Sign in to follow this  
Guest PaulL01

what can a GeForce4-4600 give you if not higher FPS?

Recommended Posts

I have been following the posts regarding performance increase,or lack, between the new GF4s and some of the older cards - like, say my GF3 64MB. But :1. Will the 128 MB GF4 improve smoothness? ( If I pan quickly in the VC I tend to see texture blocks being filled in. Will 128MB on videofix that? )2. Will I be able to run 4xAA instead of 2xAA ?3. what about smoothing running 1600x1200 instead of 1260x960 ?4. any other advantages of a GF4-4*00 ?5. any framerate boost going from GF3 to GF4-4600 when running ona P3-1GZ ?6. I do plan on going to a 1.4 celeron from powerleap ( not out yet - only 1.3 so far ) in place of my P3-1GZ - the net cost after recycling my P3 on ebay, will be about $70 - $100. - and this is aneasy 5 minute install.Thanks,Myles

Share this post


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

>what can a GeForce4-4600 give you....an erection :-lol :-lol :-lol or is that just me? ;)all kidding aside, a faster video card will allow you to run more detail in FS2k2, higher resolutions, fsaa, higher anisotropic filtering, yada yada yada without losing fps/little fps loss (compared to slower cards). As far as your specific situation goes, I would look at getting a faster CPU before getting a faster video card... I just recently upgraded to an Athlon XP 1700+ system (specs in sig) from a PIII 800 system and everything just seems so much faster (never ran FS2k2 on the PIII 800 but I'm sure my Athlon runs a lot quicker than my old PIII did). I picked up my Athlon 1700+, Soyo Dragon Plus mobo, and Crucial 256MB PC2100 CL2.5 DDR RAM, for around $400 retail (could've had it for way less online). All I need to complete this system and get great FS2k2 performance is a *REAL* video card and another 256MB stick of RAM.Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Save a few bucks, but a Ti4400 and overclock it to match Ti4600 speeds. That's what I'm doing :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the G4 has much better FSAA than my G3.Even though the picture quality is better in most respects than my previous Voodoo 5 the AA sucks. I hate those swimming lines, they're so disappointing. :-(SteveCYYZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed a small difference between my Herc GF3 running FSAA and my GF4 running 4xs. Wouldn't be worth upgrading from a GF3 really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went for the best value IMO Ti4400 from GF2mx ,have to say I`m in exctasy!!!.Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed John. At work I purchased one 4600 and one 4400 for a video card shootout among our CAD group (11 cards total needed).Two things became obvious:1. The "bang for the buck" came from the frame buffer (128mb(2. The difference in clock speed was negligible for most applicationsI ended up purchasing 4400's for our CAD guys and gals. They are very pleased! YMMV (but not by much IMO)Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big hole in your pocket where your money used to be ;-)No matter what you buy, it will cost more then it is worth, be obsolete shortly after you buy it, and by the time the drivers actually work properly, you'll be looking at upgrading again :-lolSeriously though:Increasing your resolution rates increase the amount of data that must be processed on your machine, a high end video card does not negate this fact. Resolution kills cpu, not video card. Effects kill video card. Drop your res and increase your effects and your existing machine will do quite nicely.Think about what you are trying to improve, effects or res? Spend accordingly. Your existing GF3 is quite fine for the effects level that FS2K2 is capable of providing. A doubling of CPU is possible based on your current speed, and that will give you a huge performance increase.It is unlikely that you will need something beyond a GF3 until CFS4/FS2006 ships as Microsoft, being profit based, will always cater to the average - low end systems out there with a smattering of stuff for the high end folks. It will be a LONG TIME before you see a minimum systems requirement exceeding 64Meg Video or 1GHz processor. There are just too many consumers out there with money to spend for developers to close themselves off from the market by raising specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Increasing your resolution rates increase the amount of data >that must be processed on your machine, a high end video >card does not negate this fact. Resolution kills cpu, not >video card. I like your post Ray, but I have to cut in and correct your statment as to "increasing res kills CPU" that is Not true. Screen resolution is handled strictly at Video card, Thats why a GF3TI128mb or GF4TI128mb card shines as you can go ultra high resolution with out hardly a hit on performance, same is true of AA for the GF4TI.Take CarePaul

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