Viewing Thread:
"Ti4800, FX5600, or Radeon 9600?"

I want unbiased, Spec-based judgements. what do you know about them and are they good value?

i have prices on them as:

128MB Geforce 4 Ti4800 -- £117
128MB Radeon 9600 -- £97
128MB Geforce FX5600 -- £117




They are the contenders, now all i want is hard facts - which has the least problems, most efficiency, Least memory restriction etc etc. don't forget i dont want biased judgements. Thank you all kindly, and if it turns out it's a bad choice, i'll hang you all.

well, another point to remind you all of is that making a jump from a Geforce 2 MX to a geforce 4 Ti4800 seems VERY appealing, especially for that price.

oh, and i dont want to pay around 140 quid for a 9600 pro.

Righto, lets change my answer. Ti4800, just from lookin gin to the matter further. Directx9 compatibility is good, but I'd still recommend a radeon 9500/9600 pro over an fx for that; Also, don't get hung up on specs etc, real world performance is the most important aspect and nVidia seem to have a habit of not performing as well as their paper specs would lead you to believe.

I'm not even sure now but look at this :
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ ad/ fm/2765-11382-3987-0?mpt=708385&mpvc= its slower than the 9500pro here and 4200..

yes, that reminds me. the Ti4800 features the nfiniteFX II effects engine, but is the FX5600's CineFX feature any better?

If you want forward compatibility for DirectX 9.0 games, go with the FX 5600.

and might i remind you, all three cards are not SE's, PRO's or ultra's. they're just called what you see there. that and the fact that eclipse don't give much details on their products, but i'll probably go down with my dad to check up on 'em.

i have plenty of time to hear from you all, as i need to save 150 quid and my account only lets me take 50 quid out a day. :(

fiƒi[oV] wrote:
> Of those cards anyway, I'd say the fx5600 really. It outperformed the
> radeons and the ti4200 in the last 2 reviews I saw, although was
> knocked back by the 9500/9600 pro versions - if you can find one of
> these for a price you're happy with, that'd get my vote for sure.

slight correction. Ti4800, not Ti4200. don't forget.

§niper wrote:
> Well the 5600 is worse than the 4200 ... in most instances but i heard
> the R9600 is slower than the R9500

yes, for some reason the 9500 was priced higher than the 9600.

well, after looking at all this, i'd have to say my mind is telling me to go for the Ti4800, as i kinda admire Geforce cards, but i've been told that the FX5600 has a memory bottleneck. I.E imagine a 500 gallon bottle of water pouring out of a hole that was 1 cm wide. i couldn't empty as fast as it could do. the same goes for the power it has.

fianlly, anyone got a list of specs for the three cards? i need to know clock speeds, memory bandwidth, etc.

fiƒi[oV] wrote:
> Radeon cards are inherantly named very stupidly. The latest
> 9200/9600/9800 cards are all set to replace their predecessors
> (9100/9500/9700, cunningly), and while the 9800 is a blindingly good
> card, the other two are actually little different - the 9200 is
> slightly improved, but the 9600 doesn't perform quite as well. For
> some reason. I found out why, but I don't care to recall it, it just
> doesn't - unless you start considering pro versions of the cards,
> which is just too much hassle to go in to, heh.
>
> Of those cards anyway, I'd say the fx5600 really. It outperformed the
> radeons and the ti4200 in the last 2 reviews I saw, although was
> knocked back by the 9500/9600 pro versions - if you can find one of
> these for a price you're happy with, that'd get my vote for sure.

Yes the FX5600 Ultra is faster than them both. But the FX5600 is not.