5900 XT vs. GeForce 3 Ti 200 and GeForce Ti 4200

Average test hog:

Barton +2600
256 Mb ddr ram
ASUS Deluxe nForce 2 (with Soundstorm)
Windows Millennium
frame-rate measuring soft: "Fraps"

The cards:

Inno 3d GeForce 3 Titanium 200 128Mb
MSI GeForce 4200 8x 64Mb
Leadtek 5900XT 128Mb


With every game demo I set the graphical settings to 1024 x 768, 32
bit colors, no anti-aliasing and no anisotropic filtering. All the
effects were at the highest settings.

What really surprised during the "test n play marathon" how well the
good old GeForce 3 Titanium 200 could keep up with its older brothers.
I'd need more time with new games to see if it can keep the pace, but
like I said, it wasn't half bad. Sharp 2d Windows clarity and solid
speed in DX8 3d games while not reaching as high with the maximum
frame-rates as the other two. It kept its ground, though, and there's
no reason to change this card to a low-end FX 5200 or even to a 5600
Ultra. I honestly don't think it's a worthy upgrade. If you have
this oldie, and want to upgrade, save your money to a 5900 XT or its
little brother 5700 Ultra. "Max Payne 2" was smooth with each card,
and an inch prettier with XT 5900, but something end-users can live
without. When did mirrors become DX9 luxury in Remedy team's games?

I'll still say this, even though it's the hundreth time I've said it;
GeForce Titanium 200, Titanium 4200 and 5900 XT are best buy products
for each of their generation. The way I see it, the speed and the
visual quality are/were integrated into some of the finest graphic
card products in the history of gaming. Hopefully, nVidia will keep
the tradition alive with the future releases.


------------------------------


GeForce 3 Titanium 200
Barton 2600 +, 256 Mb ram
WinMe
drivers: 53.04


FAR CRY DEMO
texture filtering set to "low"

24 max
15 avg
10 min


MAX PAYNE 2 DEMO
highest settings

85+ max pain
43 avg (during cut scenes)
28 min (during gun fights)
22 (cutscene with the elevator on fire)



DEUS EX 2 DEMO
"Bloom" effect also turned on

23 max (inside the building)
15 avg (inside the building)
10 avg (outside near the guard)
7 min

----------------------------------

Titanium 4200, Barton +2600,
256Mb ram, WinMe
drivers: 53.04


MAX PAYNE 2 DEMO

85+ max
43 avg (during cut scenes)
35-43 avg (during gun fights)
28 min (during a cut scene where the elevator is getting hot and
fired-up)



DEUS EX 2 DEMO

20+ max (outside buildings looking around)
20 avg (inside the buildings)
14 avg (nearby the guard)
10 min (outside nearby the guard shooting a spider bot that came after
me!)


FAR CRY DEMO

32 max
22 avg
14 min (dropped even lower than this during hard drive runs)

---------------------------------------

5900XT, Barton 2600+
256MB ram, WinMe
drivers: 53.04


FAR CRY DEMO


15 min (even lower than this when hard drive starts to spin)
25 avg
17 to 20+ (during a gun fight)
35-45 max (when admiring the sea life or your surroundings at the
beach)


MAX PAYNE 2 DEMO

85+ max paine
40+ avg (during gun fights)
50 - 70+ (avg during without fights)
43 (during cut scenes - haven't we seen this result before?)
29 min (during elevator explotion cut scene, after Jim Bravura gets
shot)


DEUS EX 2 DEMO

48 max (inside buildings)
36 max (outside)
26 avg (inside)
23 avg (outside without doing nothing)
17 avg (during gun fights)
min 14 (during a gun fight)

------------------
The extra tests with 5900 XT:

DEUS EX 2 full version, UNREAL 2 demo level and 3d Mark 2003


My current favorite game is "Deus Ex 2" and while I started playing it
with Titanium 4200, it wasn't smooth enough. Yesterday I switched to
5900 XT and the frame-rates were raised a notch or two. I used every
effect to max, except with FSAA and anisotropic filtering. I like the
"Bloom" effect, so even if I would get more fluid frame-rates without
it, I decided to stick with it. With my test system I got everything
between 20 to 30, depending on the situation. The drops under 20 fps
usually happened whenever something exploded or if there was a
gunfight.


UNREAL2 demo level
(everything set to max, no FSAA or anisotropic filtering)

95+ max

60+ avg (when no monsters appeared or there were only a couple)

34 min (the elevator scene at the end where "something" jumps on top
of you and the elevator starts falling down)


3D Mark 2003 with Leadtek 5900XT

sco 4699

250 Ram is a bit low, and is a bottelneck for the faster cards.. me =
thinks :-P

--=20
F r e e -
"Nada" escribi=F3 en el mensaje =
om...
Average test hog:
=20
Barton +2600
256 Mb ddr ram
ASUS Deluxe nForce 2 (with Soundstorm)
Windows Millennium
frame-rate measuring soft: "Fraps"
=20
The cards:
=20
Inno 3d GeForce 3 Titanium 200 128Mb
MSI GeForce 4200 8x 64Mb
Leadtek 5900XT 128Mb
=20
=20
With every game demo I set the graphical settings to 1024 x 768, 32
bit colors, no anti-aliasing and no anisotropic filtering. All the
effects were at the highest settings.
=20
What really surprised during the "test n play marathon" how well the
good old GeForce 3 Titanium 200 could keep up with its older brothers.
I'd need more time with new games to see if it can keep the pace, but
like I said, it wasn't half bad. Sharp 2d Windows clarity and solid
speed in DX8 3d games while not reaching as high with the maximum
frame-rates as the other two. It kept its ground, though, and there's
no reason to change this card to a low-end FX 5200 or even to a 5600
Ultra. I honestly don't think it's a worthy upgrade. If you have
this oldie, and want to upgrade, save your money to a 5900 XT or its
little brother 5700 Ultra. "Max Payne 2" was smooth with each card,
and an inch prettier with XT 5900, but something end-users can live
without. When did mirrors become DX9 luxury in Remedy team's games?
=20
I'll still say this, even though it's the hundreth time I've said it;
GeForce Titanium 200, Titanium 4200 and 5900 XT are best buy products
for each of their generation. The way I see it, the speed and the
visual quality are/were integrated into some of the finest graphic
card products in the history of gaming. Hopefully, nVidia will keep
the tradition alive with the future releases.
=20
=20
------------------------------
=20
=20
GeForce 3 Titanium 200=20
Barton 2600 +, 256 Mb ram=20
WinMe
drivers: 53.04
=20
=20
FAR CRY DEMO=20
texture filtering set to "low"
=20
24 max
15 avg
10 min
=20
=20
MAX PAYNE 2 DEMO
highest settings
=20
85+ max pain
43 avg (during cut scenes)
28 min (during gun fights)
22 (cutscene with the elevator on fire)
=20
=20
=20
DEUS EX 2 DEMO
"Bloom" effect also turned on
=20
23 max (inside the building)
15 avg (inside the building)
10 avg (outside near the guard)
7 min
=20
----------------------------------
=20
Titanium 4200, Barton +2600,
256Mb ram, WinMe
drivers: 53.04
=20
=20
MAX PAYNE 2 DEMO
=20
85+ max=20
43 avg (during cut scenes)
35-43 avg (during gun fights)
28 min (during a cut scene where the elevator is getting hot and
fired-up)
=20
=20
=20
DEUS EX 2 DEMO
=20
20+ max (outside buildings looking around)
20 avg (inside the buildings)
14 avg (nearby the guard)
10 min (outside nearby the guard shooting a spider bot that came after
me!)
=20
=20
FAR CRY DEMO
=20
32 max
22 avg
14 min (dropped even lower than this during hard drive runs)
=20
---------------------------------------
=20
5900XT, Barton 2600+
256MB ram, WinMe
drivers: 53.04
=20
=20
FAR CRY DEMO=20
=20
=20
15 min (even lower than this when hard drive starts to spin)
25 avg
17 to 20+ (during a gun fight)
35-45 max (when admiring the sea life or your surroundings at the
beach)
=20
=20
MAX PAYNE 2 DEMO
=20
85+ max paine
40+ avg (during gun fights)
50 - 70+ (avg during without fights)
43 (during cut scenes - haven't we seen this result before?)
29 min (during elevator explotion cut scene, after Jim Bravura gets
shot)
=20
=20
DEUS EX 2 DEMO
=20
48 max (inside buildings)
36 max (outside)
26 avg (inside)
23 avg (outside without doing nothing)
17 avg (during gun fights)
min 14 (during a gun fight)
=20
------------------
The extra tests with 5900 XT:
=20
DEUS EX 2 full version, UNREAL 2 demo level and 3d Mark 2003
=20
=20
My current favorite game is "Deus Ex 2" and while I started playing it
with Titanium 4200, it wasn't smooth enough. Yesterday I switched to
5900 XT and the frame-rates were raised a notch or two. I used every
effect to max, except with FSAA and anisotropic filtering. I like the
"Bloom" effect, so even if I would get more fluid frame-rates without
it, I decided to stick with it. With my test system I got everything
between 20 to 30, depending on the situation. The drops under 20 fps
usually happened whenever something exploded or if there was a
gunfight.
=20
=20
UNREAL2 demo level
(everything set to max, no FSAA or anisotropic filtering)
=20
95+ max
=20
60+ avg (when no monsters appeared or there were only a couple)
=20
34 min (the elevator scene at the end where "something" jumps on top
of you and the elevator starts falling down)
=20
=20
3D Mark 2003 with Leadtek 5900XT
=20
sco 4699

"F r e e" wrote:
250 Ram is a bit low, and is a bottelneck for the faster cards.. me
thinks :-P

256 has never been a problem with WinMe until "Far Cry". Just have to
remember that you won't have a whole lot of programs running under
like anti-virus software and such, which I don't. I keep my game
machine clean without any anti-virus software and use my work computer
for the internet, which has firewalls and other software installed.
But lately I've noticed that even with Win 98/WinMe the games released
within four months have started hogging more memory. "Far Cry" was
spinning the hard drive like crazy. I've never been a fan of XP, but
it seems like I have to upgrade the system with it and add a couple
ram ddr dimms to it.

"Nada" wrote in message
om...
"F r e e" wrote:
250 Ram is a bit low, and is a bottelneck for the faster cards.. me
thinks :-P

256 has never been a problem with WinMe until "Far Cry". Just have to
remember that you won't have a whole lot of programs running under
like anti-virus software and such, which I don't. I keep my game
machine clean without any anti-virus software and use my work computer
for the internet, which has firewalls and other software installed.
But lately I've noticed that even with Win 98/WinMe the games released
within four months have started hogging more memory. "Far Cry" was
spinning the hard drive like crazy. I've never been a fan of XP, but
it seems like I have to upgrade the system with it and add a couple
ram ddr dimms to it.

Just to add some number with those kind of cards for personal experience in
3d mark 2001:

(point range is a reference for different drivers)

system 1 tb1333, kt133a 1gb pc133 cl2:
ti200: 6000-6200 (900 in 2003)
ti4200: 8000-8200
5900"xt": 9000-9400

system 2 xp2400+ (tbred,bus 266), kt133a 1gb pc 133 cl2 (same a7v133 mobo,
other processor):

ti4200: 8600-9300

system 3 athlon64 3200+ k8t800, 512 ddr400 cl3 (now retired because cpu
died!, waiting to be back with 2x512 cl2-3-2-6):

5900"xt": 16550-16990 (5220 in 2003)

Cards Details :
Creative gf3 ti200 64mb, with is a rebadged msi. Tests were made with core
at standard 175, but mems at 500mhz since chips are 4.0ns.

Creative gf4 ti4200 8x 64mb, wich also a rebadged msi, but with smaller
cooler equal to first non 8x series, standard speeds are 250/513 (mems are
3.6ns rated (555mhz) but, as mentioned, were at standard speed).

Gainward 1100 5900 with 2.8ns rated mems (713mhz), standard speeds are
400/700, has temp control. These as creative's 5900, were the first "xt's"
realeased back in september before there was that designation.

Just wanted to say that system one is a good match for the GF3. System two
is limited by slow ram. My ti4200 gets in the 11k range. Are you saying
the A64 died on you for no reason? I hope you bought a retail chip.

Dave


"BelaLvgosi" wrote in message
...

"Nada" wrote in message
om...
"F r e e" wrote:
250 Ram is a bit low, and is a bottelneck for the faster cards.. me
thinks :-P

256 has never been a problem with WinMe until "Far Cry". Just have to
remember that you won't have a whole lot of programs running under
like anti-virus software and such, which I don't. I keep my game
machine clean without any anti-virus software and use my work computer
for the internet, which has firewalls and other software installed.
But lately I've noticed that even with Win 98/WinMe the games released
within four months have started hogging more memory. "Far Cry" was
spinning the hard drive like crazy. I've never been a fan of XP, but
it seems like I have to upgrade the system with it and add a couple
ram ddr dimms to it.

Just to add some number with those kind of cards for personal experience
in
3d mark 2001:

(point range is a reference for different drivers)

system 1 tb1333, kt133a 1gb pc133 cl2:
ti200: 6000-6200 (900 in 2003)
ti4200: 8000-8200
5900"xt": 9000-9400

system 2 xp2400+ (tbred,bus 266), kt133a 1gb pc 133 cl2 (same a7v133 mobo,
other processor):

ti4200: 8600-9300

system 3 athlon64 3200+ k8t800, 512 ddr400 cl3 (now retired because cpu
died!, waiting to be back with 2x512 cl2-3-2-6):

5900"xt": 16550-16990 (5220 in 2003)

Cards Details :
Creative gf3 ti200 64mb, with is a rebadged msi. Tests were made with core
at standard 175, but mems at 500mhz since chips are 4.0ns.

Creative gf4 ti4200 8x 64mb, wich also a rebadged msi, but with smaller
cooler equal to first non 8x series, standard speeds are 250/513 (mems are
3.6ns rated (555mhz) but, as mentioned, were at standard speed).

Gainward 1100 5900 with 2.8ns rated mems (713mhz), standard speeds are
400/700, has temp control. These as creative's 5900, were the first "xt's"
realeased back in september before there was that designation.

"DaveL" wrote in message
...
Just wanted to say that system one is a good match for the GF3. System
two
is limited by slow ram. My ti4200 gets in the 11k range. Are you saying
the A64 died on you for no reason? I hope you bought a retail chip.

Dave

System one no longer exists, it was my computer from middle 2001 to late
2003, wich hold very well against time. It's running now as system 2 with a
cpu and graphics card swap (done before cpu). Anyway, the kt133a is a big
botleneck... when it came out the tbird line wasn't even complete!, but it's
a nice swap anyway.
On my great loss, Yup, cpu on box. Ran for over 20 days flawlessly then all
I got was a message from mobo saying it failed cpu test, temp wasn't a
surely a problem, as with 4 8cm fans on a chieftech case and ocz silver
tpaste it's thermal range was 28-36º without CoolNQuiet (reduces freq and
voltage) enabled and stock cooler! . The store where I bought it will rma it
and replace for another in one week (I hope...), there have been computers
for more than 20 years in this house and this is a completely new situation,
as it just died!

Don't tell Darfalz but I had an AMD pop on me too. It was an Athlon XP
1700+. My boy went to turn it on one day and nothing (so he says).
Unfortunely, it was an oem processor and I was out one $50 cpu. I replaced
it with a 2100+ that I bought (unlocked) on ebay.

Dave


"BelaLvgosi" wrote in message
...

"DaveL" wrote in message
...
Just wanted to say that system one is a good match for the GF3. System
two
is limited by slow ram. My ti4200 gets in the 11k range. Are you
saying
the A64 died on you for no reason? I hope you bought a retail chip.

Dave

System one no longer exists, it was my computer from middle 2001 to late
2003, wich hold very well against time. It's running now as system 2 with
a
cpu and graphics card swap (done before cpu). Anyway, the kt133a is a big
botleneck... when it came out the tbird line wasn't even complete!, but
it's
a nice swap anyway.
On my great loss, Yup, cpu on box. Ran for over 20 days flawlessly then
all
I got was a message from mobo saying it failed cpu test, temp wasn't a
surely a problem, as with 4 8cm fans on a chieftech case and ocz silver
tpaste it's thermal range was 28-36º without CoolNQuiet (reduces freq and
voltage) enabled and stock cooler! . The store where I bought it will rma
it
and replace for another in one week (I hope...), there have been computers
for more than 20 years in this house and this is a completely new
situation,
as it just died!

DaveL wrote:

Don't tell Darfalz but I had an AMD pop on me too. It was an Athlon
XP 1700+. My boy went to turn it on one day and nothing (so he says).
Unfortunely, it was an oem processor and I was out one $50 cpu. I
replaced it with a 2100+ that I bought (unlocked) on ebay.

Dave


"BelaLvgosi" wrote in message
...

"DaveL" wrote in message
...
Just wanted to say that system one is a good match for the GF3.
System
two
is limited by slow ram. My ti4200 gets in the 11k range. Are you
saying
the A64 died on you for no reason? I hope you bought a retail
chip.

Dave

System one no longer exists, it was my computer from middle 2001 to
late 2003, wich hold very well against time. It's running now as
system 2 with
a
cpu and graphics card swap (done before cpu). Anyway, the kt133a is
a big botleneck... when it came out the tbird line wasn't even
complete!, but
it's
a nice swap anyway.
On my great loss, Yup, cpu on box. Ran for over 20 days flawlessly
then
all
I got was a message from mobo saying it failed cpu test, temp
wasn't a surely a problem, as with 4 8cm fans on a chieftech case
and ocz silver tpaste it's thermal range was 28-36º without
CoolNQuiet (reduces freq and voltage) enabled and stock cooler! .
The store where I bought it will rma
it
and replace for another in one week (I hope...), there have been
computers for more than 20 years in this house and this is a
completely new
situation,
as it just died!









Just more proof of how unstable AMD procs can be when they show their
true colors.


They've always been a wolf in sheep's clothing, and I'd rather pay the
extra money for an Intel proc just to know I'll be able to boot
successfully every single time.



They aren't that bad for the price/performance... but really lacking in
the longevity.

"teqguy" wrote in message
...
DaveL wrote:

Don't tell Darfalz but I had an AMD pop on me too. It was an Athlon
XP 1700+. My boy went to turn it on one day and nothing (so he says).
Unfortunely, it was an oem processor and I was out one $50 cpu. I
replaced it with a 2100+ that I bought (unlocked) on ebay.

Dave


"BelaLvgosi" wrote in message
...

"DaveL" wrote in message
...
Just wanted to say that system one is a good match for the GF3.
System
two
is limited by slow ram. My ti4200 gets in the 11k range. Are you
saying
the A64 died on you for no reason? I hope you bought a retail
chip.

Dave

System one no longer exists, it was my computer from middle 2001 to
late 2003, wich hold very well against time. It's running now as
system 2 with
a
cpu and graphics card swap (done before cpu). Anyway, the kt133a is
a big botleneck... when it came out the tbird line wasn't even
complete!, but
it's
a nice swap anyway.
On my great loss, Yup, cpu on box. Ran for over 20 days flawlessly
then
all
I got was a message from mobo saying it failed cpu test, temp
wasn't a surely a problem, as with 4 8cm fans on a chieftech case
and ocz silver tpaste it's thermal range was 28-36º without
CoolNQuiet (reduces freq and voltage) enabled and stock cooler! .
The store where I bought it will rma
it
and replace for another in one week (I hope...), there have been
computers for more than 20 years in this house and this is a
completely new
situation,
as it just died!









Just more proof of how unstable AMD procs can be when they show their
true colors.


They've always been a wolf in sheep's clothing, and I'd rather pay the
extra money for an Intel proc just to know I'll be able to boot
successfully every single time.



They aren't that bad for the price/performance... but really lacking in
the longevity.

Well, my problem isn't still solved, and there's a chance that it's a mb
problem (as in the last 10 years I lost 4, 2 were intel boards). For
longevity, i've had k6, k6-2 (still running right now as my server in this
house), k7 slotA, tb 1ghz, tb 1333 any of them worked like a dog all day and
still run and I've never had a problem with any. For price/performance,
well, both a64 and slot A back in the day are/were more expensive than
intels even though faster (and more advanced) than rival models and I hope
I'll never buy an Intel again if amd keeps presenting users. Unfortunately
enterprise buyers have the same beliefs as you and amd loses a lot for
slower intel based workstations, hopefully this gap will close with time,
because excepting for pointless exceptions I find no reason for intels being
more reliable than amd's. My .02?.

Yeah, Bela. My popped 1700+ is sitting right here on top of my monitor,
right next to a blown celeron. It can happen to either brand.

Dave


"BelaLvgosi" wrote in message
...

"teqguy" wrote in message
...
DaveL wrote:

Don't tell Darfalz but I had an AMD pop on me too. It was an Athlon
XP 1700+. My boy went to turn it on one day and nothing (so he says).
Unfortunely, it was an oem processor and I was out one $50 cpu. I
replaced it with a 2100+ that I bought (unlocked) on ebay.

Dave


"BelaLvgosi" wrote in message
...

"DaveL" wrote in message
...
Just wanted to say that system one is a good match for the GF3.
System
two
is limited by slow ram. My ti4200 gets in the 11k range. Are you
saying
the A64 died on you for no reason? I hope you bought a retail
chip.

Dave

System one no longer exists, it was my computer from middle 2001 to
late 2003, wich hold very well against time. It's running now as
system 2 with
a
cpu and graphics card swap (done before cpu). Anyway, the kt133a is
a big botleneck... when it came out the tbird line wasn't even
complete!, but
it's
a nice swap anyway.
On my great loss, Yup, cpu on box. Ran for over 20 days flawlessly
then
all
I got was a message from mobo saying it failed cpu test, temp
wasn't a surely a problem, as with 4 8cm fans on a chieftech case
and ocz silver tpaste it's thermal range was 28-36º without
CoolNQuiet (reduces freq and voltage) enabled and stock cooler! .
The store where I bought it will rma
it
and replace for another in one week (I hope...), there have been
computers for more than 20 years in this house and this is a
completely new
situation,
as it just died!









Just more proof of how unstable AMD procs can be when they show their
true colors.


They've always been a wolf in sheep's clothing, and I'd rather pay the
extra money for an Intel proc just to know I'll be able to boot
successfully every single time.



They aren't that bad for the price/performance... but really lacking in
the longevity.

Well, my problem isn't still solved, and there's a chance that it's a mb
problem (as in the last 10 years I lost 4, 2 were intel boards). For
longevity, i've had k6, k6-2 (still running right now as my server in this
house), k7 slotA, tb 1ghz, tb 1333 any of them worked like a dog all day
and
still run and I've never had a problem with any. For price/performance,
well, both a64 and slot A back in the day are/were more expensive than
intels even though faster (and more advanced) than rival models and I hope
I'll never buy an Intel again if amd keeps presenting users. Unfortunately
enterprise buyers have the same beliefs as you and amd loses a lot for
slower intel based workstations, hopefully this gap will close with time,
because excepting for pointless exceptions I find no reason for intels
being
more reliable than amd's. My .02?.