how to choose between a GF Ti4600 and a ATI 9600pr

[Fcompo102]

I found out both cards cost at 199 price point on a web, can everybody give me some suggestions? i know that 9600pro is a dx9 card and ti4600 is a dx8 card, besides that, which card has a upper hand? please let me know.

 

[smitbret]

Speaking as an nVidia kind of guy (seriously).....get the ATI.
-Brett

 

[coolsquirtle]

how about waiting for the better version of 5600Ultra ^O^ otherwise (sadly i have to say this) get the ATi

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% Nvidia Fanboy
Athlon 64......nForce 3, it sure sucks when you can't afford things. One day Operton Servers will cost less than $4000 so everyone can get one

 

[cleeve]

Both are pretty good cards, but the 9600 PRO is better and I'll tell you why:

The Ti4600 and the radeon 9600 PRO are neck and neck when used without image quality settings like antialiassing or anistropic filtering. In some cases the Ti4600 can even beat the 9600 PRO when low image quality settins are used, but both are delivering framerates that are really really high.
When your framerates are above 100 FPS, what does it matter which card is faster? You can't see a difference anyway.

BUT... when you put on antialiassing and anistropic filtering, framerates are alot lower, and you can definitely see the sizable speed difference that the 9600 PRO affords over the 4600.

the 9600 PRO is the way to go, man.

 

[Fcompo102]

thx guys. i'm a little concern about the whole FX product line except for the coming 5900 ultra, because all the reviews i have seen are all pretty much critisim towards FX, lousy design and lack of performance vesus ATI's flagship, any idea? that' just my thoughts, i really want to know what's happening with Nvidia. I'm thinking about getting 9700pro, but i found out half of the reader replys about 9700pro are negitive, (hung up, crash, uncompatible with systems etc.) so the current situation about graphic war is really confusing. can u guys give me some hints and advices?

 

[cleeve]

The best advice I can give you is to first decide which video card you're looking for, THEN do lots of research about your motherboard on forums and see if anybody is having a problem with that card and your setup.

If you see alot of problems, look for another card.

If not, go to town...

 

[Fcompo102]

and thanks to smitbret, coolsquirtle and cleeve, thank u all for replying, u guys gave me some really useful posts.

 

[addiarmadar]

First get the Radeon 9500 pro and not the 9600 pro. The 9500 puts better frames than 9600. If you only have a 4x MB then get the ti4600 for it will put better frames out than the 9500 at 4x but if using an 8x board then please get the 9500 pro.

 

[eden]

Link me to somewhere where it shows the 9500PRO performing better with 8X.


--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[eden]

Please link me to a couple of websites showing the Ti4600 spanked by the 9600PRO in standard benchmarks.
If the 9500PRO is stronger, and the Ti4600 is most of the time better than the 9500PRO in standard benchmarks, how in the world can you qualify the 9600PRO as being the better choice?

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[cleeve]

I qualify it as a better choice per my reasoning above, restated simply as:

When two video cards get 100fps + in standard benchmarks at high detail settings they are, for all intents and purposes, equal... as the differences in framerates cannot be percieved by the naked eye.

i.e. if a Ti4600 gets 159 FPS in quake3 at 1600*1200, and the 9600 PRO gets 114 FPS... I will not percieve a difference, so who gives a crap?

BUT... if when image enhancing features like FSAA and Anistropic filtering is applied, and the framerates drop well below 100 FPS, if there is a sizable difference between how the cards perform... this makes a definite and percievable difference.

i.e. if a Ti4600 gets 48 FPS in UT2003 at 1024*768 with 4xFSAA and 8x anistropic filtering, and the 9600 PRO gets 64 FPS... I will see a difference and therefore, definitely, give a crap.


Note the following benchmarks to support my opine:

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/ati_radeon_9600_pro_review/page5.asp


On a side note, I do have to agree with Eden that addiarmadar's suggestion that 8x AGP makes a performance difference is unfounded.

The only time I have seen 8X AGP make a difference in a benchmark is when bandwidth was stratched to the limit with the top of the line Radeon 9800 PRO doing 4xFSAA at super high resolutions.

Every benchmark I've ever seen shows that most cards, even farily strong ones like the Ti4600 show no benefit to running 8x AGP.

 

[dhlucke]

You seem to be giving false information. Show a link backing up your 8x AGP claim.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=389&s=1fee5dab901bebe29da7aa1c2658fc6f" target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>

 

[phial]

First get the Radeon 9500 pro and not the 9600 pro. The 9500 puts better frames than 9600. If you only have a 4x MB then get the ti4600 for it will put better frames out than the 9500 at 4x but if using an 8x board then please get the 9500 pro.

not true

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>

 

[Fcompo102]

wow, thank u very much guys, luv u guys, i have the basic idea already, and just got motivated to do some more research! but thx again for urs value points, , i'm so new here, just started today, but i got a warm welcome! i'm really happy now ~ .