Best $100 Buy

pauldh · Jan 29, 2004

Ti4200 or FX 5200 is an easy question to answer. But what about Ti4200 or radeon 9600 (non pro)?

If you can still find them, the Radeon 8500le is still a decent card for around $60. And the Ti4200 has long been the card to own for under $100. For the past year it's been the card I have used the most in builds. But now that the Radeon 9600 non-pro is $100, Is the Ti4200 still the card to recommend?

Is it wise now to buy the quicker DX8 card, or to buy a slower DX8 card that supports DX9, has better AA/AF speeds, and a quiet passive heatsink?

So What card now best fits the buyer who can't quite fit a radeon 9600 pro into their budget? Just curious what everyone thinks as I think I will be trying a Radeon 9600(np) next time I need a budget card.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt

cleeve · Jan 29, 2004

9600 NP vs. Ti4200? Tough call. No clear winner.

Stock out of the box the Ti4200 is a slightly stronger performer, but the 9600 has a couple things going for it: strong DX9 shaders, and a GPU that is very happy to overclock like stink.

I'd go 9600np because of that, but you can't really go wrong with either card.

(keep in mind, I'm talking the 9600 non-pro, not the 9600SE. The 9600SE is very crippled with half the memory bandwidth.)

________________
Radeon 9500 PRO (hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)
AthlonXP 2600+ (o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)
3dMark03: 4,055

HardWareBoss · Jan 29, 2004

Toss a coin. Don't buy 9600SE.

TheGreatGrapeApe · Jan 29, 2004

A Hooker!

Sorry, was that not the right answer to the question? :evil:

I would say the R9600non-pro, but if you do plan on upgrading later then the GF4ti will give you better short term returns.

It really depends on the focus of the gaming.

The GF4ti will rock at older games, the R9600 will take advantage of newer features on newer games, and does pull ahead in some newer games.

Either way you're looking at two strong contenders for their price range, that have different strengths and weaknesses. Like AA will be better on the R9600, but raw FPS in older games will be better with the GF4ti.

The R9600P will play all the modern games with many of the new effects/features, yet the GF4ti can be faster running the DX8.1 (despite being only DX8) paths when there is that option, but opf course without the goodies of advanaced pixel shaders, etc.

Really it takes a bit of research to find out where you fit into their performance strengths.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! - RED GREEN GA to SK :evil:

pauldh · Jan 29, 2004

Thanks all. Yeah I agree that each person has to look at what they are going to use it for. In my case, I build systems for people and usually despite declining values, I stock a few systems (a few too many at times). I need to make a decision to best setup the average computer user who may be a casual gamer too. I have always felt safe with a Ti4200, but now just started to realize that the 9600 is an option too.

Yes, I will avoid the 9600 se. Thanks again to all for your input.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt

kostasthegreek · Jan 29, 2004

It's sure that both radeon 9600np and geforce4 ti are the best solutions for that range of price but i believe that the radeon 9600se is not that bad.I believe it is a good choice after the two that you mentioned. I speak from my own experience because i have one made by asus.

cleeve · Jan 29, 2004

The 9600SE is not that bad... but it's not nearly as good.

It's just too crippled.

________________
Radeon 9500 PRO (hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)
AthlonXP 2600+ (o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)
3dMark03: 4,055

TheRod · Jan 29, 2004

If you can still find them, the Radeon 8500le is still a decent card for around $60.

I'm very proud on my Radeon 8500LE 128 Megs (highly overclockable card), but I would not recommend it to you. New games don't play well on it, I barely have the minimum FPS to play HALO decently. It's a great card, but It's getting older every day.

At the time I bought it, it was THE best bang for bucks! There is 9600 PRO cards at about 130$, this sounds a compromise.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

kostasthegreek · Jan 29, 2004

I will agree with you.As a conclusion the memory bandwidth is a crucial factor something that i didn't knew before i buy my video card.

TheGreatGrapeApe · Jan 29, 2004

Personally I think a casual gamer would be dazzled by the 'DX9' compatibility, and other PR features. And it's really one of those 'fits' the average family kind of cards, nothing great about it, but will offer more 'modern' features. But both would do fine.

Neither would be much of a concern for support and future compatibility in the long term, there are alot of both of them out there.

For people who aren't gamers they would probably be more interested in the additional features than raw FPS. Both will likely play the same number of games over the next year, beyond that who knows.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) ! - RED GREEN GA to SK :evil:

Spitfire_x86 · Jan 30, 2004

The 9600SE is not that bad... but it's not nearly as good.

If you consider sub Radeon 9200/9000np level performance in 50% games "not that bad", then it may be not that bad. I think it's as bad buy as FX5200

----------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A>

Crashman · Jan 30, 2004

You lie! The 8500LE 128MB has NEVER been the best bang for the buck, because the 8500LE 64MB has always been cheaper and clocked higher!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

cleeve · Jan 30, 2004

When does a 9600SE get's 50% the framerate of a 9200/9000?

Please provide evidence of this claim, sir.

the 9600SE and 8500/9000/9200 are on par methinks. The 8500/9000/9200 edges out when bandwidth is needed, but the 9600SE will perform better with shader heavy stuff.

________________
Radeon 9500 PRO (hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)
AthlonXP 2600+ (o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)
3dMark03: 4,055

TheRod · Jan 30, 2004

Oups! Scuze me... I should have said, it was one of the best for the bucks....
I didn't want to offend you.

Seriously, the 64Megs version was it that better? Because my 8500LE 128 is rock stable at 275/300 and it's not the highest I can go with it.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

ChipDeath · Jan 30, 2004

He meant in 50% of games, it performs worse than the 9200 - he didn't specify by how much.

I'd say go for the 9600 - as the 'old' games which run better on the 4200 won't run so much slower on the 9600 as to effect gameplay, but with AA/AF could be made to look nicer, whereas AA/AF on the 4200 just isn't really practical most of the time, as (esp. if both are on together) it makes even fairly old games noticeably slower.

---
Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.

cleeve · Jan 30, 2004

AH! My Mishtake.

I've got to point out that AA is memory intensive. The 4200 has better bandwidth, the 9600SE has beter AA algorithms, the net result being that the 4200's AA is right on par with the 9600SE's AA for speed.

________________
Radeon 9500 PRO (hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)
AthlonXP 2600+ (o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)
3dMark03: 4,055

Crashman · Jan 30, 2004

No offense taken, it's just that most 128 cards came with 5ns memeory clocked at 200MHz (DDR400), while most 64MB cards came with 3.6ns memory clocked at 250MHz (according to spec, 3.6ns supports 275MHz).

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

ChipDeath · Jan 30, 2004

true, but I'm going on the fact that my 128Mb Ti4600 can't even run System Shock 2 acceptably w/ AA&AF. and that game predates the card by years.

---
Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.

cleeve · Jan 30, 2004

Also true, but if the Ti4600 can't AA it, the 9600SE won't be able to either.
Unless you've seen otherwise...

________________
Radeon 9500 PRO (hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)
AthlonXP 2600+ (o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)
3dMark03: 4,055

TheRod · Jan 30, 2004

it's just that most 128 cards came with 5ns memeory clocked at 200MHz (DDR400), while most 64MB cards came with 3.6ns memory clocked at 250MHz (according to spec, 3.6ns supports 275MHz).

So, I got lucky! My "Built by ATI" 8500LE 128 Megs have 3.6ns memory module. It's why I can run it to 290/300MHz without a problem. I even read somewhere (I can't find the article) that some cards came with 3.3ns memory chip. These cards overclocked like crazy!

I'm not disappointed at all, at thet time I didn't knew that my 8500LE had faster memory module than usual model. I lesrned it after I bought it... I think it's a reason why I can still enjoy my card in newer games. Because I can overclock "as needed".

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

ChipDeath · Jan 30, 2004

I'm generally referring to the 9600 non-pro, NOT the SE.

And the Tis (well mine anyway) seem to lack most in the AF implementation compared to Ati, particularly when combined with AA. The difference is obvious in <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html" target="_new">toms most recent VGA charts</A>. the 4600 and 9600 NP are neck and neck for AA, but toss AF in and the 4600 performs considerably worse.

---
Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.

Best $100 Buy

Illustrious

Illustrious

Splendid

Champion

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Polypheme

Illustrious

Distinguished

Splendid

Illustrious

Polypheme

Splendid

Illustrious

Distinguished

Splendid

Share this page