cj7816 Posted April 3, 2002 Share Posted April 3, 2002 I bought a new video card and I wanted to see how it compared to my old one so I ran a little test. I performed my tests in the same fashion as those performed at Raven: "All tests were run from the release copy, and dropping out of the executable and re-running for each graphic setting change (and waiting for any hard drive accessing to cease before starting next test). The only settings we altered were choosing the 4 predefined video settings at the top of the video screen. Nothing else was touched at all." All load tests stopwatched from console command "map kejim_base" to seeing "datapad updated" onscreen. All framerate tests were clocked in artus_mine. AMD Tbird / 1.3GHZ / 512MB / GeForce2 MX400 32MB DirectX 8.0 / Driver 4.13.01.2832 Loads: VideoSetting Load Time Reload Time ============================================= HighQuality 0:55 0:05 Normal 0:30 0:03 Fast 0:25 0:03 Fastest 0:23 0:03 Framerates: VideoSetting Max Min ============================================= HighQuality 87-100 2-5 Normal 80-100 14-17 Fast 90-100+ 15-20 Fastest 90-100+ 15-20 Then I upgraded my video card to a GeForce4 mx440 64mb: I removed the nVidia drivers and installed Standard VGA, Shut down and replaced the video card, Booted and installed 4.13.01.2832, Reinstalled DirectX 8.0. AMD Tbird / 1.3GHZ / 512MB / GeForce4 MX440 64MB DirectX 8.0 / Driver 4.13.01.2832 VideoSetting Load Time Reload Time ============================================= HighQuality 0:55 0:05 Normal 0:30 0:03 Fast 0:25 0:03 Fastest 0:15 0:02 VideoSetting Max Min ============================================= HighQuality 80-100 13-16 Normal 80-100 14-17 Fast 80-100 15-19 Fastest 90-100+ 15-20 Coclusion: I think I'll keep my GF4 - I was considering trying to get my money back but being able to play on HighQuality is pretty nice. Just don't think that if you run out and buy a video card that's twice as good, then JK2 will run twice as fast (or even close to it). (If you only have a 16mb video card I would upgrade to 32, though) Also, I tried out volumetric shading and I agree with everyone else on this forum: It usually looks bad and slows performance way down when lots of enemies show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah Boon Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 64mb of GeForce2 MX is way better than your 32mb GeForce2 MX. If you are restricted on money but wants power, 64mb GeForce 2 is the card. if you got the dough, get GF4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlacKnight Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 actually the gf4 mx is not twice as good as your old one. true it was twice the ram but a good gf4mx will only run at about the same speed as a top of the line gf2 64meg gts. I hate to break it to you bud but you would probably have been better off going with a gf3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah Boon Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 sorry bud, had to agree with BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaNg0 Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 Yep for an extra 30 bucks or so you could've got the GF3 Ti 200 or the ATI Radeon 8500 and wiped the floor with those two cards you tested.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidMyre Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 thats what happens when you get an MX its basically a ****tier version of the real one, trust me on this one take it back and get a Radeon 8500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Durden Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 Agreed. I run at all settings highest as they could go (minus stupid Volumetric shadows) at 1024X768 and i run between around 60 and 150 FPS. On a Radeon 8500DV. Course that was for 300 bux, but that is because of the firewire, tv tuner, tivo etc etc. Seriously, all MX cards suck. Just get a radeon 8500 or a GF3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vellox Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 I'm curious as to what you guys got on the Yavin swamp level. My computer was brought to its knees on certain parts of it (i.e 15-25) fps. All other levels are fine, averaging between 65-120fps My specs: Athlon XP 1.4ghz @ 1.52ghz Geforce 3 Ti200 at 235/540mhz with latest detonators 512mb DDR ram 7200 rpm Maxtor 60gig Soundblaster Audigy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj7816 Posted April 4, 2002 Author Share Posted April 4, 2002 Originally posted by vellox I'm curious as to what you guys got on the Yavin swamp level. My computer was brought to its knees on certain parts of it (i.e 15-25) fps. All other levels are fine, averaging between 65-120fps My specs: Athlon XP 1.4ghz @ 1.52ghz Geforce 3 Ti200 at 235/540mhz with latest detonators 512mb DDR ram 7200 rpm Maxtor 60gig Soundblaster Audigy Sorry, Dude. I haven't gotten to that level yet. Is this the only place that you're getting a framerate hit? Everybody here is telling me to get a GF3Ti buy you seem to be getting hit too. What about your framerates outside at the beginning of artus_mine ... that's where I have gotten hit the worst so far? Do you recommend the GF3Ti200? I'm planning to sell or trade my GF4mx but I'm not exactly sure what card I should go for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfc.Green Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 If you've got the money ($300-400) then I would recommend a GeForce4 Ti, thats about the best you can buy and yes its even better than the Geforce3 Ti series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrEEpaGe Posted April 4, 2002 Share Posted April 4, 2002 people, people, people!!! i would liek to explain some of nvidia's marketing ploys first, geforce4mx ### != better or even close to better than even the geforce3 ti200 it only has features for those parallel to the gf2....it does not support those gf3/dx8 features... geforce4 ti#### = fast gf3....there are no new features in ti gf4 series...all it is is an extremely better gf3 =) geforce ti200 != economical buy @ pricewatch, $129 RADEON 8500 $112 GeForce3 TI 200 $214 - GeForce3 TI 500 $79 - GeForce4 MX 440 $75 - GeForce4 MX 420 $325 GeForce4 TI 4600 $234 - GeForce4 TI 4400 i know which one I would buy...radeon 8500 virtually = gf3 ti500 in terms of performance..and for 17 dollars more than the ti200 its a steal.. for a card that would last (a whole 6-8 months before being replaced), go with teh 4600, which has gone down 75$ in price since it came out... for those of you on a budget, go w/ the 4400 or radeon 8500....if you have enough dough, definitely go iwth the 4400 over radeon... all gf3/gf4mx/all gf2 should not be bought...by simple math you have which you should buy.... also, there arent many driver related performance issues plaguing hte radeon now... so there is my very informed opinion =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grins2Pain Posted April 5, 2002 Share Posted April 5, 2002 One of the side benefits of having a GeForce 4 Ti series is lesser known to most people, so I thought I would shine some light. In addition to the extra speed, and the extra NfiniteFX speed, the textures look quite a bit sharper on the GeForce 4's than on the 3's or previous, due to Nvidia copping-out a bit with there texturing before the NV25. I am not 100% sure if the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 is available yet, but when you add everything up, either get a GeForce 4 Ti 4200, 4400, or 4600, or a Radeon, because unless you get it REALLY cheap GeForce 3's are kind of silly now. I am actually glad that I remained broke when the 3's were popular, because Nvidia kind of screwed over the GeForce 3 crowd. Not the fault of the owners, its really Nvidias fault for superceding the card so soon on price AND performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrEEpaGe Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 i didnt get a gf3 nor will i get a 4 im waiting until they have d3d9 features =) then ill blow my money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanMO Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 JUst bought a gforce 4ti 4400. used to have a gefoce 3ti 200. My framerates in yavin swamp do not drop like they did before(not nearly as much) my picture quality is better. Im able to turn on AA without getting a magor drop in FPS compared to the 3ti 200. The gefore 4ti will also be able to handle the games coming out in the future much better(U2 for instance) 4ti has 2 vertex and pixel shaders as opposed to 1 for 3ti series. 4ti has BGA(ball grid array ) memory seating which means faster transfer of data and less error of data transfer at high speeds. I suggest you pick up Maximum PC from April 2002 for a complete comparison. The true benefits of the 4ti may not be immediately apparent but very soon they will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJediGuy Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 The Geforce4 MX's are not really Geforce4 chips at all. They go back to Geforce 2 technology. They lack the Pixel and Vertex shaders of the G3's and True G4's. They also don't use the Lightspeed memory architecture as well as the Geforce4. Making them slower. A G4 MX has better support for dual monitors but lacks speed. If you buy a G4 MX you got ripped off, because its not truely a G4. If you got the money get a G4 TI 4200,4400,4600, or if your card will last wait till Nvidia releases their next card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.