Sign in to follow this  
Guest Kurt

GF3TI vs. GF4TI Comparison in FS2002

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this has already been posted here, if it has I apologize for repeating the info. Anyway someone has posted some pretty detailed comparisons between these two cards in FS2002. Also has some interesting info on how different scenery settings affect frame rates.http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/reviews/vidrev1.htmNot really sure who to give credit for this to. I came across the link at http://gameguru.box.sk/Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

thanks for the link...Well, for the most part, I see no real reason to upgrade to a GF4...Most of the tests are 1-3 fps better...who cares.I would like to see this same testing using more or less memory and different chip speeds....also AMD vs. Intel...Especially when its known FS2k2 is more CPU/memory tied than video card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>thanks for the link... >Well, for the most part, I see no real reason to upgrade to >a GF4... >Most of the tests are 1-3 fps better...who cares. You would be surprised to know what folks will do just to get a 5-10% increase, like jumping from a XP1800 to an XP2000 or a complete Mother board and memory swap etc... The GF4 was painless in that regard and delivered a solid 10-almost 20%% increase. So yeah, if your expectations are high...... >I would like to see this same testing using more or less >memory and different chip speeds....also AMD vs. Intel... >Especially when its known FS2k2 is more CPU/memory tied than >video card.At the CPU setting that I used for the benchmarks the performance would be close to but less than a really good P4-2.4Ghz or even a fair running 2.7 Ghz machine,All machines are not created equal Compare this decent P4-2.7 machine:http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3981159Against my machine in the link below in my sig:But then I've seen some wicked quick P4-2.53s that blow mine away...Anyhow, yeah your suggestions are all good ones But I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,Are you saying that it's not worth it to get a AMD XP 2000,i'm juggling between the 1800 and the 2000 as an upgrade for my athlon 950.It'll be installed on a asus a7v266-e,with 512 ddr,my old GeForce 3 Ti 200,and windows xp.There's quite a bit of a difference (in cndn $) between the 2.Not sure if it's worth it.ThanksRichard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good question, as I've been thinking about upgrading my 1800+ for maybe a 2100 or the new 2200...But if the performance increase is minimal, I might as well save the cash for another huge jump...maybe into an Intel based setup ???As far as 2k2 performance with my 1800+, I'm not quite where I want to be...I have all sliders maxed, running at 1600x1200x16, (for some reason the 32bit color setting is now unavailable)....but there is a bit of stutter in highly populated scenery...frame rates are around 10 at LAX....but jump to 20+ soon after takeoff. For the most part, however, I'm very pleased with the performance....and even at LAX it sure isn't a real problem even at 8-10fps...So for comparison...my sytem:Soyo Dragon Plus-266a MB1800+ CPU512 meg DDR2100 ramGF3Ti500 videoSeagate Barracuda IV/7200-100 40gig HDTo me, maybe 5-10% performance increase isn't all that important, but with the increasing complexity of the scenery for 2k2, its almost essential to eck out every bit possible. I haven't attempted overclocking anything, a bit afraid to actually...I don't want to ruin my system, but maybe that is the way to proceed instead of buying newer components...at least until the next huge jump.>Hi Paul, >>Are you saying that it's not worth it to get a AMD XP >2000,i'm juggling between the 1800 and the 2000 as an >upgrade for my athlon 950.It'll be installed on a asus >a7v266-e,with 512 ddr,my old GeForce 3 Ti 200,and windows >xp.There's quite a bit of a difference (in cndn $) between >the 2. >>Not sure if it's worth it. >>Thanks >Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I allways upgrade when i can double my present perfo with a reasonable budget....example : I upgraded from my Athlon 700 / 128 megs SDRAM / TNT2 to a Athlon 1800+ XP / 256 SDRAM / GeForce4 Ti4200 (and new mobo) for $450 ! A nice deal I must say since the perfo under FS2K2 is actually double : I get twice the frames and I can run at 1600*1200*32 without stutters (I also had the 32 bit disappearing, but you can force it aither by running in windowed mode with the desktop set at 32 bit, or by editing the FS2002.cfg at the line where your resolution is written change 1600X1200X16 to X32 and it will work !)Changing from a 1800 to a 2100 is really a waste of money to my opinion - the perfo increase will be 15% which means that if you had 10 fps somewhere now you'll get 11.5 ! I'm sure you would prefer to have 20 fps...so you need to double the perfo. Now I know it's not that exact as a science, but it works darn good as an estimation. And this will only work when talking about the CPU with FS2002...other games are more dependant on the graphics card.Hope my little experience can help you in your choices !C UAndr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've still got a GF2MX...too bad we can't see this level of a detailed comparison specific to MSFS with older cards as well. Although, I think I'm just about ready to get a GF4. I found another link that did a comparison between the 128 meg GF4 and the 64meg GF4 which found the 65 meg card was a little faster due to memory speed. Is there any advantage of 128 meg vs. 64 meg in MSFS other than the extra resolutions? Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a while I thought I could get to 12,000 with this Ti4200 but I don't think it's going to make it with just the stock cooling :-) . I really thought I could get the memory to 600 but it dies on me at 570. (It should do better than that since it's the 3.6ns variety.) Sigh....gotta keep trying. One thing though Paul, I'd like to run some framerate tests at 2.2Ghz and 2.7Ghz using the Ti4200 and compare it to a GF2 Ultra at the same speeds. Any chance I can get you to upload to the library the test flight you used for the GF3/GF4 comparisons? It would be a big help to have an apple instead of an orange.Trip Northwood 2.2a at 2.72Ghz Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800Gainward GF4 64MB Ti4200 285/57029.42's DX8.1 WinXP ProInwin case / Enermax 431W PSU3DMark2001SE = 11868http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3981159

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the remarks,so i would get a 5-10% difference if i pick the 2000 instead of the 1800?Does that justified 100$?Thanks againRichard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Andre for those infos,it does help my decision a bit.Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

appreciate the info on editing the config file or changing desktop res to achiev 16x12x32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been busy with real life stuff the last several months so am lucky to find time for flying and sneaking a peak at the forums every now and then. Every now and then I have to take a step back from the world of MSFS just to keep my sanity because sometimes I feel like I have an addiction. I did see the screenshots of the clouds you're working on...really looking forward to them...they look stunning. I also still get a lot of use out of your Sky World utility. I've got it set up to also randomize many of your other textures such as the Halo, Sun, Moon, etc., which works very well.Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this