:wink:

JUST bought a winfast ti4400

3dmark=8153

elsa g3 920

3dmark=7599

this was with no ocing and newest drivers.....

game performance was unaccaeotable for a 340$ upgrade...what i mean is that the g3 is still good dont need to upgrade from g3....and dont give me driver crap i tried all the drivers and inf files,done thios a lot.......so .imo i dont think it is worth it.....what do you think?

ps-now if you dont have g3 and are building a system you have to make that call.....personally i like nvidia a lot but i would probably get ati 8500 and be really happy.....or find cheap ti500

You should of read some of the reviews.

The GF4 is hardly more than a GF3 at a higher clock speed. Which is why some game developers were complaining that the number increase just confuses customers into thinking it's a whole new chip.

I bought one after having a Geforce 3 Ultra and it boosted my 3dmarks by 2000. Not worth the extra money but I can run games with FSAA with no performance hit too

As regards people giving out, thats the GeForce 4 MX you're thinking off.
GeForce 4 is well worth it for FSAA performance & image quality - certainly a better update than GeForce 1 -> 2 was.
You soud like you just don't have too fast a CPU, that's all. Get a faster CPU & you'd see a greater difference.

Darn right. My 3dmark score went from 8200 to over 10,000 from a GF3 to a GF4. High resolution + FSAA is absolutely awesome and fast, too. This card rocks!

Exactly - buying a Geforce4 is really not worth the investment.

Yep there is no point in buying a Geforce 4 because come this fall there is going to be alot more choices of graphic cards to choose from which also means that there will end up being a price war which is always a good thing

Unacceptable game performance...hmm...Well, I don't have a GF4 Ti card, but I'm willing to bet that either you had vsync on, or maybe you have a pretty shitty computer...The processor plays an important part in a game's performance...Also, I really don't know what you meant by "unacceptable"...I mean, with that card and a good computer, it would probably go under 30fps in a very good game or on a res of 1600x1200 with FSAA and in 32 bits...There's something we're missing here...


Big D.

That may be so, but I don't think there will be much competition for the geforce4 4200. The Main reason for getting a geforce4 will be for future proofing. upcoming games like doom 3 and ut 2003 will show big differences between the geforce 3 and the geforce 4. Nothing really takes advantage of a geforce 4's power unless you game at a high resolution or have the fastest CPU money can buy.
The reason I want a geforce 4 is that it is a dx8 peice and has xs antialiasing takes only a small performance hit.
If you still have a geforce 3 run benchmarks at 1280 and 1600 and you will see a larger difference. but at the moment there is nothing stressing the latest cards which is why it is always a little silly to buy the latest card, unless you don't mind gaming at 60hz at 1280 or 1600 or accepting only a small increase in todays games. It really does pay to wait until there are games that show big performance differences between the latest and last generation of video cards, which is why I am going to stick with my geforce2 ti until the 4200 comes down in price later this year.

Oh, btw, I "do" agree that there's not really any use in buying a GF4 card if you have a GF3 Ti or better...


Big D.

ok here is my rig:
amd xp 1800 @145fsb=1668
epox 8kha+
enermax 465 w/psu
512 corsair pc2400c2
40 gig wd 7200
xp home

and it is not a new technology it is a souped up g3 dont be fooled and like i said...if i were building a system i would get a ti4400 from gainward but i tried to run q3 with all settings maxed and aa at 2x 1600x1200 and it was unacceptable and slow and very choppy.......now a lot has to do with drivers yes i know...i put in 2750 and 2920 and was still the same....so ill wait for next generation chip and hammer before i upgrade my system............and like i said,my g3 elsa 920 runs q3 with all maxed and 1600x1200 no aa fast.....and with visual quality....so ,im good.....and as far as cpu....after a certain resolution(i think it is 800x600) the cpu has very little to do with video performance.....and as far as games...i gaurantfukingtee that the g4 will only run doom 3 at mid to low levels......look at the history if iD softwares games and youll see im right...thier technology has always been 3 steps ahead of hardware.....want an example?look at all the gamnes using q3 engine....can you run wolf at 1600x1200 aa on and ngs half-way decently?i can t.....and i dont think you can either and i know you cant with aa on.......


peace

one more thing:


not to mention anistrophic filtering at 8 or 16 tap.......im not sure they have a card that has the power to run a q3 engine game with all those settings maxed out........but i could be wrong....lol

Yeps Yeps...I have GeForce3 Ti500 and I'm satisfied with it until "GeForce 5" (or what it name will be...well next generation chip then I think) comes so I buy it and not this "new alot faster" GF4 :wink:

Geforce 2 Pro to Geforce 4 Ti (clocked @310/620) is a different story.

Not only performance overall is really , really noticable throughout games in 32-bit that' are high in detail (e.g. UT2003) makes a huge impact.

Not that 3DMark should be "the benchmark", it sent my score from 4800 to 11,200 marks in default resolution.

NOW THATS IMPACT!

hrm. I have a similar system:

1800+ clocked to 2000+
512mb pc2100 ram
gf4 ti4200

but let me tell you, my score is considerably higher than your's.

I get over 10,000 points, and that's with the 30.82 drivers.

maybe you should look into it. :wink: