Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphic & Displays > Graphics Cards > which is better
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
fleakiller   01-03-2008 at 06:23:38 AM

I have a fx5600 and a ti400 which is better, i am holding on for a few months to upgrade to a new quad system. i have a msi 645 ultra mb,norwood p4 2ghz 100fsb what do you think??????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compa [...] e_4_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compa [...] _FX_series
thanks

------------------------------ 8088 @ 2 mhz
Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
Gravemind123   01-03-2008 at 08:34:33 AM
- 0 +

I'd say you can't really game on either, but a ti 4*00 could probably outperform and FX5600, because of how poor the FX series was. The FX series when running a vertex shader also loses hardware units of other types, making it have less hardware units and thus a lower fillrate then a TI 4*00 would. The advantage is that an FX5600 is DirectX 9 compliant, but even so, it isn't good for gaming.

Reply to Gravemind123
fleakiller   01-03-2008 at 09:17:52 AM
- 0 +

gravemind thanks for the onfo i did switch the cards and the fx had better graphices but way slower than the ti

Reply to fleakiller
kpo6969   01-03-2008 at 10:31:31 AM
- 0 +

http://www.gpureview.com/show_card [...] &card2=147

------------------------------ P35-DS3L Rev 2 bios F9C l E8400 @ 3.6Ghz @ 1.232v l OCZ Vendetta 2 /LGA775 Bolt-Thru l 4GB G.Skill 8800PI@1000mhz 4:5 @ 1.87v l WD3200AAKS 320GB l Evga 8800GTS 512 l X-Fi Xtreme Music l Corsair HX520 l Antec Sonata III 500 l Vista32 SP2 l Win7 X64 7600
 Reply to kpo6969
happy_fanboy   01-03-2008 at 10:45:42 AM
- 0 +

Id recommend the FX because there are games that do not support the Geforce 4 series.

Reply to happy_fanboy
JJBlanche   01-03-2008 at 12:33:22 PM
- 0 +

Ehh...we're talking ancient history. I had a 4800 by Albatron (are they even in business anymore?), which was actually a pretty sweet card for the time...must have been five or six years ago now that I bought that. By my recollection, it was just able to squeak by with Doom 3 (everything to low, 800x600).

In any case, cards in that performance bracket might get you playable frame rates on games that are 3-4 years old (ie: doom 3/half life 2 era). I would say now is more the time to upgrade, if you can swing it. I passed my Ti on in early '04, and the new owner got rid of it two years later. All things considered, it really gave a lot of use for the dollar, but the age of Ti/FX is long gone.

------------------------------ "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
 Reply to JJBlanche
fleakiller   01-03-2008 at 04:10:53 PM
- 0 +

Yea i know i built this system in 2001 and just trying to hold on a few months more :( i still can play cod2 with not to much chop

Reply to fleakiller
JJBlanche   01-03-2008 at 07:50:50 PM
- 0 +

I guess the golden rule is, if you're still having fun, then stick with it.

------------------------------ "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
 Reply to JJBlanche
einheriar   01-04-2008 at 02:14:36 PM
- 0 +

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/1 [...] page5.html

check here for a comparison in fps in several relevant games from the time

Reply to einheriar
JJBlanche   01-04-2008 at 02:37:07 PM
- 0 +

Man, reading those benchmarks, and the doom3 article that was attached to it, gave me some nostalgia. I remember when the 6800 Ultra was the card to have.

Doom 3 was, without a doubt, the game I looked forward to the most, and had the highest expectations for. Although it was a great game for what it was, and really introduced us into the current graphical era, it was a letdown in many ways for me. It didn't at all capture the "feeling" of the original.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, lol. I just never vented my Doom 3 letdown, and we all know it's not good to keep those things bottled up.

------------------------------ "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
 Reply to JJBlanche
JJBlanche   01-04-2008 at 02:38:36 PM
- 0 +

By the way...do any of you remember a Ti 4800? I remember I was about two clicks away from ordering a 4600, and went with a 4800 because I got news of the release. Apparently it performed better than the 4600 (probably just higher clocks), but I don't remember much about it. Good card, though, for its time.

------------------------------ "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
 Reply to JJBlanche
Angrykirill   01-04-2008 at 03:03:36 PM
- 0 +

4200ti AGP 128mb - played DOOM3 at medium quality 1024*768 with no lag; same for HL2, San Andreas, Silent Hunter 3.. would take it over an FX anyday.

Reply to Angrykirill
rolli59   01-04-2008 at 03:11:13 PM
- 0 +

FX5900XT was the value card to have when it came out for playing dx9 games

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to rolli59
Cleeve   01-04-2008 at 05:24:43 PM
- 0 +

rolli59 wrote :

FX5900XT was the value card to have when it came out for playing dx9 games



If memory serves, the 9600 XT was cheaper and did better in Dx9 titles. The 5900XT was better in Dx8 stuff tho, but had terrible Dx9 shader power.

------------------------------ Cleeve
Hardware Editor, Tom's Hardware Guide
 Reply to Cleeve
rolli59   01-04-2008 at 07:36:44 PM
- 0 +

Cleeve when I bought my 5900XT it was because of the first game that required dx9 and had no backwards support, the second Splinter Cell game, it was about a month before the launch of the 6 series there was very little price difference between the 5900XT 9600XT and 5700Ultra less than 5% at that point the 5900XT was a great buy. I did not replace it until I needed sm3, Splinter Cell again!

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to rolli59
rallyimprezive   01-04-2008 at 08:20:17 PM
- 0 +

I had a Ti 4800. Loved it. Expensive though.

It finally melted.

Reply to rallyimprezive
speedbird   01-04-2008 at 08:26:17 PM
- 0 +

I remember the Geforce 5900XT card that I was using with my last system. Not a terrible card, managed doom 3 on low settings.
Going back even further...I remember when I was using a Geforce 2 MX-400, good value in it's day.


Message edited by speedbird on 01-04-2008 at 08:28:13 PM
Reply to speedbird
Cleeve   01-04-2008 at 09:14:30 PM
- 0 +

rolli59 wrote :

...there was very little price difference between the 5900XT 9600XT and 5700Ultra less than 5% at that point the 5900XT was a great buy.



Not saying it was a bad buy, I'm sure it served you well.

All I'm saying is that the 9600 XT had far more powerful shaders, in advanced Dx9 stuff the 5900 XT would often be bested by it - by a decent margin.

------------------------------ Cleeve
Hardware Editor, Tom's Hardware Guide
 Reply to Cleeve
fleakiller   01-06-2008 at 10:52:22 AM
- 0 +

LOL, ok so there are a few out there that rembers old things whitch is good sence i am how bout 8088@4mhz in turbo and larry 1 :)
P.S. thanks for the help the funny thing was nivida said the fx was better ?? think about that some!

Reply to fleakiller
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphic & Displays > Graphics Cards > which is better
Go to:

There are 1317 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.353 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?