Graphics cards- current state of play....

[Pyramus]

I'm choosing parts atm for a friends computer- Theres quite a few new graphics cards since I last looked (around the time of Ti4600 release).

1) Whats happened to the Ti4400 and 4600? All I seem to see now are 4200 and 4800.

2) What is the 4800SE? How does it compare to the 4600.

3) Why is the FX 5200 so cheap? Is this equivalent to an MX type card?

4) the Radeon 9500 pro, how does this compare to the Geforces? ABout equivalent to ti4600?

5) The 9700 is far better thatn the GF FX 5800?

 

[TheNautican]

1) Don't know
2) Don't know
3) Don't know
4) For years Radeon has been better than anything on the market. See the many articles showings its benchmarks at Toms hardware site. However, their support (or lack there of) has been the single reason why myself and many others have choosen to go with a nVida chipset based card. I personally have an ASUS card.
5) Don't know.

 

[pmonett]

1) The Ti4400 and 4600 have been "retired", or are very difficult to find. If you can get one, go for a 4400 unless the price difference is very small between the two. The advent of the 4800 is pushing "old" versions out. The 4200 is still out because it is the "budget" card, with a great price/performance ratio.
2) the 4800SE is, I believe, a Ti4400 core that is AGP 8X compatible. Since the "regular" 4400 is out, you might as well grab this one, but do not expect better performance than the "regular" version. No games are 8X compatible and when they will be, there will be a few generations of new cards down the river.
3) The FX5200 is cheap because it is not a great performer (does less well than the Ti4200). See benchmarks here :

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030311/geforcefx-5600-5200-10.html.

That said, it is DX9 compatible, which can be an argument.
4) ATI products have been a good competition, but it is only the R9500 that has been "better than anything else".
That trend is continuing with the 9700 series.
The real problem with ATI has indeed been the drivers, which have never been up to par with the quality of their hardware. This is changing now, due to the pressure that nVidia is putting on the market.
It is good actually. ATI is forcing nVidia to keep prices down and keep delivering new hardware, while nVidia is forcing ATI to keep delivering and to improve the quality of its drivers.
At the moment, it is practically a coin toss between the top-of-line products on either side. nVidia benefits from a rock-solid driver reputation, but suffers somewhat due to production difficulties and time-to-market issues. ATI benefits from having the R9700 available NOW, with performance on par with nVidia's FX 5800 (which is not available) while its driver support and stability are more in question.
5) As you can see in the link above, the 9700 does not crush the FX 5800. It is better in some areas, less in others. But, the major argument is that it is available, while the 5800 is not (or very little).

 

[Grenage]

Aye, I used to be a big fan of Nvidia but I changed to the 9700pro a few months ago and really am extremely pleased with the decision. Not 1 problem yet

 

[paparazi]

1) 4400Ti and 4600Ti retired
4200Ti 4X AGP still available in 64 and 128mb versions
4800SE is actually a 4200Ti with 8X AGP
4800 is " " 4400Ti " " "
An example of this is the Leadtek Winfast A280 LE TD which is the 4200Ti with 8 X AGP (single 50mm GPU fan) then there is the:
A280 TD which is a 4400Ti with 8 X AGP (this graphics card has two 40mm fans like the older A250 TD (GF4 4600Ti)

2)The SE as explained above isn't quite the "BIG BOY" the old 4600 was but performs within 10% of it. (I have the Leatek A280 TD My ViVo, the 4400 with 8 X AGP) thats why I know, this card is even closer to the 4600, within 5% But when you consider that these cards are HALF the price of the older 4600 you can see they are a bargain.

3)Yes the FX5200 is the replacement for the MX range with only a slight improvement in performance they fall way short of even the cheapest 4200 card but do support DX9.

4)Yes indeed! about right, the 9500pro just beats a
GF4 4800 (4400Ti type) and is about on par with the old 4600 BUT IS a much newer card with DX9 support and more up to date technology, but I also suspect at a sligtly higher cost than the GF4's mentioned.

Lastly!!!!
5)No, Not at all! I notice you leave "pro" and "ultra" out of your question and from what I have read and seen there really isn't anything between the two.
I have a question, does the "non pro" version FX 5800 take up two slots and have the radical "load switching" cooling solution of the ultra, because if it has, the main critisism of the FX5800 ultra was the incredibly noisey operation and the loss of one PCI slot.
Martin



Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.

 

[squidman]

Read TomsHardware. This will answer your questions.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/index.html

and then just look at benchmarks.

 

[Pyramus]

Some very helpful answers there (save squidman)- thanks guys.

All these different types of cards is getting very confusing. Nvidia really know how to think up confusing brand names.

 

[pmonett]

ATI is no slouch there either. They already have the R9700 out, but the R9600 coming out depends on the 9500, whereas the upcoming 9800 is the successor of the 9700.

 

[dakota81]

And what's really fun is the 9600 Pro is on average slower than the 9500 Pro, but it's cheaper to manufacture. I don't

And thinking that was enough confusion, just wait until nVidia releases their upcoming gpu, the NV35, with a more optimized and better performing core, but supposidly not going to be using DDR-II, thus diminishing performance.

Has anyone mentioned ATI's RV400 possibly out this summer?


If I were to get a gaming card right now, it'd go with the 4200 (shure would be great to replace the old GTS Pro!).