The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What are the differences between ati radeon and geforce 4 ti 128 mb graphics cards? and what is a PRO card all about? does it work faster?
CHEERS!!!!
CHEERS!!!!
Page:
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Uncle Albert wrote:
> Safedisc_V2, read this.
>
> On both the occasions you slagged off my good friend adrian, you
> perhaps failed to notice a key phrase in both his statements - 'I
> think'. This means, incase you're not sure, that he himself is not
> totally certain on the matter, but is providing some input.
>
> Patronise the newbie time came round again? One or two "I
> thinks" in a passage full of innacuraces isn't a get-out-clause
> for ignorance presented as fact. Espically the way they are about
> totally unrelated statements. For example, if someone asks me about
> tea and I say...
>
> "I think tea is similar to coffee. Of course, tea is made from
> old dog's teeth, twigs and petroleum jelly"
>
> The second statement is still rubbish and not helpful at all. In
> fact, in being "helpful" you've created more of a problem.
Not really a passage of innacuraces was it now. Wrong on the older Radeons not being Direct X 9 and them not being 8x AGP. Ok it was wrong but I when I was writting it I wasnt too sure and should have looked it up but couldnt be bothered.
The post by Safedisc_V2 has annoyed me a bit as I do know the technolgy and hes treating me like a bit of a idiot in his post with his WRONG things and saying I dont know stuff. Even though I would do the same probably to some one else :) Anyways, I was wrong I dont know everything and I was tired and stress over my final year dissertation. Nice to know that Uncle_Albert is here to fend off any attacks :)
> Uncle Albert wrote:
> Safedisc_V2, read this.
>
> On both the occasions you slagged off my good friend adrian, you
> perhaps failed to notice a key phrase in both his statements - 'I
> think'. This means, incase you're not sure, that he himself is not
> totally certain on the matter, but is providing some input.
>
> Patronise the newbie time came round again? One or two "I
> thinks" in a passage full of innacuraces isn't a get-out-clause
> for ignorance presented as fact. Espically the way they are about
> totally unrelated statements. For example, if someone asks me about
> tea and I say...
>
> "I think tea is similar to coffee. Of course, tea is made from
> old dog's teeth, twigs and petroleum jelly"
>
> The second statement is still rubbish and not helpful at all. In
> fact, in being "helpful" you've created more of a problem.
Not really a passage of innacuraces was it now. Wrong on the older Radeons not being Direct X 9 and them not being 8x AGP. Ok it was wrong but I when I was writting it I wasnt too sure and should have looked it up but couldnt be bothered.
The post by Safedisc_V2 has annoyed me a bit as I do know the technolgy and hes treating me like a bit of a idiot in his post with his WRONG things and saying I dont know stuff. Even though I would do the same probably to some one else :) Anyways, I was wrong I dont know everything and I was tired and stress over my final year dissertation. Nice to know that Uncle_Albert is here to fend off any attacks :)
Safedisc_V2 wrote:
> Oh dear. Why do people talk about technology they blatantly don't
> understand!
>
> adrian wrote:
>
> Radeon and Geforce 4 Ti cards I dont think are too different. But of
> course it depends on the model of the cards. The new Radeons, 9200,
> 9600, 9800 and are Direct X 9 where as older models like the 9500
> and
> 9700 arent.
>
> WRONG! The 9500 and 9700 were the first DX9 card to the market and
> are fully DX9 compliant. Come on, this is basic stuff.
>
>
> Radeon cards are 8x AGP but I think the 9500 and 9700 maybe 4x AGP.
>
> WRONG! All of the Radeon R3xx line are AGP x8! So thats the 9500,
> 9500 Pro, 9700, 9700Pro, 9800, 9800Pro, 9600XT and 9800XT.
>
>
>
> The Ti 4600/4800 has shown in tests that it can run Halflife 2
> in direct X 8 mode pretty well.
>
> Hmmm, it depends on your verison of 'pretty well'. When you think a
> Radeon 9800Pro is struggling to pull an average of 60 FPS in HL2,
> without any AA or AS, then i think it is safe to assume that a Ti4800
> (or any NV25 based card) would get anything like decent performance
> at antyhing other than the most basic setting, and that is when using
> the DX8 code path - even the latest nVidia cards (FX range) can't run
> the full DX9 code path at a playable frame rate.
>
>
> So the question is how much money you want to spend? Got £300
> spare then maybe go and get the Radeon 9800 Pro as its mega
> performance. Only got £80 then maybe a Geforce 4 Ti or even a
> Radeon 9200.
>
> Easily the best advice given here. See, as long as you don't talk
> about something you don't understand (i.e. the technology), and stick
> to common sense, you don't end up looking like a chump.
Dude I understand the technolgy considering I am in my final year of a Computing Degree at University. Ok so I couldnt remember about the 9700 and 9500 being Direct X 9, deal with it. Also the AGP 8x. I dont spend time trying to look at all the details before I post. I remember what I have read and what I know and said the words I think, which means "I am not sure, read up about it". The 9500 and 9700 are pretty old now so I couldnt remember if they were direct x 9 or 8x AGP.
About the Ti4600 then yes it does it run "pretty well" i.e 30fps from what I can remember from the article I read. The FX cards can pull around 30fps if its 5900Ultra while the 9800 Pro does around 60fps in the same settings. Put the 5900Ultra on the special mix mode option and you can do around 40fps.
I was clearly wrong on some things and offered my opinon on others. I dont know everything there is and can't remember every last detail of gaphics cards that are a good year or so old.
> Oh dear. Why do people talk about technology they blatantly don't
> understand!
>
> adrian wrote:
>
> Radeon and Geforce 4 Ti cards I dont think are too different. But of
> course it depends on the model of the cards. The new Radeons, 9200,
> 9600, 9800 and are Direct X 9 where as older models like the 9500
> and
> 9700 arent.
>
> WRONG! The 9500 and 9700 were the first DX9 card to the market and
> are fully DX9 compliant. Come on, this is basic stuff.
>
>
> Radeon cards are 8x AGP but I think the 9500 and 9700 maybe 4x AGP.
>
> WRONG! All of the Radeon R3xx line are AGP x8! So thats the 9500,
> 9500 Pro, 9700, 9700Pro, 9800, 9800Pro, 9600XT and 9800XT.
>
>
>
> The Ti 4600/4800 has shown in tests that it can run Halflife 2
> in direct X 8 mode pretty well.
>
> Hmmm, it depends on your verison of 'pretty well'. When you think a
> Radeon 9800Pro is struggling to pull an average of 60 FPS in HL2,
> without any AA or AS, then i think it is safe to assume that a Ti4800
> (or any NV25 based card) would get anything like decent performance
> at antyhing other than the most basic setting, and that is when using
> the DX8 code path - even the latest nVidia cards (FX range) can't run
> the full DX9 code path at a playable frame rate.
>
>
> So the question is how much money you want to spend? Got £300
> spare then maybe go and get the Radeon 9800 Pro as its mega
> performance. Only got £80 then maybe a Geforce 4 Ti or even a
> Radeon 9200.
>
> Easily the best advice given here. See, as long as you don't talk
> about something you don't understand (i.e. the technology), and stick
> to common sense, you don't end up looking like a chump.
Dude I understand the technolgy considering I am in my final year of a Computing Degree at University. Ok so I couldnt remember about the 9700 and 9500 being Direct X 9, deal with it. Also the AGP 8x. I dont spend time trying to look at all the details before I post. I remember what I have read and what I know and said the words I think, which means "I am not sure, read up about it". The 9500 and 9700 are pretty old now so I couldnt remember if they were direct x 9 or 8x AGP.
About the Ti4600 then yes it does it run "pretty well" i.e 30fps from what I can remember from the article I read. The FX cards can pull around 30fps if its 5900Ultra while the 9800 Pro does around 60fps in the same settings. Put the 5900Ultra on the special mix mode option and you can do around 40fps.
I was clearly wrong on some things and offered my opinon on others. I dont know everything there is and can't remember every last detail of gaphics cards that are a good year or so old.
I personally didn't see any problem with what SafeDisc_V2 wrote either. I mean, saying "WRONG!" when the statement was actually wrong is hardly crime of the century is it?
Uncle Albert wrote:
> Safedisc_V2, read this.
>
> On both the occasions you slagged off my good friend adrian, you
> perhaps failed to notice a key phrase in both his statements - 'I
> think'. This means, incase you're not sure, that he himself is not
> totally certain on the matter, but is providing some input.
Patronise the newbie time came round again? One or two "I thinks" in a passage full of innacuraces isn't a get-out-clause for ignorance presented as fact. Espically the way they are about totally unrelated statements. For example, if someone asks me about tea and I say...
"I think tea is similar to coffee. Of course, tea is made from old dog's teeth, twigs and petroleum jelly"
The second statement is still rubbish and not helpful at all. In fact, in being "helpful" you've created more of a problem.
> Safedisc_V2, read this.
>
> On both the occasions you slagged off my good friend adrian, you
> perhaps failed to notice a key phrase in both his statements - 'I
> think'. This means, incase you're not sure, that he himself is not
> totally certain on the matter, but is providing some input.
Patronise the newbie time came round again? One or two "I thinks" in a passage full of innacuraces isn't a get-out-clause for ignorance presented as fact. Espically the way they are about totally unrelated statements. For example, if someone asks me about tea and I say...
"I think tea is similar to coffee. Of course, tea is made from old dog's teeth, twigs and petroleum jelly"
The second statement is still rubbish and not helpful at all. In fact, in being "helpful" you've created more of a problem.
Safedisc_V2, read this.
You are quite clearly very knowledgable when it comes to video cards - a video card anorak, some might say. Anyway, the point I want to make is that you need to appreciate most people here simply won't know the kind of details you do and are here to learn and help others.
On both the occasions you slagged off my good friend adrian, you perhaps failed to notice a key phrase in both his statements - 'I think'. This means, incase you're not sure, that he himself is not totally certain on the matter, but is providing some input.
Feel free to correct people when they are wrong or misguided, but there's no need to be sarky, especially if you want to get along with people on here.
You are quite clearly very knowledgable when it comes to video cards - a video card anorak, some might say. Anyway, the point I want to make is that you need to appreciate most people here simply won't know the kind of details you do and are here to learn and help others.
On both the occasions you slagged off my good friend adrian, you perhaps failed to notice a key phrase in both his statements - 'I think'. This means, incase you're not sure, that he himself is not totally certain on the matter, but is providing some input.
Feel free to correct people when they are wrong or misguided, but there's no need to be sarky, especially if you want to get along with people on here.
The Colonel wrote:
> I have decided to go for a radeon card but i heard somewhere that you
> can not play the same games as with a geforce card becasuse they have
> no T&L lighting or open gl is this true
Not true at all.
The 'Radeon' brand of video cards from ATI have ALWAYS supported T&L. Unless you are going to buy something like an ATI Rage Fury, this is a moot point.
T&L has been a standard feature in video cards for a few years now.
> I have decided to go for a radeon card but i heard somewhere that you
> can not play the same games as with a geforce card becasuse they have
> no T&L lighting or open gl is this true
Not true at all.
The 'Radeon' brand of video cards from ATI have ALWAYS supported T&L. Unless you are going to buy something like an ATI Rage Fury, this is a moot point.
T&L has been a standard feature in video cards for a few years now.
Oh dear. Why do people talk about technology they blatantly don't understand!
adrian wrote:
> Radeon and Geforce 4 Ti cards I dont think are too different. But of
> course it depends on the model of the cards. The new Radeons, 9200,
> 9600, 9800 and are Direct X 9 where as older models like the 9500 and
> 9700 arent.
WRONG! The 9500 and 9700 were the first DX9 card to the market and are fully DX9 compliant. Come on, this is basic stuff.
> Radeon cards are 8x AGP but I think the 9500 and 9700 maybe 4x AGP.
WRONG! All of the Radeon R3xx line are AGP x8! So thats the 9500, 9500 Pro, 9700, 9700Pro, 9800, 9800Pro, 9600XT and 9800XT.
> The Ti 4600/4800 has shown in tests that it can run Halflife 2
> in direct X 8 mode pretty well.
Hmmm, it depends on your verison of 'pretty well'. When you think a Radeon 9800Pro is struggling to pull an average of 60 FPS in HL2, without any AA or AS, then i think it is safe to assume that a Ti4800 (or any NV25 based card) would get anything like decent performance at antyhing other than the most basic setting, and that is when using the DX8 code path - even the latest nVidia cards (FX range) can't run the full DX9 code path at a playable frame rate.
>
> So the question is how much money you want to spend? Got £300
> spare then maybe go and get the Radeon 9800 Pro as its mega
> performance. Only got £80 then maybe a Geforce 4 Ti or even a
> Radeon 9200.
Easily the best advice given here. See, as long as you don't talk about something you don't understand (i.e. the technology), and stick to common sense, you don't end up looking like a chump.
adrian wrote:
> Radeon and Geforce 4 Ti cards I dont think are too different. But of
> course it depends on the model of the cards. The new Radeons, 9200,
> 9600, 9800 and are Direct X 9 where as older models like the 9500 and
> 9700 arent.
WRONG! The 9500 and 9700 were the first DX9 card to the market and are fully DX9 compliant. Come on, this is basic stuff.
> Radeon cards are 8x AGP but I think the 9500 and 9700 maybe 4x AGP.
WRONG! All of the Radeon R3xx line are AGP x8! So thats the 9500, 9500 Pro, 9700, 9700Pro, 9800, 9800Pro, 9600XT and 9800XT.
> The Ti 4600/4800 has shown in tests that it can run Halflife 2
> in direct X 8 mode pretty well.
Hmmm, it depends on your verison of 'pretty well'. When you think a Radeon 9800Pro is struggling to pull an average of 60 FPS in HL2, without any AA or AS, then i think it is safe to assume that a Ti4800 (or any NV25 based card) would get anything like decent performance at antyhing other than the most basic setting, and that is when using the DX8 code path - even the latest nVidia cards (FX range) can't run the full DX9 code path at a playable frame rate.
>
> So the question is how much money you want to spend? Got £300
> spare then maybe go and get the Radeon 9800 Pro as its mega
> performance. Only got £80 then maybe a Geforce 4 Ti or even a
> Radeon 9200.
Easily the best advice given here. See, as long as you don't talk about something you don't understand (i.e. the technology), and stick to common sense, you don't end up looking like a chump.
What you want to do is go to www.anandtech.com and search for specific video cards reviews and compare what is happening.
Different models of card have different functionalities and different features. They run excellent benchmarks on a full suite of up to date games and there really is no better place for getting technical info on computer hardware on the net.
Different models of card have different functionalities and different features. They run excellent benchmarks on a full suite of up to date games and there really is no better place for getting technical info on computer hardware on the net.
I know begger all about the specific features, but pretty much anything will work on either brand (unless you try really old card with new game - obviously). The difference will be how good it looks, it would be silly for a publisher to release something that doesn't work with Radeon cards for numerous reasons, number one being that it would mean a huge chunk of PC users could buy. Also, the cards and games are built to (generally) work within specific standards that come from 3rd Parties i.e. the card makers and the games companies make their kit Direct X 9 compatiable.
I have decided to go for a radeon card but i heard somewhere that you can not play the same games as with a geforce card becasuse they have no T&L lighting or open gl is this true
Page: