Replacement Graphics Card

[SiliconAngel]

Hello,

6 months ago I purchased an nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4200 8x graphics card. In December the card stopped working, so I took it back to the store. Two months later, after numerous attempts to contact them, they said they don’t have Ti 4200 cards in stock anymore, and offered to replace it with an FX 5600 (non ultra). After doing some research and finding that the 5600 preforms up to 40% worse than the Ti4200, I declined their offer, and said I would accept an FX 5700 at minimum. They replied that their offer is non-negotiable.

I feel that this is extremely unfair and very poor service. The card they are offering performs significantly worse than the card it is to replace, as well as being around half the price of the Ti4200. I thought I would post here to get your expert opinion as the premiere hardware review site on the web of what should be considered a comparable and acceptable replacement product to a Ti4200 8x, given that there are no more GeForce4 cards available in the supply chain.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

 

[Nights_L]

I would say you are ok, cuz GF4 Ti4200 is a DX8 card, FX5600 is fairly good in DX8, it only sucks when comes to DX9 shader ability,

 

[SiliconAngel]

You've got to be kidding Nights. DX9 isn't a feature of the Ti4200, and therefore isn't a relevant comparison. We can only discuss DX8 when comparing these cards. And the FX5600's DX8 performance is poor compared with the Ti4200 8x. Have a look at the Toms comparison article here - http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html. For specific examples, check out:

UT2003 - http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003

Call of Duty - http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-05.html

Warcraft 3 - http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-07.html

Nascar Thunder 2004 - http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-10.html

You can't say that is comparable performance.

 

[Crashman]

LOL, I see that at least SOME of those games (all maybe?) are DX9 titles. The thing holding back the 5600 in such instances is the fact that it RENDERS things the Ti4200 doesn't! What I'm saying is that the 5600 should be as fast as the Ti4200 in DX8 games. In DX9 games the Ti4200 has the "performance" advantage of NOT having to render those features! If you want a truely accurate comparison of performance then, you'll have to turn off the DX9 features in such games when using the DX9 card!

<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>

 

[Slava]

Haha. I am a kiss-ass. Brilliant comeback, bro )

 

[cleeve]

5600 ULTRA would be more comparable, and even then I'm not sure I'd take it.

But do what you gotta do, brother.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

We all know the 5600 sux at DX9 performance. I wouldn't BUY one, but I MIGHT take one in trade for a Ti4200-8x

<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>

 

[cleeve]

Hmmmm... I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure Aquamark3 is the only title in those benches that use DirectX9 only shaders, Crashman.

Anyway, a 5600 is a definite step down, even in DirectX 8 titles. A 5600 ULTRA would be more fair, but what real recourse do you have if they refuse to give you anything better?

See if they'll give you a Radeon 9600, or better yet a 9600 PRO...
________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

That shows how well I follow games, I thought Nascar 2004 was DX9.

<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>

 

[SiliconAngel]

Thanks for your responses guys.

I understand what you have said, Crashman. I think it MAY even be possible to optomise games and/or benchmarks to improve the performance of the 5600. However I only believe in real-world situations and performance, and benchmarks that reflect this. If I have to tweak programs specifically in order to get the same performance out of my new card as I had from the old one, that isn't good enough.

Fortunately warranty law doesn't allow this kind of skullduggery, so I shouldn't have too much problem in court. I will actually be pushing to simply have the cost of the card refunded, as they do not have a viable replacement. Unfortunately here in Perth, Western Australia there are pretty much NO ultra cards available. There are rarely ever any sold throughout Australia except in very minor qualtities - suppliers just simply don't stock them.

Thanks again - I appreciate the feedback

SA

 

[Crashman]

Yes, well Australia has a smaller market so it's less profitable to market niche products.

<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>

 

[pauldh]

I sure agree with what Crash said about in DX9 games the FX5600 is forced to render more, but I also disagree that they are equal in DX8 games.

The problem with this trade, is what version of the FX5600 are you getting? Is it the somewhat standard clocked 325/550 128Bit card? Or is it a slower/faster version? I don't mean XT or Ultra either. I mean FX5600. Search <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/manufactory.asp?catalog=48&DEPA=1" target="_new"> Newegg here </A> by chipset and you get such a wide range of cards showing up as FX5600. Also review sites like <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html?43567" target="_new"> This huge 80 card shootout </A> include 5 differently clocked FX5600's. All this makes choosing NV cards very difficult for the novice buyer and even others as often the specs aren't available.

So I agree don't do the trade unless it's 5600U or 5700, but I'd find out for fun exactly what 5600 they are offering? Is it a 128 bit, clocked 325/400, 325/500, 325/550, 325/600, 350/600, or are they daring to offer you a 64 bit clocked 300/400? That would be a crime. IMO I am a little ticked NV allows these companies to release such varying cards. The Powercolor R9600 pro EZ 400/400 version ticks me off a bit too. Mostly because it makes me sift them out on pricewatch.


Maybe a 325/600 FX5600 is almost equal to a 4X 128MB 250/444 Ti4200. But if it is a crippled FX5600 vs. an 8X 128MB GF4Ti the story changes quite a bit.



ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt