PSU requirements

Sorin

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2003
11
0
18,510
I have a SN41G2 system. No, I'm not getting a full size system, so please don't suggest it.

It has a 200w psu, but can be upgraded to a 250w if needed (250w is the highest available).

I currently have a Geforce2 GTS/Geforce2 Pro (yes, for some reason, that is it's whole name). I want to upgrade my card, but there is a problem. I've noticed in a handful of spots here and there that Geforce4 ti and GeforceFX cards require a 300w psu. I've not found it in a lot of places, just a handful. So how true is it? I don't want to go out, get a card, plug it in, only to find that my computer can't handle the power requirement, meaning I have to return the card.

So do those cards seriously need 300w? I only have the motherboard (with agp slot filled, and pci slot filled with sound card), one dvd drive, and one hard drive running off the power supply. No floppy, no second cd/dvd drive, no second hard drive.

So can I get a Geforce4 Ti or FX and be okay?

I've also not found so far if the 4200 Ti 64mb requires the 300w psu. Does it follow this same requirement of the higher end cards?

I'd like to upgrade from my little geforce2, but don't want to be riddled with returns and crap. (And please don't suggest ATI either).
 

AZPirate

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2003
4
0
18,510
I only have a 250w PSU and it works great with a 1.3 Duron, 2 hard drives, 1 fan, 2 CD/CDR drives, floppy drive, a Audigy 2, Leadtek TV card, LAN card, and a ati 9600xt. The 9600xt is a low power video card, unlike the Ti or FX series, but i think that u should still be ok with a 250w power supply. Just make sure u buy a quality one and u should be Gaming with the best of em'.
 

Vimp

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2003
358
0
18,780
I wouldn't recomend the Geforce Ti4200 since its a pretty minor upgrade from the Geforce2 GTS/Pro. However if the ATI Radeon 9600XT works then that would be a good upgrade.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
I'd have to respectfully disagree with Vimp on this one. I think a Ti4200 wopuld be a pretty darn noticable upgrade from any Geforce2.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

Vimp

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2003
358
0
18,780
Lets compare shall we?

Him and I both have the Geforce2 GTS/Pro.
Its stats are:
800Mpixels/s fill rate, 1600Mtexels/s fill rate.
5328MB/s Memory Bandwidth.
DirectX7

Geforce Ti4200:
1000Mpixels/s fill rate, 2000Mtexels/s fill rate.
Between 7100MB/s-8200MB/s Memory bandwidth based on the version of the card you buy.
DirectX8 (not much of a difference from DirectX7).

Considering how much I'd pay if I were to buy the G4 Ti4200 I would think that that is an unacceptable performance and quality image boost to justify it. If the G4 Ti4200 were 2/3-1/2 the price it is now then maybe it would be an 'ok' upgrade.

Quite frankly I think your not getting much of a boost inless you go with a significantly better card for a simelar or slightly higher price. That would also mean getting a directX9 card minnimum where you'll actually see some special effects that you other wise can't see. I've yet to see a DirectX8 game that made use of any effects that a DirectX7 card can't show just as easily.
 

Vimp

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2003
358
0
18,780
I'd like to see that too. If theres a DirectX8 Game out there that shows special effects that my DirectX7 card can't show then I'd really like to see it since I have yet to do so.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
A Geforce4 Ti 4200 will beat a Geforce2 to death. Framerates will be double in many circumstances, not to mention the Geforce4 Ti can use antialiassing without NEARLY the hit a Geforce2 will take. Plus the fact that the Geforce4 Ti has DirectX8 pixel/vertex shaders, which raw specs do not reflect.

Bandwidth and fillrate do NOT fully tell the story when comparing GPUs anymore. Shader power becomes more important every day.

To repeat from another of my posts about the visual difference between shader effects VS no shader effects:

As far as pixel shader effects, here is a screenshot of Morrowind with a DirectX 7 card like the Geforce2... no pixel shaders:

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com/pic.php?img=/Images/Articles/2523/Morrowind23.jpg" target="_new">http://www.xgr.com/pic.php?img=/Images/Articles/2523/Morrowind23.jpg</A>

Now, here is a screenshot of morrowind on a DirectX 8 card, like the Radeon 8500:

<A HREF="http://www.gamespy.com/asp/image.asp?/articles/march02/morrowind/morrowind1big.jpg" target="_new">http://www.gamespy.com/asp/image.asp?/articles/march02/morrowind/morrowind1big.jpg</A>

Now the water looks noticably better in this screenshot, but in actual play it's MUCH better, because what it doesn't show is that the pixel shaded water is MOVING like real water, REFLECTING beautifully while it does.

It can do this because it's behavior is programmed by a developer who programmed the effect. Developers can do amazing things with programmable pixel shaders, but they can not do those same things with the simple shaders in DirectX 7 class cards because those shaders are not programmable. They can only run the effects they were built to.

Here is a shot of LOMAC's water, which also requires a DirectX 8 card to view in the game:

<A HREF="http://www.lo-mac.com/ss/Mirage-Tomcat.jpg" target="_new">http://www.lo-mac.com/ss/Mirage-Tomcat.jpg</A>

Programmable pixel shaders allow for this, but the Geforce2's NSR (primitive non-programmable shader) is not capable of this sort of thing.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

Vimp

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2003
358
0
18,780
I'll concede that the DirectX8 effects are better then I thought. However on another note you, Cleeve, said that the G4 MX series don't have DirectX8 which would mean that Wussy didn't see the effects he claims to have seen. Something is amiss there. As for Performance I stand by the stats since they accuratly show the performance difference. I've seen many benchmark tests of the G4 Ti4200 and my card under the same settings is rarely beaten by much at all which tells me that the cards stats do infact accuratly show the performance ability of a card when using the same video settings.
 

Nights_L

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2003
1,452
0
19,280
because GF4MX was Wusy's OLD video card, now he has a Radeon9800SE on his system, so not only dx8, even dx9, his card will have no problem to see it
and well, if you were looking at the old benchmark tests like Quake3, then no, you can't see much difference
Try to look at the benchmark like 3Dmark2001, 3Dmark03, or Aquamark, i can guarantee that you will see a big difference between GF4 Ti4200 and GF4MX/GF2
 

pauldh

Illustrious
In response to many of theses posts:

First off, remember not all 200, 250, 300 watt power supplies are created equal. A high quality 250w will supply more cleaner power than a 300watt deer that comes in a $30 computer case. The other numbers printed on the power supply tell you more than the claimed wattage.

2nd, as I have upgraded many systems from Geforce 2 Ti 64MB DDR cards to GF4 Ti4200's, I can say there is a huge difference in framerates in most benchmarks and games. And yes the older cards simply do not show all the eye candy that newer ones can show. Case in point, a friend of mine played UT2003 on his system with a radeon 32MB DDR. My system was identical to his as they were built at the same time, but I had upgraded to a Radeon 8500. He was amazed at just how different mine looked compared to his. He went out and bought an 8500le right away. Not to mention mine played 1024x768 better than his did 800x600 with lower detail settings.

Lastly, even though I like the Ti4200, I hate to here it mentioned with FSAA or Aniso. I have found that the framerates are just too low to mess with those settings on a Ti4200. Other may disagree, but my 9500 pro shows what it should play like and the Ti4200 isn't close.

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