• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Wats the diff between FX and GF4 Ti?

F

falcone

Guest
#1
I took alook at some specs of the FX and GF4 Tichips, and the GF4 Ti chips seem to be rendering faster then entry level FX chips... any reason for that?
 
#2
Under DX8 tests, the Ti is often better, but in DX9, the FX cards will always win.

The GF4 Ti was designed around DX8, and the FX is a (sort-of) DX9 card.
 
F

falcone

Guest
#7
i haven't ran ani proper FPS test yet, but it feels as if even my old MX460 is faster then my FX5200 now! whew...

I tink the FX was too much hype :( rather disappointing hmm...
 
M

mokuni

Guest
#8
yeah basically the difference is in the specs but you guys are forgeting about the FX ultra which does heaps better in DX9. well lthe 5900 and 5950 anyways. But regarding hte FX and Ti question, i would go with the Ti anyday even tho the FX maybe DX9 ready.
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#9
Originally posted by canadian_divx
but the thing is that even with dx 9 the ti's out perform the xp 5600 and below
?

the ti's don't run dx9.. they fallback to ps 1.1/1.3 shaders from ps 2.0...

as is the fx5200 SHOULD have decent ps 1.4 performance since the spec is in ps 2.0 (its backward compatible)

problem is trying to drop precision everywhere to get extra fps... sounds odd but just look @ the pictures of AM3 that I posted as a new link... all explained...
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#10
Originally posted by mokuni
yeah basically the difference is in the specs but you guys are forgeting about the FX ultra which does heaps better in DX9. well lthe 5900 and 5950 anyways. But regarding hte FX and Ti question, i would go with the Ti anyday even tho the FX maybe DX9 ready.
the nv35 and below... and the next nv 3x cores should continue to have the same sort of dx9 performance as they do now...

the ultra moniker is just for faster gpu's in the same class... like ati's pro moniker...

the fx lineup does dx9... the problem is how well (or not well) it runs dx9 shaders..
 
S

Speed4Ever

Guest
#12
The 5200 is an absolute dog, plain and simple. Its positioned to replace the MX cards, and you know how horrible they were.

Its already been well proven that calling the 5200 DX9 capable is nothing but paper marketing. While it may be capable, its severely crippled like its predessesor. In other words, dont bother with it.

All in all, the entire FX series is horrible at rendering DX9, and cant be fixed without cheats due to horrid hardware design.

Only the 5900 is even playable with DX9 at this time, and its not too hot compared to the Radeon 9600-9700-9800 cards
 

Krux

Nissan Powered
#13
Originally posted by Electronic Punk
also another difference is, that nvidia still had some respect after they released the ti
haha I believe at that time Nvidia still had all the respect cuzz the 9700 hadn't quite come out yet or it had just come out and everyone was still iffy on the quality of ATI drivers.
 

Krux

Nissan Powered
#14
Originally posted by Speed4Ever
The 5200 is an absolute dog, plain and simple. Its positioned to replace the MX cards, and you know how horrible they were.

Its already been well proven that calling the 5200 DX9 capable is nothing but paper marketing. While it may be capable, its severely crippled like its predessesor. In other words, dont bother with it.

All in all, the entire FX series is horrible at rendering DX9, and cant be fixed without cheats due to horrid hardware design.

Only the 5900 is even playable with DX9 at this time, and its not too hot compared to the Radeon 9600-9700-9800 cards


the 5900 ultra can beat both the 9700 pro and the 9600 pro not in price but performance and not in all games but alot.
 
N

Nedreplan

Guest
#15
It all come to taste and what you are used to. I have had nVidia since TNT2-days and I will stick to it because I know it will do and preform what I expect it to do. Those who are satisfied with ATi will most likely do so..

One thing I can say..that there is a difference between the Geforce FX and the Geforce 4 Ti, I went from a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 to the FX 5900 Ultra, and now it does not matter how high I set the graphic quality or AA/AF on the games that I play...they run smooth and rock steady. I run my games in 1024x768 @ 100Hz as it fits my screen the best. And the general quality is noticeble much better, both light and colours. I play mostly simulations, sport and strategy, and never online.
I have the Creative 3DBlaster FX 5900 Ultra.

This talk about ATi or nVidia is better or worse starts to sound like at my job... but there it is about cars.
For me it is the same thing. As long as it do what you want it to do.. take you from spot A to B or render this and that graphic element it does not matter if you have a Ford, Toyota or Rolls & Royce...or Ati, nVidia or Matrox.
It can't do much more than that... the rest is pure brag. And you can only get what you want depending on the size of your account. The bigger and faster..the deeper it digs in your wallet.
I got my 5900 Ultra because I want to have something that can last me for years, especially now when my gaming is slowing down more and more. It felt like a stupid investment (like all computer products as the seem to go out of fashion pretty quick) that I felt I could afford at the time.

And I guess that it will take some time before games comes to the point where they will take fully use of the power in both GeForce FX 5900 or the ATi 9800. Just look at the specs. on new games like: NHL 2004, TRON 2.0 or S.W Jedi knight: Jedi Academy.
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#16
Originally posted by Nedreplan
It all come to taste and what you are used to. I have had nVidia since TNT2-days and I will stick to it because I know it will do and preform what I expect it to do. Those who are satisfied with ATi will most likely do so..

One thing I can say..that there is a difference between the Geforce FX and the Geforce 4 Ti, I went from a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 to the FX 5900 Ultra, and now it does not matter how high I set the graphic quality or AA/AF on the games that I play...they run smooth and rock steady. I run my games in 1024x768 @ 100Hz as it fits my screen the best. And the general quality is noticeble much better, both light and colours. I play mostly simulations, sport and strategy, and never online.
I have the Creative 3DBlaster FX 5900 Ultra.

This talk about ATi or nVidia is better or worse starts to sound like at my job... but there it is about cars.
For me it is the same thing. As long as it do what you want it to do.. take you from spot A to B or render this and that graphic element it does not matter if you have a Ford, Toyota or Rolls & Royce...or Ati, nVidia or Matrox.
It can't do much more than that... the rest is pure brag. And you can only get what you want depending on the size of your account. The bigger and faster..the deeper it digs in your wallet.
I got my 5900 Ultra because I want to have something that can last me for years, especially now when my gaming is slowing down more and more. It felt like a stupid investment (like all computer products as the seem to go out of fashion pretty quick) that I felt I could afford at the time.

And I guess that it will take some time before games comes to the point where they will take fully use of the power in both GeForce FX 5900 or the ATi 9800. Just look at the specs. on new games like: NHL 2004, TRON 2.0 or S.W Jedi knight: Jedi Academy.
haven;t played nhl2004 but tron and JA run 1600x1200 all options maxed on my machine :)

and btw... nvidia is shyte coz they are ripping off consumers... I am sure this would be the same situation in your car discussions if a company sold a car labelled as a v8 turbo'd and instead it had an inline 4 with no mods...
 

Krux

Nissan Powered
#17
I go where ever the quality is was with 3dfx then nvidia now ati when I need a new card if nvidia is on top again thats where Ill go. same goes for all my hardware. Don't know how anyone could look at it any other way.... the best at the time is just that..... the best at that time, hah in other words I have no loyalties :)
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#18
Originally posted by Krux
I go where ever the quality is was with 3dfx then nvidia now ati when I need a new card if nvidia is on top again thats where Ill go. same goes for all my hardware. Don't know how anyone could look at it any other way.... the best at the time is just that..... the best at that time, hah in other words I have no loyalties :)
yep...
 
S

Speed4Ever

Guest
#19
Originally posted by Krux
the 5900 ultra can beat both the 9700 pro and the 9600 pro not in price but performance and not in all games but alot.
Read my post again. I'm talking DX9 games. Its pretty much a given that so far you get half the performance in DX9 based games on the 5900 Ultra as compared to the 9700/9800.

On DX8 games, both are quite excellent in general, with the Radeon getting a *slight* edge in IQ, and both playing tit-for-tat in great speed scores.

But with the higher prices, the rotten DX9 performance, and the mind-games with the driver cheating, IMNSHO, make the FX not a failure, but quite undesirable compared with to the relevant ATI models.

Anyhoo, back to the subject. Compared to the GF4Ti, the high-end 5900 will definetely have better AA, maybe better AF, and at least capable of playing DX9 games (whether satisfactorily or not is in the eye of the beholder). But, run, dont walk, from the 5200 or 5600 unless you know what your getting into.
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#20
Originally posted by Speed4Ever
Read my post again. I'm talking DX9 games. Its pretty much a given that so far you get half the performance in DX9 based games on the 5900 Ultra as compared to the 9700/9800.

On DX8 games, both are quite excellent in general, with the Radeon getting a *slight* edge in IQ, and both playing tit-for-tat in great speed scores.

But with the higher prices, the rotten DX9 performance, and the mind-games with the driver cheating, IMNSHO, make the FX not a failure, but quite undesirable compared with to the relevant ATI models.

Anyhoo, back to the subject. Compared to the GF4Ti, the high-end 5900 will definetely have better AA, maybe better AF, and at least capable of playing DX9 games (whether satisfactorily or not is in the eye of the beholder). But, run, dont walk, from the 5200 or 5600 unless you know what your getting into.
the 5600U on the whole is not a bad card...

perhaps dx9 is not its forte but its not a bad card...
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,961
Messages
673,239
Members
89,013
Latest member
Pdawgintown