Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon 8500 128mb or GeForce4 Ti 4200 64mb

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Radeon
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 7, 2002 7:08:40 PM

Hi there,

I am trying to decide on a new video card. My options are either a Radeon 8500 128mb (built by ATI) or a GeForce4 Ti 4200 64mb. The GeForce4 is probably a cheaper "off-brand", but I'm not exactly sure (a friend is going to purchase the card from the store he works at). The Radeon is also cheaper than GeForce card. I am of the opinion that more video ram is better, but I would like to have the opinions of some other people as well.

The new card will be replacing a now defunct GeForce2 GTS 32mb sdr card that I have not had any good experiences with. The rest of the system specs follows:

P3 1GHz
Asus cusl2 mobo
512mb pc133 sdram
80GB hd
8x dvd-rom
10x cdrw
network adapter
sound card

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

More about : radeon 8500 128mb geforce4 4200 64mb

September 7, 2002 11:53:02 PM

Hello, I have just killed my 8500 and bought a Inno3d GF4 Ti4200. I have to say there are less problems with the GF4 and it is faster than my old card (64mb too). You would be better getting the GF4 i think.

Robolf
September 9, 2002 1:05:45 AM

I own a Radeon 8500 128mb its a very good card. The Ti4200 64mb will be faster but only 5-10% at most and in some games the Radeon 8500 abit faster.
if you budget is the most important factor go with the cheaper card.
Related resources
September 9, 2002 1:47:47 PM

You can overclock the 4200 to make it far superior to the 8500, deffinatly grab the 4200 which is ~15% faster at stock, and with much greater overclock room.

:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
September 9, 2002 11:21:02 PM

I dunno Mat, for that system, even a R8500 may be bottlenecked. Unless you plan to upgrade, get the R8500 since it's cheaper. If you're looking to upgrade the rest of the system, get the Ti4200 for sure.

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...
September 10, 2002 3:54:23 PM

Not everyone buys video card to overclock them you know!
And both at stock speed they are close in performance with the Ti being abit faster. I don't consider a Ti-4200 Far superior. A R9700 to a Ti-4600 is far superior!
September 10, 2002 6:23:05 PM

Radeon 8500 seems to be penalized more by low memory, 64MB vs 128MB, than do the Geforce4 Ti's. This can be seen in benchmarks of games like Jedi Knight 2. However, even a Radeon 8500 128MB doesn't perform as well as a Geforce4 Ti4200 64MB in those same benchmarks.

Chuck232 is right though. A P3 1000 is going to be very limiting and I doubt there will be much difference between the two cards on your system.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
September 11, 2002 6:37:51 AM

Quote:
Not everyone buys video card to overclock them you know!
And both at stock speed they are close in performance with the Ti being abit faster. I don't consider a Ti-4200 Far superior. A R9700 to a Ti-4600 is far superior!


Average performance gain of a stock ti420064 meg is 20%, if you call that "slightly" then thats your issue.

Check the thread with amd man where I laid out the performance differences % wise, should be a few pages back.

:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
September 11, 2002 5:07:37 PM

I've seen your huge rant on the Ti 4200 with AMD man.
still doesn't change my opinon on the newer benchmarks i've seen the Ti wins most of the benchs and looses some, but its win are far from huge! So I will stick with my words when I say its not far superior to an 8500. And the fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I have issues.
Maybe your the one with issues. You've been fighting with to many people in this forum. You point and opinons are valid and I respect them but i'm not gonna attack you like some lil 12 year old kid. My opinon remains the same!
September 12, 2002 6:15:29 AM

Quote:
I've seen your huge rant on the Ti 4200 with AMD man.
still doesn't change my opinon on the newer benchmarks i've seen the Ti wins most of the benchs and looses some, but its win are far from huge! So I will stick with my words when I say its not far superior to an 8500. And the fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I have issues.


newer than ut2003? Again, read the benchmarks, its far more than a little and the 8500 dosent win any hardly, its a clear victory for the ti4200.

PS: no ones attacking you, im stating fact, not oppinion, the benchmarks are clear, the 4200 handily whoops the 8500.


:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
September 12, 2002 12:24:30 PM

Quote:

newer than ut2003? Again, read the benchmarks, its far more than a little and the 8500 dosent win any hardly, its a clear victory for the ti4200.

PS: no ones attacking you, im stating fact, not oppinion, the benchmarks are clear, the 4200 handily whoops the 8500.

You keep mentioning UT2003 which is still an unreleased game (AFAIK, at least, I haven't seen it around in Canada yet), and it was tested by Anandtech on ATI drivers that had texture problems with the game. Undoubtly, a final review of the game with the updated drivers on the R8500 will show much better performance.

Again, this goes back to game developers' lack of testing on ATI's products. They're forcing ATI to do the dirty work for them.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
September 12, 2002 4:08:13 PM

its obvious you favor Nvidia Hardware and that's fine.
I'm more netural in my statements not liking one company more than the other. Thats about all I can say for now there is nothing I could say to change your mind. You've already made your choice. For me to try would be like talking to a brick wall!

I've used both videocards and found the difference in performance to be minimal. That is without FFSA cause you can't compare they both use different methods. And thats actual gameplay not just some benchmarks off the net!

So unless you can tell me you have used both cards in your system. And found the Ti4200 far more playable cause you were getting 10-15fps more, I'll stick to my views!

Also in Canada the Ti4200 is more expensive than a Radeon 8500!

LeadTek WinFast GeForce4 TI 4200 64MB $226
Ati Radeon 8500 64MB $196
September 12, 2002 5:26:22 PM

I would have to say go with the GeForce4 Ti4200 only if you plan on playing games or working in lower resolutions. If you are planning on having 1280*1024 or above go with the Radeon 8500 as it has been consistently shown that Radeon generally does better at higher resolutions. I would go with the Radeon myself because it does cost that much less here in Canada.

I crossed the line into insanity so long ago I no longer have any idea which way to go to get further from the line.
September 13, 2002 10:14:10 PM

Quote:
You keep mentioning UT2003 which is still an unreleased game (AFAIK, at least, I haven't seen it around in Canada yet), and it was tested by Anandtech on ATI drivers that had texture problems with the game. Undoubtly, a final review of the game with the updated drivers on the R8500 will show much better performance.

A: he said newer game, can you get much newer than unreleased?
B: prove the updated drivers will show better performance


Quote:
Again, this goes back to game developers' lack of testing on ATI's products. They're forcing ATI to do the dirty work for them.


Since when is it game devlopers responsibility to make sure their games work on different hardware WHEN they are using a universal development standard(dx or ogl). It isnt ut2003's fault that there were texture issues with the 8500 it is ati's fault that they didnt follow the ogl specification imo.

But its a moot point as you claim the new drivers repair the issue and are faster, so again we will wait for your proof.

:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
September 13, 2002 10:15:14 PM

Quote:
I would have to say go with the GeForce4 Ti4200 only if you plan on playing games or working in lower resolutions. If you are planning on having 1280*1024 or above go with the Radeon 8500 as it has been consistently shown that Radeon generally does better at higher resolutions. I would go with the Radeon myself because it does cost that much less here in Canada.


Did you read my write up in the 8500 versus 4200 thread, the 4200s lead INCREASED as resolution was increased, not decreased.


:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
September 13, 2002 10:17:09 PM

Quote:
wasn't gonna post this link cause actually gameplay means more to me than just benchs off the net on 2Ghz + machine which alot of people don't have.
Here is a review of the Radeon 9700 with a Ti 4200 and a Gigabyte Radeon 8500 also thrown into the mix. Where is the
Whoop Ass??????


Umm, the 4200 is a 128 meg version, which is slower than the 64 meg version were discussing, even so it still posts a 5-15% lead across the board.

Thanks for adding weight to my side of the debate.

:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
September 13, 2002 10:19:14 PM

Quote:
its obvious you favor Nvidia Hardware and that's fine.
I'm more netural in my statements not liking one company more than the other. Thats about all I can say for now there is nothing I could say to change your mind. You've already made your choice. For me to try would be like talking to a brick wall!


I dont like one company more than the other, dthe best videocard out now is the 9700, dont assume because I think the 4200 whomps the 8500 that I am some kind of nvidiot.

Your views are your oppinion, based in falsehood imo but still your views, stick to them as you like, but do not presume to attack mine which are backed up with benchmark proof and survive the counter blow.

:wink: Heatsinks, if you dont overclock, use the <b>STOCK!</b> :wink:
!