Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200

I just purchased from

www.newegg.com

a Sapphire 9000 for a little over $50.00 (US DOLLARS). This is an ATI
product and when I installed it on my sons Asus A7N8X Deluxe motherboard it
has functioned without any problems. It is about 3 times faster than the
ATI Radeon 7000 VE which I also Own.

If you have the VE then you might try uninstalling all the drivers and first
downloading and installing DX 9.0b from Microsoft. The new drivers for that
card require it and seem to work pretty well.

I recommend you check out the link below. This is at Toms Hardware. It
shows a chart with a wide range of video cards so you can compare them in a
logical manner.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...2.html#aquanox

This is the most recent comparison of video new video cards it is a guide
and not a straight comparison. It is different and recommends buying a
specific card for the free video games it offers. I guess that could be a
possible option. My kids liked playing Baldurs Gate we got one time free
with a video card.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...714/index.html

Hope this helps a little bit.


"Mitchua" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new video
card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how
great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but
with
the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my
price
range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus
FX5200
($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't
know
if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic
(comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year warranty)
GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus
FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering
here?

Thanks for your help,
Mitchua

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

"booster" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
that 4200 price is very cheap and looks like a poor performer. you
certainly
won't get the benchmark scores you see for the normal priced ti4200s. If
price is a limiting factor then just go with the 5200. it doesn't sound
like you want the fastest graphics card, just a technologically better
but
lower end of the faster cards 5600+,9600+, and so on. The 5200 is faster
than the r9000 though. If you're going get a radeon get a 9200 at least

I disagree. A ti4200 is a ti4200 regardles of who makes it. It will have
the
same nVidia GPU as any other ti4200 and should perform similarly. nVidia
do
exercise a certain amount of control over what happens with their GPUs. I
am
very happy with my ti4200. It's a Leadtek but if I could have found a
no-name one significantly cheaper without the software package that I'll
never use I would have bought it.
--

From what I've read, the generic makers do need to use certain standards of
components. They can't just put on DDR with half the Mhz. Asus has
improved on the design but the basic 4200ti is still better than a fx5200,
right? I don't buy into that DX9.0 hype...yet :-)

--Mitchua

$180.00 for any Ti 4200 sounds too steep,since the 5200's came out prices
have dropped.My BSG was only 95.00.
"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

"booster" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
that 4200 price is very cheap and looks like a poor performer. you
certainly
won't get the benchmark scores you see for the normal priced ti4200s. If
price is a limiting factor then just go with the 5200. it doesn't sound
like you want the fastest graphics card, just a technologically better
but
lower end of the faster cards 5600+,9600+, and so on. The 5200 is faster
than the r9000 though. If you're going get a radeon get a 9200 at least

I disagree. A ti4200 is a ti4200 regardles of who makes it. It will have
the
same nVidia GPU as any other ti4200 and should perform similarly. nVidia
do
exercise a certain amount of control over what happens with their GPUs. I
am
very happy with my ti4200. It's a Leadtek but if I could have found a
no-name one significantly cheaper without the software package that I'll
never use I would have bought it.
--
~misfit~


"Mitchua" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new
video
card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me
how
great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but
with
the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my
price
range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus
FX5200
($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I
don't
know
if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a
generic
(comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year
warranty)
GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus
FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be
considering
here?

Thanks for your help,
Mitchua






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:00:39 GMT, "Mitchua" wrote:


From what I've read, the generic makers do need to use certain standards of
components. They can't just put on DDR with half the Mhz. Asus has
improved on the design but the basic 4200ti is still better than a fx5200,
right? I don't buy into that DX9.0 hype...yet :-)

I say buy the cheap Ti4200. 1 year warranty, right?
The FX5200 does handle heavy anisotropic filtering better than the
Ti4200. But with much faster pixelwrites, you have better framerate
reserves in the Ti4200. You might not get all the eyecandy of the
FX5200, but you'll always be able to have a smooth framerate. Even at
high resolutions.
And the Ti4200 carries a ton of eyecandy compared to 7000. You'll get
onboard transformation engines and pixelshaders. The Ti4200 does all
those things like realtime shadows, fire, smoke, fog, local/directed
lighting, half reflections in wavy water, on the fly.

I'm not so convinced the FX5200 is such a bad choice, but the general
suspicion is that it doesn't have the muscle to make its DX9 support
relevant. Me, I think it's basicly a question of going down in
resolution. Down to 800x600 or even 648x480. That would make eyecandy
less relevant, I suppose. But you know it's cheap. That's the bottom
line of it.


ancra