GeForce 4 Ti4200 vs FX6600?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Which of the following cards would be faster:

- GeForce 4 Ti4200
- Geforce FX6600 (non-GT)

Reason I'm asking this: I recently acquired an FX6600, and replaced the
Ti4200 with it.

Stuff like HL2 runs a lot better, with more eye-candy, but wiht an old
title I still play (Diablo 2), I noticed a slow-down when lots of enemies
are on-screen, and affected by an area-of-effect spell...

It seems like th FX6600 is a bit slower than the Ti4200 with lots of small
Direct3D-related models...

But how would these cards compare in general? Is an FX6600 a good upgrade
for a Ti4200? (This is in a P4-2.4GHz system with 1 GB of memory)?

Or should I trade in the FX6600, and get something else/better (I can
probably still bring it back in...)

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The 6600 (It's called a Geforce6, not an FX) should be much faster than the
ti4200. It could be that with an old game you might need an older video
driver to see an improvement. Still it might not be a bad idea to return it
for a 6600GT.

DaveL


"Patrick Vervoorn" <patrick.vervoorn@NOSPAM.perihelion.demon.nl> wrote in
message news:79f2e$42d26386$82a1d3bf$8595@news1.tudelft.nl...
>
> Which of the following cards would be faster:
>
> - GeForce 4 Ti4200
> - Geforce FX6600 (non-GT)
>
> Reason I'm asking this: I recently acquired an FX6600, and replaced the
> Ti4200 with it.
>
> Stuff like HL2 runs a lot better, with more eye-candy, but wiht an old
> title I still play (Diablo 2), I noticed a slow-down when lots of enemies
> are on-screen, and affected by an area-of-effect spell...
>
> It seems like th FX6600 is a bit slower than the Ti4200 with lots of small
> Direct3D-related models...
>
> But how would these cards compare in general? Is an FX6600 a good upgrade
> for a Ti4200? (This is in a P4-2.4GHz system with 1 GB of memory)?
>
> Or should I trade in the FX6600, and get something else/better (I can
> probably still bring it back in...)
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

> Which of the following cards would be faster:
>
> - GeForce 4 Ti4200
> - Geforce FX6600 (non-GT)

You certainly mean "Geforce 6600" (there is no "FX6600")

> Reason I'm asking this: I recently acquired an FX6600, and replaced
> the Ti4200 with it.
>
> Stuff like HL2 runs a lot better, with more eye-candy, but wiht an
> old
> title I still play (Diablo 2), I noticed a slow-down when lots of
> enemies are on-screen, and affected by an area-of-effect spell...
>
> It seems like th FX6600 is a bit slower than the Ti4200 with lots of
> small Direct3D-related models...
>
> But how would these cards compare in general? Is an FX6600 a good
> upgrade for a Ti4200? (This is in a P4-2.4GHz system with 1 GB of
> memory)?

A Geforce 6600 kicks the ass of every GF4Ti4200. In every game...

Your experience might result from a driver problem. Be sure to remove
everything(!) from the old Nvidia drivers before installing the latest
ones...

Benjamin
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <3jfs7kFps29cU1@individual.net>,
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>> Which of the following cards would be faster:
>>
>> - GeForce 4 Ti4200
>> - Geforce FX6600 (non-GT)
>
>You certainly mean "Geforce 6600" (there is no "FX6600")

Yes, you're right, "GeForce 6600" is what the drivers (77.72 btw) display.
FX6600 was what was on the box/in the manual, so that's probably a name
given to it by this particular manufacturer (Peak, never heard of it)

>> But how would these cards compare in general? Is an FX6600 a good
>> upgrade for a Ti4200? (This is in a P4-2.4GHz system with 1 GB of
>> memory)?
>
>A Geforce 6600 kicks the ass of every GF4Ti4200. In every game...
>
>Your experience might result from a driver problem. Be sure to remove
>everything(!) from the old Nvidia drivers before installing the latest
>ones...

Well, the 6600 is certainly not kicking my Ti4200's ass in Diablo II. I'll
try to do a full and complete driver-removal & install again (I guess I
have to look for something like the NVidia driver cleaner tool or
something?)

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <7625a$42d2c6e7$82a1d3bf$25913@news2.tudelft.nl>,
Patrick Vervoorn <patrick.vervoorn@NOSPAM.perihelion.demon.nl> wrote:
>In article <3jfs7kFps29cU1@individual.net>,
>Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:
>>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>>> But how would these cards compare in general? Is an FX6600 a good
>>> upgrade for a Ti4200? (This is in a P4-2.4GHz system with 1 GB of
>>> memory)?
>>
>>A Geforce 6600 kicks the ass of every GF4Ti4200. In every game...
>>
>>Your experience might result from a driver problem. Be sure to remove
>>everything(!) from the old Nvidia drivers before installing the latest
>>ones...
>
>Well, the 6600 is certainly not kicking my Ti4200's ass in Diablo II. I'll
>try to do a full and complete driver-removal & install again (I guess I
>have to look for something like the NVidia driver cleaner tool or
>something?)

To follow-up to myself: I downloaded and ran Driver Cleaner Pro 1.2,
removed all NVidia drivers, reinstalled 'em, and tested it again.

I still notice the same, significant slowdown in this game which was not
there with the Ti4200.

So to say that a 6600 kicks a Ti4200's ass in everything is perhaps a bit
too optimistic...?

Any other ideas?

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Patrick,

It may be worth trying slightly older drivers. I'm not convinced that the
77.72 ones were ready for prime time, WHQL certification or not.

You'll find older versions at ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/. I suggest
the 71.89 drivers.

As for comparing a 4200 to a 6600, see:

http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

In raw performance numbers (fill rate, texturing), the vanilla 6600 is
faster than a 4200, but if you believe this list, it's comparable to a
4600/4800. The 6600GT is supposed to be much faster. (I'd recommend it if
you can support the additional expense.)

Otherwise, does Diablo II have its latest patches applied? I don't play it,
so I don't know whether it co-operates well with newer operating systems and
hardware. If the game supports switching to OpenGL (rather than DirectX) 3D
support, it may be worth a try.

HTH.

Bob Knowlden

Address may be scarmbled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Patrick Vervoorn" <patrick.vervoorn@NOSPAM.perihelion.demon.nl> wrote in
message news:e9bab$42d2cc51$82a1d3bf$26336@news2.tudelft.nl...
> In article <7625a$42d2c6e7$82a1d3bf$25913@news2.tudelft.nl>,
> Patrick Vervoorn <patrick.vervoorn@NOSPAM.perihelion.demon.nl> wrote:
>>In article <3jfs7kFps29cU1@individual.net>,
>>Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>>
>>>> But how would these cards compare in general? Is an FX6600 a good
>>>> upgrade for a Ti4200? (This is in a P4-2.4GHz system with 1 GB of
>>>> memory)?
>>>
>>>A Geforce 6600 kicks the ass of every GF4Ti4200. In every game...
>>>
>>>Your experience might result from a driver problem. Be sure to remove
>>>everything(!) from the old Nvidia drivers before installing the latest
>>>ones...
>>
>>Well, the 6600 is certainly not kicking my Ti4200's ass in Diablo II. I'll
>>try to do a full and complete driver-removal & install again (I guess I
>>have to look for something like the NVidia driver cleaner tool or
>>something?)
>
> To follow-up to myself: I downloaded and ran Driver Cleaner Pro 1.2,
> removed all NVidia drivers, reinstalled 'em, and tested it again.
>
> I still notice the same, significant slowdown in this game which was not
> there with the Ti4200.
>
> So to say that a 6600 kicks a Ti4200's ass in everything is perhaps a bit
> too optimistic...?
>
> Any other ideas?
>
> Patrick.
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <pvOdnUyhGs5tv07fRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
Bob Knowlden <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote:

>It may be worth trying slightly older drivers. I'm not convinced that the
>77.72 ones were ready for prime time, WHQL certification or not.
>
>You'll find older versions at ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/. I suggest
>the 71.89 drivers.

I did this, and no change, or even more slowdown... So it looks like a
6600 is less powerful than a Ti4200... At least, for running an old
Direct3D title like Diablo II...

>As for comparing a 4200 to a 6600, see:
>
>http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
>
>In raw performance numbers (fill rate, texturing), the vanilla 6600 is
>faster than a 4200, but if you believe this list, it's comparable to a
>4600/4800. The 6600GT is supposed to be much faster. (I'd recommend it if
>you can support the additional expense.)
>
>Otherwise, does Diablo II have its latest patches applied? I don't play it,
>so I don't know whether it co-operates well with newer operating systems and
>hardware. If the game supports switching to OpenGL (rather than DirectX) 3D
>support, it may be worth a try.

Latest patches applied for Diablo II, it has no OpenGL support...

Looking at the table above, it does look like the Ti4200 has 2 texture
units per pixel-pipeline, where the 6600 has one. Perhaps that makes the
difference? The slowdowns also occur when Diablo II displays a lot of
monsters/enemies on-screen....

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

>In article <pvOdnUyhGs5tv07fRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
>Bob Knowlden <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>It may be worth trying slightly older drivers. I'm not convinced that the
>>77.72 ones were ready for prime time, WHQL certification or not.
>>
>>You'll find older versions at ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/. I suggest
>>the 71.89 drivers.
>>
>>
>
>I did this, and no change, or even more slowdown... So it looks like a
>6600 is less powerful than a Ti4200... At least, for running an old
>Direct3D title like Diablo II...
>
>

I have just got my new system going, which among other things has an
ASUS 6600GT (PCIe, single card, not SLI, Yet!). My previous system used
a Ti4600.

The result is that (first of all) I can run dirx 9.0c, which the Ti
could not without crashes.

And the video performance (both cards having 128 megs) is considerably
better. In NWN I can now have large fights with many critters, each
armed differently (demands more ram to store each weapon), throwing
spells, doing a lot of things which are graphically demanding, without
lag. The card runs all programs without a problem, which used to crash
the Ti a lot.

No idea about drivers, I'm using whatever they shipped on CD.


The 6800 ultra is THI (The Hot Item), but its performance is only a bit
better. Until the 7600GT comes down to the $200+ range I'm thinkin the
66 is the best deal right now.

--
Godwin is a net-nazi
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <11d99jmm0ups311@news.supernews.com>,
Quaestor <no-spam@my.place> wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>>I did this, and no change, or even more slowdown... So it looks like a
>>6600 is less powerful than a Ti4200... At least, for running an old
>>Direct3D title like Diablo II...
>
>I have just got my new system going, which among other things has an
>ASUS 6600GT (PCIe, single card, not SLI, Yet!). My previous system used
>a Ti4600.
>
>The result is that (first of all) I can run dirx 9.0c, which the Ti
>could not without crashes.

Very strange, because my Ti4200 ran DirectX 9.0c without any problems. Of
course, it did not do the 9.0 stuff in HW, but in SW, but it worked very,
very well. Which is why I have always been a bit hestitant to upgrade it,
until I ran into this 6600 by accident, and decided it would be a viable
upgrade...

>And the video performance (both cards having 128 megs) is considerably
>better. In NWN I can now have large fights with many critters, each
>armed differently (demands more ram to store each weapon), throwing
>spells, doing a lot of things which are graphically demanding, without
>lag. The card runs all programs without a problem, which used to crash
>the Ti a lot.

I've only once ever played NWN, so can't comment on it. I know Half-Life 2
performs considerably better on the 6600, even when enemies are in view.

But keep in mind that Diablo II is more or less a 2D game, with loads of
'sprites', or whatever it is, and not really 'true' 3D. It just has a
perspective-mode which uses Direct3D to present some more eye-candy.

So perhaps that specific game-engine uses features from DirectX (5.0, 6.0,
the old stuff in any case) which are not handled very well by the
architecture of a 6600.

>No idea about drivers, I'm using whatever they shipped on CD.

Hmm, well, I think you might have gotten better results if you used the
NVidia drivers with the Ti4600...

>The 6800 ultra is THI (The Hot Item), but its performance is only a bit
>better. Until the 7600GT comes down to the $200+ range I'm thinkin the
>66 is the best deal right now.

I'm going by the shop I got it from coming thursday, because I'm also
having some display-related problems with this card (the picture is
sometimes a bit fuzzy), so I might go one-up and get a 6600GT. We'll see
how that performs on Diablo II. :)

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:

>Hmm, well, I think you might have gotten better results if you used the
>NVidia drivers with the Ti4600...
>
>

I tried absolutely everything to make the Ti work. It was *spit* an MSI
*spit* and MSI *spit* stopped releaseing drivers with the 45.23, which
might suggest that nothing later was needed, or nothing later was worth
the effort, or just that they didn't care, having already got my money?
Some nvidia drivers slowed the card quite a bit, though once into the
70's things seemed about even. Anyway I could not run 9.0c on it, which
is why I spent over $600 to upgrade to this new system, so I could run
.... a certain program I was accepted into beta for in spite of the fact
that the Ti would not let me run it *cough*.

>I'm going by the shop I got it from coming thursday, because I'm also
>having some display-related problems with this card (the picture is
>sometimes a bit fuzzy), so I might go one-up and get a 6600GT. We'll see
>how that performs on Diablo II. :)
>
>

Diablo || may indeed be an anomaly, like UO, with a ton of 2D sprites,
which might not make use of the accellerator portions of cards at all
(they could, but many didn't). I don't know of anything developed since
then that doesn't use 3D, but then, who knows?

--
Godwin is a net-nazi
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <11darurjgqf0jc3@news.supernews.com>,
Quaestor <no-spam@my.place> wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
>>Hmm, well, I think you might have gotten better results if you used the
>>NVidia drivers with the Ti4600...
>
>I tried absolutely everything to make the Ti work. It was *spit* an MSI
>*spit* and MSI *spit* stopped releaseing drivers with the 45.23, which
>might suggest that nothing later was needed, or nothing later was worth
>the effort, or just that they didn't care, having already got my money?
>Some nvidia drivers slowed the card quite a bit, though once into the
>70's things seemed about even. Anyway I could not run 9.0c on it, which
>is why I spent over $600 to upgrade to this new system, so I could run
>... a certain program I was accepted into beta for in spite of the fact
>that the Ti would not let me run it *cough*.

My apologies, no offense at all implied. But it is strange, since most
manufacturers, I presume, just copy the NVidia reference design for their
cards, and ship that. Very weird the card just didn't (want to) work, but
I'm glad you fixed it finally. :)

>>I'm going by the shop I got it from coming thursday, because I'm also
>>having some display-related problems with this card (the picture is
>>sometimes a bit fuzzy), so I might go one-up and get a 6600GT. We'll see
>>how that performs on Diablo II. :)
>
>Diablo || may indeed be an anomaly, like UO, with a ton of 2D sprites,
>which might not make use of the accellerator portions of cards at all
>(they could, but many didn't). I don't know of anything developed since
>then that doesn't use 3D, but then, who knows?

I tried the Diablo newsgroups, but no reactions there. Perhaps something
like Fate would be comparable; I've downloaded it, but don't know if I'll
have the time to try it out first.

Anyway, the 'fuzzy display' problems are much more urgent, and remain
there when I move the card to another system of mine, so they're not
caused by anything in my 'gaming-rig', and definately something on-card.

Hopefully they can reproduce it in the shop... Will report here. 😉

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <80be4$42d57810$82a1d3bf$2621@news1.tudelft.nl>,
Patrick Vervoorn <patrick.vervoorn@NOSPAM.perihelion.demon.nl> wrote:

[Note: Follow-up to self, also to more or less close-off this thread..]

>I tried the Diablo newsgroups, but no reactions there. Perhaps something
>like Fate would be comparable; I've downloaded it, but don't know if I'll
>have the time to try it out first.

I finally got some reactions from other Diablo II players, but some of
them run it in DirectDraw mode (where I had no problems either), or have
other cards.

I finally solved this problem with the 6600 by installing a Glide
Emulator/Wrapper, and playing D2 in Glide mode. No more slowdowns...

>Anyway, the 'fuzzy display' problems are much more urgent, and remain
>there when I move the card to another system of mine, so they're not
>caused by anything in my 'gaming-rig', and definately something on-card.
>
>Hopefully they can reproduce it in the shop... Will report here. 😉

Well, dropped by the shop I got the 6600 from, and they dutyfully
installed it in a system of theirs. However, the artifacting I was seeing
on my monitors (I have two Iiyama Vision Master Pro 510's at home), was
not reproducable on their (much worse) 19" CRT display, nor on a 19" LCD
screen connected to the card via the analog output...

However, they knew about problems like this in the past, so while they at
first proposed downgrading to a GeForce 5700, I opted for the more
expensive 6600GT. It was luckily from another manufacturer (the 6600 was
made by 'PEAK', the 6600GT is from 'Club 3D'). Anyhow, to make a long
story short: I installed the 6600GT at home, and it looks like the desktop
is now crispy-clear again!

So I'll have to make do with this card, and see whether future NVidia
driver upgrades perhaps solve the Direct3D/Diablo II slowdowns. And in the
mean-time, I'll manage with a Glide Wrapper...

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
The slowdowns also occur when Diablo II displays a lot of
> monsters/enemies on-screen....
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.

are you online when the slowdowns occur or playing on your own? I used
to go crazy with DII and try all sorts of stuff until I found that
really most of it was down to connection. Lag when there's a big bunch
of monsters almost always occurred when I was online, specially that
thing where you walk a few yards and suddenly either the monsters
appear in front of you or you blip back to where you were a few
seconds ago. It wasn't the graphics card at fault but I always blamed
it, your connection is just playing catch up or their server is
running slow.

If you normally play online try playing it single player instead and
see if slowdown still occurs.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <42D78B17.E4780494@blueyonder.co.uk>,
Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
> The slowdowns also occur when Diablo II displays a lot of
>> monsters/enemies on-screen....
>
>are you online when the slowdowns occur or playing on your own?

I've been playing Diablo II online for more than a year now, so yes, it
does happen on-line. However, I also played online only with the Ti4200,
so I don't think that is it.


>I used
>to go crazy with DII and try all sorts of stuff until I found that
>really most of it was down to connection. Lag when there's a big bunch
>of monsters almost always occurred when I was online, specially that
>thing where you walk a few yards and suddenly either the monsters
>appear in front of you or you blip back to where you were a few
>seconds ago. It wasn't the graphics card at fault but I always blamed
>it, your connection is just playing catch up or their server is
>running slow.

I know what you mean, but this is not the effect I'm talking about.
Monsters 'blipping' around sometimes does happen, but that's lag. This
effect is not lag, the entire game on my side runs (much) slower. The
information from the server arrives on-time, but the client (Diablo II) on
my side cannot process/display it fast enough.

And like I said, most of that slowdown dissapears when I either switch to
DirectDraw mode (but no more eye-candy then), or to the Glide Wrapper (all
eye-candy preserverd).

>If you normally play online try playing it single player instead and
>see if slowdown still occurs.

Just for fun I'll fire up a single-player character, but I'm not expecting
anything. :)

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
> In article <42D78B17.E4780494@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
> > The slowdowns also occur when Diablo II displays a lot of
> >> monsters/enemies on-screen....
> >
> >are you online when the slowdowns occur or playing on your own?
>
> I've been playing Diablo II online for more than a year now, so yes, it
> does happen on-line. However, I also played online only with the Ti4200,
> so I don't think that is it.
>
> >I used
> >to go crazy with DII and try all sorts of stuff until I found that
> >really most of it was down to connection. Lag when there's a big bunch
> >of monsters almost always occurred when I was online, specially that
> >thing where you walk a few yards and suddenly either the monsters
> >appear in front of you or you blip back to where you were a few
> >seconds ago. It wasn't the graphics card at fault but I always blamed
> >it, your connection is just playing catch up or their server is
> >running slow.
>
> I know what you mean, but this is not the effect I'm talking about.
> Monsters 'blipping' around sometimes does happen, but that's lag. This
> effect is not lag, the entire game on my side runs (much) slower. The
> information from the server arrives on-time, but the client (Diablo II) on
> my side cannot process/display it fast enough.
>
> And like I said, most of that slowdown dissapears when I either switch to
> DirectDraw mode (but no more eye-candy then), or to the Glide Wrapper (all
> eye-candy preserverd).
>
> >If you normally play online try playing it single player instead and
> >see if slowdown still occurs.
>
> Just for fun I'll fire up a single-player character, but I'm not expecting
> anything. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.

wow. well, all i can say is I run it on a lowly 440mx(?) or whatever
and it's about the only game I have that runs reasonably well on it,
barring sims 2. NFSU runs like mud with half the bells and whistles
turned off.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In article <42D7D49D.7293EF48@blueyonder.co.uk>,
Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[Diablo II]

>wow. well, all i can say is I run it on a lowly 440mx(?) or whatever
>and it's about the only game I have that runs reasonably well on it,
>barring sims 2. NFSU runs like mud with half the bells and whistles
>turned off.

Very strange, but perhaps another indication it's the amount of texture
units per pixel pipeline which makes the difference. For Diablo II at
least. At least, that's the only real difference I see between the
Ti4200/MX 440 when comparing them against the 6600/6600GT at the following
web-page:

http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

(Link thanks to Bob Knowlden)

But we probably need someone with more inside-information as to how Diablo
II hits the Direct3D API and whether this can be handled well by the
6600(GT) to get a definate answer...

Regards,

Patrick.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
>
> In article <42D7D49D.7293EF48@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Diablo II]
>
> >wow. well, all i can say is I run it on a lowly 440mx(?) or whatever
> >and it's about the only game I have that runs reasonably well on it,
> >barring sims 2. NFSU runs like mud with half the bells and whistles
> >turned off.
>
> Very strange, but perhaps another indication it's the amount of texture
> units per pixel pipeline which makes the difference. For Diablo II at
> least. At least, that's the only real difference I see between the
> Ti4200/MX 440 when comparing them against the 6600/6600GT at the following
> web-page:
>
> http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
>
> (Link thanks to Bob Knowlden)
>
> But we probably need someone with more inside-information as to how Diablo
> II hits the Direct3D API and whether this can be handled well by the
> 6600(GT) to get a definate answer...
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick.

we certainly do. my son says he has trouble with D2 and he has a much
newer card than I
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom