Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How long will the video card last?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 27, 2003 7:24:21 PM

what is the expected life time from now of the following card? I mean when will the card become obsolete and unable to run new game in 1024*768 with at least 30fps. (take a guess)

Radeon 9700 pro
Radeon 9500 pro
GeForce 4 Ti 4200

Cuz I am deciding which card to buy.. 9700pro is much more expensive but like 50% faster than others... but if a 9700pro can last me 2 years or more than the rest, then it will be a good choice.

More about : long video card

December 27, 2003 8:28:54 PM

Radeon 9700Pro 2 years
Radeon 9500Pro 1 year
Geforce 4 Ti4200 3 months - 6 months (HL2 an Doom3 coming out might be too much for this card).

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
December 27, 2003 9:33:58 PM

Quote:
Radeon 9700Pro 2 years
Radeon 9500Pro 1 year
Geforce 4 Ti4200 3 months - 6 months

Are you stoned?

<b><font color=red>3DMark03</font color=red></b><A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928&lt;/A>
<b><font color=red>3DMark 2001SE</b></font color=red>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7374242" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7374242&lt;/A>
Related resources
December 27, 2003 9:37:54 PM

HAHAHAHA!

Yeah, cut those times in half and subtract 3 months (yes, that eliminates the 4200). Approximately at least.

EDIT: for those who are lazy, this means:
9700PRO: 9months
9500PRO: 3months
4200: 0months (NFS:U will sink it with full detail)

Damn Rambus.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Vapor on 12/27/03 06:40 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 27, 2003 9:41:38 PM

The Ti4200 can handle pretty much any game at 1024*768 but not at the highest quality. People AF and AA isn't for everybody yet!!!! My numbers were guessimates assuming you don't want to turn on all the extras.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
December 27, 2003 9:44:51 PM

Yeah, I wasn't even talking about AA/AF. You're screwed if you use that and a 4200.

I have a 4400 and I can barely keep 30FPS in NFS:U in some/most parts with full detail. Of course, turning off the blurs just about doubles the FPS.

Damn Rambus.
December 27, 2003 9:58:55 PM

Oh yeah, I ran my 4400 at 1280x960, 2xAA. Ran great (but only 25ish fps--still enough for a racing game). Of course not with full detail. It looked great, but I saw NFS:U with DX9 and haven't played since.

But with full detail, 1024x768, no AA/AF and holding 30FPS was tough.

Damn Rambus.
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2003 10:10:51 PM

D00D, I ran the original Radeon DDR (32MB) with the latest games up to a couple months ago. It depends on how high you set the resolution and what features you want to use.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 27, 2003 10:36:28 PM

That ti4200 is pretty much out of it now. The 9500 pro has about a year left, however you will have to be a little frugle with Doom 3 and HL2, and the 9700 pro maybe little over a year to year and a half. However I did play the doom 3 demo on a rig with 9700 pro and it did not look good, could have been the demo's AGP interface being limited to a certain config.

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.775)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/700)
December 28, 2003 2:03:22 AM

<b>NO</b>.... You guy's are way freakin' off base if you think silly things like the 9500Pro only has a year left before it's useless. A majority of PC gamers today are still on GF2 class equipment...dont you see that? We barely have games out that take advantage of pixel shaders, much less DX9 pixel shader 2.0!....you guy's are nutz.... :tongue:

<b><font color=red>3DMark03</font color=red></b>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928&lt;/A>
<b><font color=red>3DMark 2001SE</b></font color=red>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7374242" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7374242&lt;/A>
December 28, 2003 6:51:58 AM

The 9500 will run HL2 just fine at max detail 1024x768.

I get about 65 fps at 1280x1024 average max details with FSAA and aniso in HL2.

Might have to turn off a few things, but it'll be good to go.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
December 28, 2003 2:04:24 PM

Quote:
NO.... You guy's are way freakin' off base if you think silly things like the 9500Pro only has a year left before it's useless. A majority of PC gamers today are still on GF2 class equipment...dont you see that? We barely have games out that take advantage of pixel shaders, much less DX9 pixel shader 2.0!....you guy's are nutz....

i agree

remember people here are hobbiest... MOST normal people dont have better than GF3's in their computers ffs

-------


<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
dhlucke - "Phew...ok my wrists are hurting. I'm taking a break."
December 28, 2003 2:10:15 PM

My Ti4200 plays secert weapons and halo.
December 28, 2003 5:44:12 PM

Halo looks good on a Ti4200. It has to use a fallback pixel shader, but that only means it must do multi pass, because pixel shader 1.0/1.1's instruction count isnt very high.

<b><font color=red>3DMark03</font color=red></b>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928&lt;/A>
<b><font color=red>3DMark 2001SE</b></font color=red>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7374242" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7374242&lt;/A>
December 29, 2003 2:14:46 AM

Wussy said:
Quote:
One of my friend who uses Ti4200 to play BattleField1942 loves it, it's only when he plays UT2K3 against me which is unplayable.

Thats insane. I only have a Geforce2 GTS/Pro and I play UT2k3 at max detail with a very playable frame rate. I'm talking about 25-30 fps steady. My Geforce2 also plays the Halo demo on max detail although its slightly choppy in a few places but just taking the settings down to medium makes it run just fine. In fact the only game I can think of that has brought my card to its knees is Planetside on maximum detail, and thats only in certain situations like when theres really large battles or something that it brings the fps down under 25.
December 29, 2003 2:40:41 AM

9500 Pro definately has more than a year of life left in it. If you need the latest greatest graphics and framerates then maybe not but a 15k 3DMark01 scores not gonna be obselete in 12 months. Cant beat it for the price.

P4 2.8c - 226mhz x 14 // 2x256 OCZ Dual Platinum PC3200 @ 226hmz x 2 // Asus P4P800 // Vantec Aeroflow // 6x80mm air cooled // Ati 9500Pro
December 29, 2003 3:22:02 AM

And how does that make a difference? If what your saying is my geforce2 uses older shaders then your friend's geforce4 ti4200 and thats why mine runs fine and his dosnt then I have to say I'd prefer my older card that runs games faster then the latest technology if it can't do as good a job.
December 29, 2003 3:54:58 AM

I just upgraded from a geforce 4 mx440 apg4x to a bba ati radeon 9600xt. I will never purchase another geforce card in this lifetime unless they learn how to use the current technology. and yeah, my new card is a lot better than the old one, but if the 9500 or 9700 are almost obsolete where does that leave me?

oh my, since there are how many games out now that make much use of direct x 9.0 features you think it will be how long before these ati cards are useless? personally I think any decent ati card 9600pro and up will be usefull for a while, depending on the resolution, and of course which type of games you prefer to play. cause if you're not a gamer what in the world do you want with a card like this at all?
December 29, 2003 6:08:26 AM

It's a trap George. Run the quality , AA & AF way up, and check out the enemies in Halo. You say to yourself so thats what they look like. Then you get too many on screen at one time, so you have to back off on the settings. But you want it dont you! Now you wish you'd got the 9800xt. Soon they've come out with better shaders, and now you really need them. Yup your 6 month old video card is outdated, and you are trapped. I figure my 9600 pro will be good till June. I'm a sucker for image quality
December 29, 2003 6:54:34 AM

who needs AA and AF when u can have FPS ;) 

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
FX5700Ultra, the next Ti4200? seems so
December 29, 2003 9:43:42 AM

I think I agree with vimp. I dont really care what the game looks like as long as I can see what Im doing. I definitely dont care what score I get in 3dmark, since it isnt a game.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
December 29, 2003 12:13:52 PM

Lol dis is jus stupid i have a geforce 2 MX and im playing every game thats come on on the PC , UT2003 runs at a decent frame rate and max payne 2 runs at 1024*768 MAX details!!!!
December 29, 2003 5:57:57 PM

The only pixel shader used in UT2K3 is ps1.4, and that shader is only used to render terrain. Cards like the GF2 that dont have shaders, still render the same looking terrain, it just takes them longer to process the textures.

<b><font color=red>3DMark03</font color=red></b>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928&lt;/A>
<b><font color=red>3DMark 2001SE</b></font color=red>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7381806" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7381806&lt;/A>
December 29, 2003 9:03:30 PM

So again, what was Wussy getting at with the shaders? My card shows the ripple effects on water among every other special effect I know about in UT2k3. Ive yet to see a screen shot of UT2k3 that showed any special effect that I don't see on my system. So the question still remains why does wussys friend's Geforce4 Ti4200 run so slow compared to my Geforce2?
December 30, 2003 12:55:26 AM

You guys are scaring me, will the 9600XT I ordered in my system be able to play HL2 at 1024x768 at or close to highest quality? (no AA/AF)
December 30, 2003 4:57:27 AM

Quote:
My card shows the ripple effects on water among every other special effect I know about in UT2k3. Ive yet to see a screen shot of UT2k3 that showed any special effect that I don't see on my system.

Your seeing the same thing everyone else is seeing in the game....I promise you.

<b><font color=red>3DMark03</font color=red></b>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928&lt;/A>
<b><font color=red>3DMark 2001SE</b></font color=red>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7381806" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7381806&lt;/A>
December 30, 2003 5:01:19 AM

Quote:
He used 8XAF, I used 16XAF.

Geez, get real. A Ti4200 cant use aniso in UT2K3 with any playable framerate(not by my standards anyways) and you shouldnt really be bragging that your card performs better then his in that game....your cards arent even in the same catagory...


<b><font color=red>3DMark03</font color=red></b>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1790928&lt;/A>
<b><font color=red>3DMark 2001SE</b></font color=red>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7381806" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7381806&lt;/A>
!