GeForce4 Ti 4200 Upgrade Question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66 GHz.
I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream. Along comes
Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to upgrade. Along with
possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get a better video card. The
question is, will I notice a significant difference going from the Ti 4200
to an nVidia FX 5900 series with 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I
be looking at 256 MB cards.

Thanks for all info,
Aphelion

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Aphelion" <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RnKcc.4009$M3.2231@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66 GHz.
> I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream. Along
comes
> Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to upgrade. Along
with
> possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get a better video card. The
> question is, will I notice a significant difference going from the Ti 4200
> to an nVidia FX 5900 series with 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I
> be looking at 256 MB cards.

The ti4200 is a nice card, but you will be very happy with the FX5900...
shop around but for the most part, unless you are very much in the AA and
the like, a 128MB card is a better deal.

Tim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Like you, I needed to leave my Ti4200 behind so I could play Far Cry (and
Doom 3 whenever it gets here), so I went with a FX5700 w/ 256MB to fit my
budget. Far Cry ran fine (but not great) and looked outstanding. No regrets
here.

"Aphelion" <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RnKcc.4009$M3.2231@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66 GHz.
> I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream. Along
comes
> Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to upgrade. Along
with
> possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get a better video card. The
> question is, will I notice a significant difference going from the Ti 4200
> to an nVidia FX 5900 series with 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I
> be looking at 256 MB cards.
>
> Thanks for all info,
> Aphelion
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I'm running Far Cry at 1024x768 with all the settings on high (with no
anti-aliasing), and it blats along at high fps, with my Ti4200/Athlon
2500+/1gb RAM.

I have overclocked my Ti a little though.

What 'substandard video issues' are you finding?

"Aphelion" <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RnKcc.4009$M3.2231@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66 GHz.
> I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream. Along
comes
> Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to upgrade. Along
with
> possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get a better video card. The
> question is, will I notice a significant difference going from the Ti 4200
> to an nVidia FX 5900 series with 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I
> be looking at 256 MB cards.
>
> Thanks for all info,
> Aphelion
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Aphelion <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66
> GHz. I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream.
> Along comes Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to
> upgrade. Along with possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get
> a better video card. The question is, will I notice a significant
> difference going from the Ti 4200 to an nVidia FX 5900 series with
> 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I be looking at 256 MB cards.

With Far Cry on my Ti4200-4x/1GB RAM/XP2400 I found the 42.xx series drivers
I was using in W2K caused severe texture problems, with grey lines
everywhere and running at about 5fps. The 53.03 drivers cured this, but at
game settings other than Low caused many objects to appear over-bright, some
to the point of blindingly white. Last week I installed the 56.72 drivers,
and can now happily run at Medium (with AA enabled), or High (without AA)
settings as well without any graphical problems I can see. The graphical
difference between Low and Medium makes it well worth trying a driver change
before shelling out money on a new graphics card. The Ti4200 is still a damn
good card. Save your money until you really have to upgrade.

Dan

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Playing Far Cry on a GF4 Ti4400.
All settings on medium.I'm using the 53.03 drivers.
Not sure what graphical effects i'm missing out on but it still looks good
on medium and is very playable.
Cheers,
Dave

"Daniel Crichton" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4073c9c1$0$23304$afc38c87@news.easynet.co.uk...
> Aphelion <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66
> > GHz. I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream.
> > Along comes Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to
> > upgrade. Along with possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get
> > a better video card. The question is, will I notice a significant
> > difference going from the Ti 4200 to an nVidia FX 5900 series with
> > 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I be looking at 256 MB cards.
>
> With Far Cry on my Ti4200-4x/1GB RAM/XP2400 I found the 42.xx series
drivers
> I was using in W2K caused severe texture problems, with grey lines
> everywhere and running at about 5fps. The 53.03 drivers cured this, but at
> game settings other than Low caused many objects to appear over-bright,
some
> to the point of blindingly white. Last week I installed the 56.72 drivers,
> and can now happily run at Medium (with AA enabled), or High (without AA)
> settings as well without any graphical problems I can see. The graphical
> difference between Low and Medium makes it well worth trying a driver
change
> before shelling out money on a new graphics card. The Ti4200 is still a
damn
> good card. Save your money until you really have to upgrade.
>
> Dan
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> What 'substandard video issues' are you finding?

I can only get a good frame rate at 800x600. If I use 1024x768, I have to
knock everything down to low settings for it to be playable. Will upgrading
from 768 to 1512 RAM resolve this a little, or is it more of a graphics card
issue (most likely).

Aphelion

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Dave <baddsxyz@xyzbtinternet.com> wrote:
> Playing Far Cry on a GF4 Ti4400.
> All settings on medium.I'm using the 53.03 drivers.
> Not sure what graphical effects i'm missing out on but it still looks
> good on medium and is very playable.

Right at the start of the game, after training, this is what I had with the
53.03 drivers on Medium: http://www.spacker.dsl.pipex.com/FarCry.jpg and
with them on Low it looked much better:
http://www.spacker.dsl.pipex.com/FarCry2.jpg (although the water difference
is obvious).

With 56.72 this a Medium with AA level 1 screenshot -
http://www.spacker.dsl.pipex.com/FarCry0004.jpg

With 53.03 all over the place there were objects that were really bright.
Jetties next to the water, for instance, were blindingly bright white. There
are posts on the UBISoft FC forum from a number of people who have bright
texture problems. In the pic http://www.spacker.dsl.pipex.com/FarCry0004.jpg
the wooden jetty just to the right of the centre of the screen was bright
white, as was the building at the top left corner. I don't have a screenshot
though

In case anyone else is interested, this is what the 42.70 drivers in the FC
Demo did: http://www.spacker.dsl.pipex.com/FarCry0000.jpg :\

And the 53.03 drivers on Medium in the Demo:
http://www.spacker.dsl.pipex.com/FarCry0001.jpg

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Aphelion" <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:S4Scc.4441$e17.1589@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > What 'substandard video issues' are you finding?
>
> I can only get a good frame rate at 800x600. If I use 1024x768, I have to
> knock everything down to low settings for it to be playable. Will
upgrading
> from 768 to 1512 RAM resolve this a little, or is it more of a graphics
card
> issue (most likely).
>
> Aphelion
>

Seeing as I'm running a Ti4200 128mb too (LeadTek) and mine is running fine,
and our systems aren't that different either, I can't see that your gfx card
is slowing you down....the Ti4200 still a great card. Yes, mine is
overclocked a little (280/545) but not a huge amount.

Anti-aliasing is the killer, so make sure that is off in Far Cry. I'm
running 1gb of RAM and I can't imagine that the extra 256mb i've got over
you is a huge benefit. I'm running the latest XP drivers from NVidia.com.

I've got fps figures up in the 40's & 50's most of the time at 1024 on high
settings - no graphical glitches, just great looking scenery like i've seen
in all the press pictures.

What's your 3dmark2001 score? I'm up at around 11,000.

Bottom line is that it still seems like a config problem to me....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Daniel Crichton" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4073c9c1$0$23304$afc38c87@news.easynet.co.uk...
> Aphelion <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66
> > GHz. I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream.
> > Along comes Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to
> > upgrade. Along with possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get
> > a better video card. The question is, will I notice a significant
> > difference going from the Ti 4200 to an nVidia FX 5900 series with
> > 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I be looking at 256 MB cards.
>
> With Far Cry on my Ti4200-4x/1GB RAM/XP2400 I found the 42.xx series
drivers
> I was using in W2K caused severe texture problems, with grey lines
> everywhere and running at about 5fps. The 53.03 drivers cured this, but at
> game settings other than Low caused many objects to appear over-bright,
some
> to the point of blindingly white. Last week I installed the 56.72 drivers,
> and can now happily run at Medium (with AA enabled), or High (without AA)
> settings as well without any graphical problems I can see. The graphical
> difference between Low and Medium makes it well worth trying a driver
change
> before shelling out money on a new graphics card. The Ti4200 is still a
damn
> good card. Save your money until you really have to upgrade.
>
> Dan
>
>

My own system is very similar and I have found almost identical performance
results....AA kills the frame rate, but without it, I can run at 1024 on
high with no problems, even very high at a push.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <RnKcc.4009$M3.2231@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
sonship@twcny.rr.com says...
> Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66 GHz.
> I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream. Along comes
> Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to upgrade. Along with
> possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get a better video card. The
> question is, will I notice a significant difference going from the Ti 4200
> to an nVidia FX 5900 series with 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I
> be looking at 256 MB cards.
>
If your Ti4200 is a 64MB card an upgrade is probably a good idea. Plus
the FX5900 supports DX9 hardware features which Far Cry can use. I just
did a similar upgrade and am very happy with the results in UT2004.

The FX5900XT is the smart buy right now, same as the Ti4200 was for the
GF4. Almost identical game performance to the standard FX5900, but
cheaper.

Both the MSI and Leadtek FX5900XT cards are very nice. Cool running,
quiet fans and excellent performance with the 56.72 drivers.

Since you say that "I want to get a better video card", go for it. With
your system it will probably make a much bigger difference than more
memory.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> Since you say that "I want to get a better video card", go for it. With
> your system it will probably make a much bigger difference than more
> memory.

But will going from the Ti 4200 128mb to a FX 5900 128mb produce a
significant difference? Or should I just save the pennies for a 5050 256mb.

Thanks,
Aphelion

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> But will going from the Ti 4200 128mb to a FX 5900 128mb produce a
> significant difference? Or should I just save the pennies for a 5050
256mb.

Oops, I meant FX 5950 256 mb.


Aphelion

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <XN%cc.8252$M3.6009@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
sonship@twcny.rr.com says...
> > But will going from the Ti 4200 128mb to a FX 5900 128mb produce a
> > significant difference? Or should I just save the pennies for a 5050
> 256mb.
>
> Oops, I meant FX 5950 256 mb.
>
>
Yes, it will produce a significant difference. The FX5900 GPU is a
considerably faster, more capable part than the GPU used in the Ti4200.

However, since new graphics cards will soon be announced from both ATI
and Nvidia you might want to wait a while, and save some additional
pennies for that upgrade.

For the price of an FX5950 256MB card one of the upcoming cards *might*
provide considerably more performance for the same money.

 

[NaDa]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Aphelion" <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > Since you say that "I want to get a better video card", go for it. With
> > your system it will probably make a much bigger difference than more
> > memory.
>
> But will going from the Ti 4200 128mb to a FX 5900 128mb produce a
> significant difference? Or should I just save the pennies for a 5050 256mb.
>
> Thanks,
> Aphelion

I can't speak for wgd, but my Leadtek 5900XT has brought much more
extra to the absolute low minimum frame-rates. Where with Titanium
4200 64Mb would give me 13 fps at minimum, the FX gives me 20fps which
is, belive it or not, a very noticeable difference. And the average
frame-rates are more stable with heavy duty games like "Halo". I was
just playing "Colin McRae 4" and it was a very solid and pretty gaming
experience behind the wheel. The dust and smoke effects looked really
good. Even though "Deus Ex 2" is as demanding to your rig as the
crazy sergeant Hartman from "Full Metal Jacket", it'll be much more
smoother and enjoyable with 5900XT than with your old Titanium 4200.
We have a lot of games out with dx8.1 effects that don't always be as
smooth with even the faithful dx8.0 cards like GeForce 3 and 4. To
save for a 256Mb card is a waste of time and money, unless the 128Mb
models and 256Mb models with same specs are within the same price
range.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>
>For the price of an FX5950 256MB card one of the upcoming cards *might*
>provide considerably more performance for the same money.

He would be waiting a while. They usually come out with their most expensive
cards. Then it takes a while before they issue budget cards in the new line.
If he does wait, he should wait because the price of the 5950 will drop when
the new cards come out. Then he could get the 5950 for even less then it is
now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> I can't speak for wgd, but my Leadtek 5900XT has brought much more
> extra to the absolute low minimum frame-rates. Where with Titanium
> 4200 64Mb would give me 13 fps at minimum, the FX gives me 20fps which...

How can I see my frame rate while playing a game?

Thanks,
Aphelion

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Aphelion <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> I can't speak for wgd, but my Leadtek 5900XT has brought much more
>> extra to the absolute low minimum frame-rates. Where with Titanium
>> 4200 64Mb would give me 13 fps at minimum, the FX gives me 20fps
>> which...
>
> How can I see my frame rate while playing a game?

In Far Cry press the key to bring the console down ( ` , next to 1), and
then type \r_displayinfo 1 . To turn off the info again type \r_displayinfo
0

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Aphelion" <sonship@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RnKcc.4009$M3.2231@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Hi, I have a GeForce Ti 4200 with AGP8X in my Medion Pentium 4 2.66 GHz.
> I've got 768 MB of RAM, and so far it's suited me like a dream. Along
comes
> Far Cry, and I've got substandard video issues, time to upgrade. Along
with
> possibly bumping the RAM to 1512, I want to get a better video card. The
> question is, will I notice a significant difference going from the Ti 4200
> to an nVidia FX 5900 series with 128 MB. Is it even worth it, or should I
> be looking at 256 MB cards.
>
> Thanks for all info,
> Aphelion
>

I upgraded from MSI 128MB Ti4800SE, to an ATi 128MB 9800Pro and can turn up
everything to full on Far Cry on my 2GHz Barton Athlon.

The fan is quieter than the MSI, and quieter than an FX5900. It's also
faster than an FX5900 and the same price in the UK. £135. (My friend bought
the same 9800Pro on special offer two days later for £124!)