Planning on buying UT2003?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=6" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=6</A>


To sum it up, the 8500 gets its ass handed to it(128/64) by the 4200 64, AND in MOST cases, the ti500(even some ti200 wins over the top of the line 8500).


Very interesting benchmarks if ut is your cup of tea.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Matisaro on 07/04/02 11:42 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
45 answers Last reply
More about planning buying ut2003
  1. 8500 is on par with the 4200 my ass.

    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  2. Let's revisit this when the RV300 comes out.

    Sex is great but it's no substitute for the real thing.....
  3. drawing conclusion based upon a benchmark from a game thats hasnt been fully refined?? i think your point of view towards the subject is pretty narrow dont' u think?
    when UT2 is ready for retail, we will then see who wins over who.
  4. Quote:
    Let's revisit this when the RV300 comes out.


    Sure, then when the next nvidia comes out, and the next matrox adinfitium, whats your point?

    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  5. Quote:
    drawing conclusion based upon a benchmark from a game thats hasnt been fully refined?? i think your point of view towards the subject is pretty narrow dont' u think?


    Benchmarks speak for themselves, and that is the final engine for ut2 iirc, any optimisations will not be major in the slightest according to anandtech.


    As for my oppinion on the 4200 versus the 8500 , this just further illustrates my point to several of the boards members about the 4200s power. There are tons of other benchmarks which agree with this one.

    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  6. Let's revisit this when the RV300 comes out.
    -----------------------------------------------

    Sure, then when the next nvidia comes out, and the next matrox adinfitium, whats your point?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think you've summed up the point nicely above. You can bleat on all year about benchmarks (yawn), as if they really matter so much. And to do so about a game that has yet to be released......


    Sex is great but it's no substitute for the real thing.....
  7. Well, the R8500 was only meant to compete with the GF3 family and I'm sure you'll agree with me that it beats the GF3s in just about every benchmark, except for this one in some cases, so that shouldn't be used to judge the R8500. Anyways, the R8500 wasn't meant to compete against the GF4s and I'd say it's doing a pretty good job. R300 will be out ~3 months before NV30, so ATi will have quite some time to do some performance bashing on the GF4 series before NV30 can come out to level the field again. (I personnally prefer the NV30, just by looking at the specs.)

    Plus, the R8500LE 128MB in Canada is $249 and a GF4 Ti4200 is $329.

    :smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
  8. Quote:
    you'll agree with me that it beats the GF3s in just about every benchmark


    No, it beats or loses to the ti500, it is roughly equavalent to the ti500, not the 4200 as many ati fans have been fuding on this board.(which is why im here posting benchmarks btw).

    The radeon le loses even more than the radeon retail of this test, and the gf4 ti4200 64 can be had for as little as 135$ on pricewatch last I checked.

    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  9. Yeah, but if I buy it at a store somewhere near where I live, that's the pricing (CDN$ mind you).

    :smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
  10. Yeah, but if I buy it at a store somewhere near where I live, that's the pricing (CDN$ mind you).

    :smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
  11. Fortunately I only paid $99 for my 8500 (not LE) OEM 64MB. It will tide me over until I need something else. I bought the 8500 because the Ti4200 was 50% more money. I didn't think it was up to 50% faster, not even close (so I thought). D*mn!

    By the time the new games/game engines are out in force I'll be looking for a new graphics card, anyway.

    Not interested in UT2, but when DOOM3 is out I'll be looking for the best card available at that time.

    <b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
  12. I think it's funny that your only opinions are usually only those echoed from posts of other people. If you read the article, you would notice that what Anand has is basically the public demo that is going to be available to everyone. No major changes are going to be made in the interim, the performance now is as we will probably see it when it is released. Perhaps some optimizations can be made for ATi, but even at 1024x768 Max quality, the 8500 is ~20% behind the 128 version of the 4200. Optimizations may allow it to catch up to that...but that's a lot of ground to gain.

    Hopefully the R300 will put things to shame =) Otherwise we'd have another Matrox debacle on our hands, heh heh heh ;)
  13. Quote:
    Fortunately I only paid $99 for my 8500 (not LE) OEM 64MB. It will tide me over until I need something else. I bought the 8500 because the Ti4200 was 50% more money. I didn't think it was up to 50% faster, not even close (so I thought). D*mn!


    Cost/performance is never linear, but taken at max overclocked levels the 8500 can be up to 35% slower than a 4200 on an average overclock.


    All of the cards are adequate, but I myself fail to see why someone would not pay 35 extra bucks for much more performance.


    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  14. Hope you guys aren't confusing UT2 as a separate game from UT2003. They said they're going to do away with sequel numbers and instead it's going to be like "Madden 2003" in that they will keep releasing updates perhaps every year maybe every two years. They want to make UT a real competitor's sport for the CPL, which is why they're doing the name change to UT2003.

    This little cathode light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine!
  15. I have a question for you guys. Especially Matisaro. Well, after looking around for the pricing on video cards, I managaed to find a VisionTek GF4 Ti4200 128MB for only - get this now - $179USD. That's about $$275CDN. Now I was wondering, would it be worth it to take my Radeon 8500LE 128MB back and get my refund of $249CDN + taxes and get this card. I can have someone order it from th States(friends) and get it shipped here. Now the reason I say this is I must admit that the GF4 Ti4200 really kicks the R8500 in most ways. Now especially if I can get this card for only $25 more than a Radeon 8500LE. I'm thinking this is a good idea. (I'll have a good reason to return my Radeon 8500LE anyways, the fan is really high pitched and whiny. Doesn't really sound right. I can hear it over everything else in my box.) Now this is what I have so tell me if it's worth it to get this card for my system:

    P4 1.4GHz 256KB L2 cache, 423 Socket
    256MB PC800 RDRAM
    Radeon 8500LE 128MB.

    So for an extra $25, should I get a Ti4200 128MB card?

    :smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
  16. When I bought the 8500 OEM 1-1/2 months ago for $99 the cheapest Ti4200 (also 64 MB) was $159. Benchmarks were still sketchy at that time. The difference wasn't looking anything near 35%-50%. I might have made the jump had I known, but probably not. No question, I would go for a Ti4200 for another $35. I think now I would be deciding between two 128MB cards instead of 64MB ones.

    Still, the $99 I paid was just downright cheap and it should be good enough until the arrival of Doom3 at which time I will replace it. In the meantime I can put the money I didn't spend toward a new rig. The 8500 seems hamstrung by a Tbird with SDRAM, only <A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3841740" target="_new">8200 3DMarks</A>.

    <b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 07/02/02 01:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  17. er, yeah, UT2003 was what was used for benchmarks.

    <b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
  18. Hey so anyone, would you get a GF4 Ti4200 128MB over a Radeon 8500LE 128MB if the price difference were $35CDN (after taxes). $35CDN is about $20USD.

    :smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
  19. Besides that, I would like to discuss how the Ti200 still holds up the game!
    I am surprised and happy as well, to see that my card can play this game at MAX settings in UT2003 at 1024*768 so well. Also they used 256MB DDR, not 512MB, and in WinXP environments, 512MB is a gamer's number.

    It does show however that the Ti4600 to my eyes, is a powerful contender and it will last for a good while, thanks to its intense speeds and LMA II. As for Radeon 8500 vs Ti4200, it might sometimes compete the Ti4200, but it is NOT to be taken as a reason to buy it just for one area where it wins. The Ti4200's price will go down even further and will eventually become the next value like ATI's.

    I just didn't get how the GF2 Ultra won my Ti200 in one test by 3 frames!

    --
    :smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
  20. I saw your other post regarding this. If it's worth to you then go for it.

    I have reservations about the method, though. You want to have a friend in the USA order it and then ship it to you? Well I know it doesn't cost much to ship a video card from USA to Canada. I once had to return an Ebay purchase to a destination in Canada. The cost was only about $4 USD but that was because the value of that card was less than $100 and thus was un-insurable and I couldn't request delivery notification (maybe the latter was just too expensive. I forget). I was just using US parcel post. I'm sure there are more options with FedEx or Airborne.

    However, what if you have a problem? Are you going ship it back to your friend who will return it for you? Just how much are you saving after the double shipping charges? How much does the card cost in the USA vs Canada? What will your overall cost be? Are you really saving money vs buying locally.

    <b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
  21. HMmm.... some good points there. THanks, I'm gonna look into how much it costs here in Canada. I just looked at it and I was like WOW! Save $80 off original price.. hmm... looks good. I guess the save $80 kinda exaggerated the price a bit to the downside. I mean it's still $179USD and that's more than some 128MB Ti4200 cards. Thanks a lot again. I'll probably end up getting a Ti4200 from a Canadian store cause the fan is kinda driving me crazy.. Really high pitched and whiny. Seems like it's gonna bust or something..

    :smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
  22. The current Catalyst drivers have a minor issue with UT2003 in high-detail. I'm quite certain performance will jump within a week or so with the release of a patch or a new Catalyst driver. Worst case, ATI will have an updated driver with the patch by the end of July.

    :wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
  23. I was wondering about the big difference between high detail and medium detail in the benchmarks. The Gforce cards are jumping way ahead with high detail.

    I didn't really think about a driver issue. I was considering whether different features are turned on for different video cards when Max detail is requested (kind of like the Extreme quality add-on in Serious Sam, which turned on different degrees of anisotropy depending on the capabilities of the video card).

    <b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
  24. Oh yes, another driver update because of yet another issue. yay! Don't you ever get tired of having to wait for ati to release the next driver which may or may not run your game? Hell, I know if I bought a vid card and it ran like that, it'd be in the garbage fast. Seriously. Chuck: go for it man, either through Canadian vendor or through your friend. heheheh, I'm sure you guys know of my freinds who have the ati cards and can run nothing, well they asked me (I have a 2K limit) to get parts of MY choice and assemble a PC for them. They then gonna throw away one of the comps that has the Ati (1.4Ghz P4, 512RD, 40GB WD HDD, Radeon) and I also happen to be building a rather large rocket with tons of phosphorous at the nose cone where's there's a rectangular slot for a payload....can ya guess what the payload will be?:) Mwahaha, where's that devil smiley face when I need it!:) Now they can finally run games....at least on one computer....

    My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek:
  25. To me it seems Nvidia and Epic did the job of optimizing. This is an example of how good Geforce 3 technology, when properly optimized, does awesome graphics and better performance, not dropped. It runs even better than Aquanox, though I question the graphical comparison still. Aquanox still has some very awesome texturing and animations... In any case GF3 technology has been proven that when properly used, can give some nice results with no big performance drops. My Ti200 won't have to suffer here!

    --
    :smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
  26. Chuck, sooo trade that card in, its more than worth the 30 bucks!

    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  27. Quote:
    The current Catalyst drivers have a minor issue with UT2003 in high-detail. I'm quite certain performance will jump within a week or so with the release of a patch or a new Catalyst driver. Worst case, ATI will have an updated driver with the patch by the end of July.



    5 bucks says the drivers which fix the graphical issues dont even bring it close.

    Not even close.

    Always with the ati fans, wait for more drivers, nay I say, ut2003 has been out for weeks(the benchmark engine) and no fixxes yet.

    I dont want a videocard where I have to get a patch to play every game right, if I were an ati fan I wouldnt bring that up all the time.

    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  28. ......zzzzzz......zzzzzzz......

    Sex is great but it's no substitute for the real thing.....
  29. I agree. If you want playability then waiting for ATi is no fun. But ATi ain't totally bad. I like them just as much as nvidia, maybe a little better, partly because their cards are so darn cheap, in some cases 50% cheaper than nvidia. But a part of me also, for better or for worse, does want to support their company. Of course they're not perfect. Back a while ago, they had that anisotropic patch for quake 3 so they could cheat their scores higher. But I figure I can do my part in keeping business competition reasonably good by supporting them. nVidia, from a sheer technological and provisional standpoint, is the leader in graphics right now. And besides price and ideology, ATi really doesn't have much else going for it (but it's trying). However, I figure that if everyone went for the technically superior every time we'd eventually have:

    (1) complete drop in service and support
    (2) lack of personal interest
    (3) lack of human touch

    So, you can tell that I don't believe in the simple explanation that people who support ATi "just want to support the 'underdog'." But hopefully you can also see that I don't forget technical specs. Like I said, ATi is trying, and by supporting them I may just be unknowingly supporting the Next Best Thing in graphics.

    This little cathode light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine!
  30. Quote:
    But ATi ain't totally bad.


    never said they were, let me make one thing clear here.


    All my posts on this subject come in responce to the state I found this forum in when I ventured into it last week

    Many ati fans were claiming the 8500 not only bested the ti500(which I can believe if not tied the card) but began to claim it can beat the 4200 as well, a spurious claim at best, thus I have posted several benchmarks and reviews to disprove this claim.

    Thats all, im not an nvidiot, and I dont really care which card is faster, but I do care when people advise others on purchases based on fud and misinformation.


    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  31. the R8500 dosn't beat the Ti4200, everyone knows that it's a fact and, most other ATI fan would agree also, providing they all have some brains. As mentioned before, the r8500 was never meant to be used to compete with the GF4 Ti line, it DOES howerver, out performs the Ti500.
  32. .....tedium level reaching critical.....evacuate forum.....

    Sex is great but it's no substitute for the real thing.....
  33. When will you try Morse? LoL


    <i> :smile: I like Interactive THG!</i>
  34. this official Unreal performance test 2002 benchmark says other wise
    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1580&p=1
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    quote:
    To give you an idea of the complexity of the engine and the benchmark, we asked two of Epic's finest, Daniel Vogel and Tim Sweeney to give us a brief overview of the Unreal Performance Test 2002:

    "The Unreal Performance Test 2002 currently consists of a flyby through an outdoor terrain map with as many as 100,000 triangles. Due to the nature of the flyby and extended visibility in outdoor areas the flyby is quite memory bandwidth intensive on the GPU. To achieve a realistic CPU load 14 bots walking around pseudo-randomly have been added to the map.

    For statistics gathering 2510 frames are rendered as fast as possible at a locked game framerate of 30 fps with the first 10 frames being disregarded."

    To put things into perspective, the average polygon counts range from 50 - 100 times that of Unreal Tournament. We were also told that texture usage has increased approximately 8 fold as well. Courtesy of DXT texture compression, the overall memory bandwidth usage has only gone up by a quarter of that.

    end quote
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    the R8500 beats the Ti500 in EVERY tests except @ 1600x1200x32.
  35. And then we realize that this was in January. If u guys get to b!tch about unfair benches and driver issues so do I. Maybe the engine wasn't optimized, and as one can see, the higher the res, the better GF3 is.

    My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek:
  36. so are u saying if we take the same bench again today, the Ti500 will better the R8500? ...i dont think so.
    at the highest res, the Ti500 only lead by 2 frames, and thats the only test it manages to squeeze infront.
  37. http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/products/agp_index.htm

    Someone had a benchmark link to this card vs a gf4 ti4600 dont remember it though sorry :(

    but it was very very close to it. I remember it was a visiontek4600.

    Maybe it'll pop up again
  38. As a side note, they tested Star Trek Armada and ArmadaII, IIRC. The Armada series is <b>highly</b> optimized for ATI drivers. If you're a crazy Armada fan like me, ATI is the way to go and you'll be able to handle maximum res and FSAA and still get ~60fps

    :wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
  39. Ok, I still get that w/ Quadro.

    My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened his ass all over the place :eek:
  40. 10ghz, benchmarks I linked to from the same site using the real benchmark(the 2002 is not the ut3 engine)


    We first introduced the Unreal Tournament 2003 benchmark in our recent Parhelia review, the build we're showing off today doesn't differ too much from what we demonstrated in that review.

    We tested at five resolutions, each under two different detail settings. We chose the highest detail setting offered by the game, with everything set to the maximum level to provide the best possible image quality. We also chose a medium detail setting, which turned off detailed textures, turned on 16-bit color, lowered the texture detail and turned off deco layers. The reason for the medium detail setting was to compare those cards that weren't playable at the higher settings.


    <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=2" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=2</A>

    The 8500 loses to the ti500 in most of those benchmarks, your links are not to ut3 but a ut benchmark app based on a heavily optimised ut (origional) engine.


    PS: what was your point? Ive been talking about the 4200.


    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  41. Quote:
    As a side note, they tested Star Trek Armada and ArmadaII, IIRC. The Armada series is highly optimized for ATI drivers. If you're a crazy Armada fan like me, ATI is the way to go and you'll be able to handle maximum res and FSAA and still get ~60fps


    LOL armada is cpu and hdd limited, websites use it to test hdd performance sometimes!

    :wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
  42. Just a note but guys did you notice the ti500 outperforms the ti 4200 in some of the tests something fishy here.
  43. *fast forwards through the the flaming...* oh wait, i'm already at the end. Does it really matter on fps since you really distinguish between 60 fps and 180? It's nice that everyone wants to spend 300 bucks on the latest card but your basicly seeing the same thing i'm seeing with a extra 1 in front of it. Calm it down and just enjoy the game when it comes out ;)
  44. Problem is that this is average FPS. When at 60 average, the minimum can go greatly down to 20, which is not always the best. This is why though GF3s were able to get 50FPS average in AquaMark, it wasn't too encouraging as when I had the game Aquanox, FPS went as much as 9 FPS from the average. It is normal, the game is EXTREMLY advanced in DirectX 8.

    --
    :smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
  45. Yup, just like my Ti200 being beaten by a GF2 Ultra by 3 frames. Weird, but the only possibly explanation is the test being GPU/Mem speed dependant and not on Occlusion and bandwidth compression, thus the Ti500 which is quite possibly higher clocked than the Ti4200, as well as the Ultra over the Ti200, won.

    --
    :smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Cases Font Benchmark Graphics