Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R8500 vs. GF4 Ti4200 in 3D Mark 2003

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • x86
  • Font
  • 3D
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 17, 2003 6:14:55 AM

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>

More about : r8500 gf4 ti4200 mark 2003

February 17, 2003 5:05:31 PM

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
February 17, 2003 5:29:41 PM

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
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 17, 2003 5:34:05 PM

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
February 17, 2003 5:38:31 PM

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
February 17, 2003 5:42:40 PM

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
February 17, 2003 5:54:50 PM

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
February 18, 2003 10:07:40 AM

>>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:D  that stuff just looks so much bether:D 

fast is not everything. good is what you want:D  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:D 

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
February 18, 2003 10:17:31 AM

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

<b> "You can put lipstick on a pig, but hey, it's still a pig!" - RobD </b>
February 18, 2003 11:57:26 AM

AGAIN?!?
February 18, 2003 3:39:31 PM

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
February 18, 2003 5:09:55 PM

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>
February 18, 2003 6:27:38 PM

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
February 18, 2003 6:45:00 PM

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>
February 18, 2003 7:30:23 PM

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?"
February 18, 2003 7:34:33 PM

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. :smile:
February 18, 2003 7:36:16 PM

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. :smile:
February 18, 2003 7:48:28 PM

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?"
February 18, 2003 9:29:49 PM

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>
February 18, 2003 10:24:28 PM

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>
February 18, 2003 10:40:43 PM

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>
February 19, 2003 2:05:45 AM

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. :smile:
February 19, 2003 3:06:45 AM

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
February 19, 2003 3:14:23 AM

I think we all just need to calm down and eat some fruit.
February 19, 2003 4:16:10 AM

Sheesh! I'm glad ATI doesn't make chipsets. At least we don't have to hear THAT flame war!



I want to move to space, so I can overclock processors cooled to absolute zero.
February 19, 2003 4:25:24 AM

I already had some strawberries and they were delicious!!

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 19, 2003 4:31:53 AM

btw, the length of his posts has nothing to do w/ bias. In the flat panels section I hassle myself and write pages detailing how lcd's work, new techs, etc, and solve problems, but that's not to say I'm not biased- EVERYONE repeat EVERYONE is, hell, even GoSharks admits it.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
a b U Graphics card
February 19, 2003 5:20:47 AM

It's not like either company (wait is there a third and fourth? ;~P ) is going to exclude the bread and butter of the game demos, however the benchmarks are the stress test, synthetic though they may be. They will make sure that the games run, but at the same time why not add the sprinkles of benchmark performance. Yeah the engineers could be tweaking for other things, but what really do they have to work with? 500 + fps in Quake 3? Come on! Until there is really something other than ut2003 to 'perfect' 3d mark will be something to prepare because it may give an idea what the cards need in the next-next gen. games, even if D3 is more efficient. Until we have a final product for D3 and something else that really pushes the limits 3d mark is still a tool, yeah it may be something YOU don't respect or even use as a tool, but like a robertson screwdriver it works for those who know what to do with it.
I think the reason this ruffles so many feathers is that people relied on the bragging rights of their cards, heck in one of my machines I still run a Rage Fury Pro 32mb and 3dmark 2001se gives me the same figures that some Ti owners are feeling with the new becnhmark. Heck the card was a good card in it's time, but who ever thought 128 mb would be 'not enough' for some cards back then? What am I going to run NHL '98 at 200 fps? ALL hail Tetris at 1000 FPS, Coooool!
It's just a tool, use it or don't, however it's good that it's out there as long as you know what's behind it, and discount it as you feel you need to, just like Quadro, FireGL and Matrox users realize that 300 frames in Quake 3 means very little to them compared to ViewPerf or StudioMax.

BTW, does anyone know any scores for a Matrox Para. 128mb or 256 mb? PErsonally I'm eyeing a new FireGl and will run 3DM2K3 simply to see anomalies like the FireGL 8800 getting 110+ frames in the lobby scene of 3DMK'01SE while the R9700 and Ti4600 could only manage mid 40 and mid 30s respectively with all things maxed.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
February 19, 2003 2:53:50 PM

How much u paying for the firegl8880? I think it's kinda old, and is outdone quite a bit by newer cards.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 19, 2003 3:20:56 PM

weird, i was pulling 60's on my radeon 9700 pro on high detail, although i can't remember if i set it to performance mode (which i probably did) as far as the GF3 goes, my old card was a PNY GeForce3 Ti200, which i really enjoyed, I still think it was a good card, and a real step up from my Hercules GeForce 2 MX, i paid about the same amount for both cards, so i was pleased. Oh well, more with the flaming, got any strawberries left?

"What kind of idiot are you?"
"I don't know, what kinds are there?"
February 19, 2003 7:23:02 PM

>BTW, does anyone know any scores for a Matrox Para. 128mb or 256 mb? PErsonally I'm eyeing a new >FireGl and will run 3DM2K3 simply to see anomalies like the FireGL 8800 getting 110+ frames in >the lobby scene of 3DMK'01SE while the R9700 and Ti4600 could only manage mid 40 and mid 30s >respectively with all things maxed.

eh??? my 9700pro is slow??? sh**...
Low detail for the Lobby : 159.9FPS (call it a cool 160FPS????)
High Detail for the Lobby : 71.4FPS

Am I missing something there?

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5068792" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5068792&lt;/A>

If it blows up? Opps.... I must have been doing something wrong
February 19, 2003 7:31:32 PM

He wishes it himself that nVidia recovers and does a better card soon.
Fact remains, for standard code, the NV30 is one helluva weak card. So inefficient, that the current acceptance of Cg will make it a scenario not similar to SSE2 and the Pentium 4.
However, at the moment, I see his anger at nVidia quite clearly. And with today's reply from Lars, we can see just how much nVidia is doing nothing but damage to its image.
Lately ATi does the opposite, and it seems their take on pixel shader precision was "clever" as Lars puts it. How's that for nVidia bias...!


--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
February 19, 2003 7:40:05 PM

Quote:
"Just because you're no longer the smarter one around" what does that phrase mean anyway?

I assumed you first said he was a dumb **** because he was acting all smart-alecky when deriding the GF3. And given your track record, that deserved my comment.
Though it turns out you were criticizing him because he insulted it, so I retract that statement.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 02/19/03 10:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
February 20, 2003 7:43:57 AM

I'm not going to get the 8800, I'm looking at a X1 or Z1, I just mention the 8800 because it's the only one I've seen run against the game cards in 3dMark2001SE and the anomaly was the one mentioned, stoopid fast frames for the lobby. That's what'll give me a smile, although there appears to be less to compare in 03 vs 01.
As for the first part of the Question, I'm probably going to be able to pick up an X1 256mb for about $1200 Canadian (that's about 750 US) after rebate through the University. I may not even go that way after reading the posts about softmodding the 9700. I still have a bit of research to do before making a final decision. Still in the middle of deciding on the type of system I want to build (high-high end 2 x Xeons, or middle grade 1 or 2 amds) I'll have decided by work bonus time, mid-end of march. I know there's a Quadro out there that outdoes it in some things, but I can't get a deal on it, and it costs about 1000C/600US more BEFORE the deal. But still if a softmod 9700pro is anywhere near as good as a 128mb version of X1, then I can spend the diff. elsewhere.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
!