route.

[legacy-NiTrOcALyPsE]

Apparently I came across a pretty decent card a few years ago (GF4 Ti4200). This thread makes me happy.

Now if only I had a faster CPU than this AMD Athlon 1900+ :sour:

[legacy-element*381]

TI's are beasts in more ways than one.. those things are HUGE. IIRC they're larger than most single-slot video cards out currently, even the 6800 GT is smaller.

[legacy-Vive_le_Quebec]

Originally posted by SimonTheSaint
Hi,

Look there so maybe you can make a better choice.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...charts-05.html

Take care about "special" stuff. I'm surprised you can find this old card again. Maybe look more recent. Not all are expensive.

And if it's a card of your friend well ask him to give you or not buy it.

When I saw "while supplies last" I panicked and ordered the card. That was despite the fact I wanted to pay the absolute minimum for a new system I want to build myself (for the first time). (I'll pay extra because of the shipping.) I got a confirmation email saying my order was received. The package has arleady been scanned three times by UPS.

Well, I have time now to study more about about building a computer etc. I know one thing. Whatever happens, I want an Asus motherboard. The only other thing that concerns me is getting fans that are reliable and QUIET!

[legacy-SimonTheSaint]

Hi,

Look there so maybe you can make a better choice.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...charts-05.html

Take care about "special" stuff. I'm surprised you can find this old card again. Maybe look more recent. Not all are expensive.

And if it's a card of your friend well ask him to give you or not buy it.

[nighty]

On the VGA chart link I posted from TH, the Ti4200 trounced even the 5600 Ultra in UT2004. The Ti series is a killer value card these days for DX8 titles.

[legacy-ch41nbr8kr]

The TI perfoems better than the FX5200 in most situations, but the real life performance will depend on your entire rig, not just the VC.

[legacy-Vive_le_Quebec]

Originally posted by Mego_splat
I have a 2 year old ti4200.. i also recently bought an asylum FX5500oc for my new rig... boy was i in for a nasty surprise

the old system is an xp1700 @ 1.4 ghz, 512 ddr, with the ti4200.

new system is 64 bit xp3500 clocked to 3800 speeds, 1 gig 2700ddr , fx5500 and audigy2 zs.

the old pc gets slightly better scores in aquamark.. with the biggest difference being "video" :cry:

6600gt coming soon to a pc near me

WOW! That’s great news! Thank you very much for that! Now I know I can build a cheap system that will still be acceptable. I was thinking about building almost exactly that. I wanted to put together a Duron 1.8 GHz and 512 MB RAM with the GeForce Ti4200.

Originally posted by Hitman-Vinnie
Le Ti4200 est bien mieux que n'importe quelle carte de FX sur le marché. Veuillez lire le lien ci-dessus pour plus d'information.

LOL, I’m not in Quebec yet.

Eh, je ne vois pas de lien. :bulb:

[legacy-peterbi]

Originally posted by ^vs^Bazza
i must of had either a slow Ti4200 or a special 5200 because for me the 5200 is better

I used to use a GeForce Ti4200 64mb card but it died on me so i got a FX5200 Ultra 256mb and although its hardly a good card it is running better than my Ti ever did. . . guess im an exception though

He is comparing the ti4200 to the regular fx5200, not the "5200 ultra". The "fx5200 ultra" has MUCH faster RAM and core speed.
Also, my ti4400 got better UT2004 benchmark by like 2fps than my 5900xt at maxed UT settings, but the new cards shine when you notice how much faster they are then the old TI when enabling features like AA and AF. Also, the new cards support pixel shader 2.0 - so they enable you to enable graphical features in new games that older TI card wont show at all. The new 'Settlers/Heritage of kings' game has like 5 graphic settings that are locked or off unless you have a newer generation video card. hence I am shopping around for a new card for some friends that are still on ti4200s