R8500 vs. GF4 Ti4200 in 3D Mark 2003

[Spitfire_x86]

Which one is faster in new 3D Mark 2003?

Edit: Don't forget to tell the difference between them

<b> "You can put lipstick on a pig, but hey, it's still a pig!" - RobD </b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Spitfire_x86 on 02/17/03 03:17 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[davepermen]

i bet for the 8500, because the gf4 has older hw, and espencially it lacks modern pixelshaders. the fallback it has to do leads to 3x as much passes, so even if it would be 3x as fast, it would only be equal in the test.

8500 has pixelshader1.4, gf4 hasn't. thats major technology difference (there are other things..)

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com

 

[phial]

yeah ATI made one hell of a card when they made the R8500

its still amazingly fast.

one question tho. does the GF4 have 2 or 4 vertex shader pipes? i know the 8500 has 2... GF3 only had 1, same as R9000pro

 

[flamethrower205]

The Ti4200. Let's look at it this way:
My system: 1.2Ghz T-Bird, AD11 Mobo, 512DDR, XP Pro, Quadro DCC (so it's a GF3 basically except more optimized for ogl- I can maybe tweak it to gf3 for a little bit to see how it does)- 1125 3d marks (I can prolly up it a lil more by killing some of my background apps)
Another user's system: XP 2600, R8500 (64 MB), 512 MB PC 2700- 1134.
Now a Ti4200 is faster than a GF3, so it'll beat it, and note that user's system's proc is over 2x faster than mine!

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti

 

[phial]

yes i forgot to mention dispite my praising of the 8500, that the TI4200 is still faster.

quite substantially faster as a matter of fact. it may not support the newer pixel shaders, but it does have alot more horsepower

 

[flamethrower205]

We must also have a lot of respect for the GF3! One hell of a card too, and imo faster than 8500 (ok, no starty flame war, this has been debated since the beginning of time- just saying how I feel, if anyone brings it up i'll call evil hammie on ya!). I wuv the gf3, and it can oc real well too.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti

 

[phial]

BAH!!!!!

can i say it pweez? the gf3.. aint....fast...er...th...an.... a....8500.....*mffffprttpprrtttt*covers mouth*

phew, almost let it slip there =D

 

[davepermen]

>>We must also have a lot of respect for the GF3! One hell of a card too, and imo faster than 8500 (ok, no starty flame war, this has been debated since the beginning of time- just saying how I feel, if anyone brings it up i'll call evil hammie on ya!). I wuv the gf3, and it can oc real well too.<<

and what a hell of proprietary, useless hw features, too..

yes its fast, but no, its not good. tons of useless stuff on it. you just one time run a ps1.4 demo from ati (where you can compare all ps versions) and you know what i'm talking about that stuff just looks so much bether

fast is not everything. good is what you want i'll check if the gf4 is really faster.. not sure about this.. but the gf3 is slower for sure.. in 3dmark, that is.. for the rest, yes the card is faster.. but making crap faster doesn't make it bether

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Here's the flame war....starting!

<b> "You can put lipstick on a pig, but hey, it's still a pig!" - RobD </b>

 

[RobD]

AGAIN?!?

 

[flamethrower205]

You know what, I'm not even going to respond to that dumb fvck. It's absolutely useless, he's biased out of his mind.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti

 

[dhlucke]

You're biased out of your mind as well so you two are perfect together.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

 

[flamethrower205]

Nope, I actually reccomended a few r9700's to a few guys here. Now if the drivers screw over though, that's it w/ Ati, so pray.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti

 

[dhlucke]

You're a fanboy. Somebody's gotta stick up for Nvidia not matter what though. It sure isn't going to be me...

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

 

[jankphil]

ok, let's try to stomp this in the ground right now

i searched the ORB on Futurmark and got these results

ATI Radeon 8500/9100 ran around 1487-1147

GeForce 3 (orignal) ran 1247-906

GeForce 3 ti200 ran 1201-438 (not a lot of them though)

GeForce 3 ti500 ran 1548-1129 (not a lot of them too)

GeForce 4 ti4200 ran 2210-1603

GeForce 4 ti4400 ran 2004-1655 (kinda strange but eh~

GeForce 4 ti4600 ran 2183-1837

All these ORB results had processers between 2400~2500mhz using Win XP. Now it's obvious the GeForce 4's ran faster, you can run the ORB tests yourself, you'll get the same type of results. The only point i'd like to make is the Radeon 9100 isn't really trying to go against the GF4 4200 in the market. The ATI Radeon 9100 (priced at newegg for 73-89 bucks) is priced against the MX versions of the GeForce, if you want a test, you should try matching prices, the gf 4200 prices about 120~160USD, which is in the range of the ATI 9500 card. The only problem with searching for the 9500 on the ORB is it's mixed into the lot with 9700's and 9700 pro's, so i left that out of the Comparison, although price wise, i'd bet the ATi card does outdo the older GeForce 4 ti4200.

"What kind of idiot are you?"
"I don't know, what kinds are there?"

 

[eden]

These tests are just not trustable.
Look at the Ti4600 results, as well as the Ti4400. Last I checked also, the scores were not this high.


--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[eden]

Just because you're no longer the smarter one around, doesn't mean you should go look at Dave as some biased person.
He's informative, and many times hassled himself to write long posts detailing the case.
I am not a programmer to confirm his statements but I do believe him. The R8500 has 2 Vertex shaders, and supports PS 1.4, so suddenly saying it's superior to the GF4 technology, is biased info?

You're really sticking up too much to nVidia to get any respect and be heard.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[jankphil]

i'm not saying that the tests are wrong or justifiable, i'm just using the newest version of 3dmark out, which is 03, and i'm not saying i know everything, i'm just pulling numbers off the ORB on the web site, go check yourself, i'm not lying, and as far as the 8500, i believe it's par with the GeForce 4 series, i'm just saying if your going to put the 8500 vs something, put it up against the same price range, which would be the GeForce 4 MX series.

"What kind of idiot are you?"
"I don't know, what kinds are there?"

 

[dhlucke]

Why is the 4200 the card with the highest results?

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

 

[jankphil]

Score: 2210 OC3D - Kato

Date: 2003-2-16
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 2416 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200
330.0 MHz / 729.0 MHz

---------------------------------------------------------

Score: 2183 Moe Lester *Extremeoverclocking.com 3DMark Team*

Date: 2003-2-15
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 2416 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
330.0 MHz / 729.0 MHz

almost looks like the same system, but i'm just taking this stuff straight out of the web page, it might be a driver difference (i'm told the other drivers didn't show effects and gave a higher score) but but unfortunately, it didn't show the driver version on ORB. BTW, their different e-mails so i don't think it's the same guy.

"What kind of idiot are you?"
"I don't know, what kinds are there?"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jankphil on 02/18/03 07:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[dhlucke]

That strikes me as very wrong. I'm worried that Nvidia has some issues with tweaking their drivers for better scores without an increase in performance.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

 

[LtBlue14]

which is why such benchmarks need to be eliminated, so that companies no longer tweak for benchmarks but for popular games

--------------

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">mubla otohp eht ni ecaf ruoy teg</A>

 

[eden]

Is it me or are these cards insanely overclocked?

720MHZ is definitly not a geForce4 Ti4200 memory speed, nor is 330MHZ core clock.

Sorry if I sounded I blamed you. I do agree on price comparisons, I just found that the scores were too high for their normality, and it proves I was right now, as seen from these OCed GF4s.

Could you check more for the stock clocked Ti4200s, vs stock clocked R8500?

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[flamethrower205]

No, I'm pissed b/c he's saying the GF3 is garbage. It's not. "Just because you're no longer the smarter one around" what does that phrase mean anyway?

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti

 

[cjmurph]

I think we all just need to calm down and eat some fruit.