MSI GeForce4 Ti4600 128MB 8X AGP VGA/SVideo/DVI-I Video Card - $144.95

[papaschtroumpf]

Originally posted by: YucA
for me its very easy to pass up. i wont even pay 100 bucks for a GF4. Just the plain fact that its not DX9 compatible is more than enough reason to stay away from it. i mean yea, it will play the games, but whats the point of buying a card like that, when for 150 you can currently get a very decent card that is, what, maybe 5fps slower but will be able to give you the graphics you want to see...

if you play games, and are waiting for the dx9 games to come out, i say wait. if you need something now, buy something even cheaper to hold you off....look at me i have a damn 32mb ati 7200, and this plays all the games i have perfect...halo, nfsu, CS, all that crap...

What resolution are you playing at? Does "all the juice turned up" FSAA ans Aniso filtering all the way up?
I play at 1600X1200 (full screen on my LCD) and my Ti4600 can't keep up, especially FSAA (elimination of "jaggies"). I had to tune down FSAA for UT2003 to get decent FPS and Halo looks like crap (FPS sucks at 1600x1200 and lower res introduces lots of jaggies because Halo requires you to turn FSAA off).

 

[wampa]

Originally posted by: decode
I think some of you might be confusing the price of the GeForce 4 ti4600 with that of the 4200. The 4600's have always been at least $140 (excluding sales, specials, etc). Looking on pricewatch and nextag, there are many selling today for over $250, and some as high as $300. The 4600 is vastly different from the 4200 when it comes to performance, and is a very good card. It cannot be had for $80.

The GF4 4600 performs similarly to the FX 5700 Ultra, and is about $20 cheaper. The only down side is that the GF4s don't have hardware support for DirectX 9. Since some newer games don't even have OpenGL support (silly move, in my opinion), you'll want DirectX hardware support. The only game I'll want to play with DX 9 is Half-Life 2, and if I weren't looking forward to that game so much, I'd certainly pick up this deal.

I also agree that people are getting the ti4200 and the ti4600 mixed up. There was no way that someone could've gotten a ti4600 for $80 or even $125 LAST year (excluding BB clearance). If it's on sale for $130 now, imagine the cost of it last year. I would say over $200. But the lower end ti4200 was the cheaper model that could be had for less than $100. I got my TI4200 back in 2002 black friday for $99 after MIR which was a good deal since I still have it in my system today .

 

[WHipLAsh13]

Originally posted by: FordLorider
Just a little more fuel to the fire. I mainly play Quake 3 and and COD

Benchmarks:
Quake 3
Radeon XT > 164fps
4600 8x > 191fps
COD
Radeon XT > 95 fps
4600 8x > 100fps

There are far more games where the 4600 still beats the 9600 in than it trails even to this day. For someone with a budget of 100 (like one guy said it's getting harder to find them for 100 though), the 4600 is still hard to pass up.

I don't know where you get your info from but if you check out this review Tom did the Ti-4600 won a whopping 1 test out of 12 against the 9600xt. So where this "far more games where the 4600 still beats the 9600 in than it trails even to this day" statement is justified I would love to see.

 

[spazola]

first off i did pay $125 back when best buy had the preorder of $125 price mistake, i got them to sell it to me at that price . second i play on a old ibm g70 at 1024*768 with all game setting on ultra and no fsaa enabled, hell i have never used fsaa does it make that much of a differance? the games that i play mostly aa and cod look beautifull, if fsaa makes them even better that would be amasing to me. 3rd, are you saying i cannot play half life 2 when it omes out because it doesnt support dx9?

 

[decode]

Originally posted by: WHipLAsh13
I don't know where you get your info from but if you check out this review Tom did the Ti-4600 won a whopping 1 test out of 12 against the 9600xt. So where this "far more games where the 4600 still beats the 9600 in than it trails even to this day" statement is justified I would love to see.

Correct me if I'm misreading the charts, but it seems that the Ti-4600 did better than the 9600XT in the Call of Duty, Quake 3 Arena and Warcraft III non-quality benchmarks (3 total), and there are only 10 total (30%). Granted, that's not a majority, but there is something else to take into consideration.

It's not mentioned in the article if the tests are done with OpenGL or DirectX. Quake 3 requires OpenGL, as far as I know, and the Ti-4600 outperforms the 9600XT in that test. I think you see similar results with other OpenGL games. There are many, many games out there that require, or perform better with OpenGL, and in these games, the Ti-4600 may be the better choice. Clearly, anything using DirectX 9 will be better with the 9600XT, but out of the hundreds of 3D games available today, only a few support DirectX 9.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: decode
I think some of you might be confusing the price of the GeForce 4 ti4600 with that of the 4200. The 4600's have always been at least $140 (excluding sales, specials, etc). Looking on pricewatch and nextag, there are many selling today for over $250, and some as high as $300. The 4600 is vastly different from the 4200 when it comes to performance, and is a very good card. It cannot be had for $80.

The GF4 4600 performs similarly to the FX 5700 Ultra, and is about $20 cheaper. The only down side is that the GF4s don't have hardware support for DirectX 9. Since some newer games don't even have OpenGL support (silly move, in my opinion), you'll want DirectX hardware support. The only game I'll want to play with DX 9 is Half-Life 2, and if I weren't looking forward to that game so much, I'd certainly pick up this deal.

Yes I think some people definitley are getting them mixed up. However, at $144 the 9600xt is going to be a better choice (unless all you play is ogl and don't care about aa/af). Also, the 4600 and 4200 are not really that far away in performance. Most 4200's will easily hit 4400 speeds when overclocked, and many others will either hit of come very close to 4600 speeds.

 

[dud]

What do you do with this card (and your $144.95) when the newer DX9 games come out? As I understand it (and I could be wrong) this card does not support Direct X 9. I've seen benchmarks that show the Titanium series performance (versus DX 9 compatible cards) falls to the floor.

 

[FordLorider]

Yeah, I probably gave a bit too much credit to the 4600 8x, let's be honest the 9600XT and 4600 8x are extremely similiar in frame rates.

Does anyone have any pictures where we can see advantages of a DX9 screen shot compared to the same application being run with DX8? Thanks.

 

[Nyses]

my friend has a 4200 and call of duty is bangin on his machine....everything at the highest setting.....i would alos like to the the dif in screenshots btwn a dx8 and 9 card.....

if you want a card that has alsmost the same clock speeds as a 4600 but is dx9 grab a 9700 pro....

 

[Salvador]

Is $107 shipped, no tax a good deal on a new Ti4600? I just nabbed one on Ebay not too long ago. It was sealed in a retail box with a liftetime warranty (BFG Technologies).

Sal

 

[DarkNephree]

Which is a better deal? The MSI or BFG?

 

[modedepe]

Which is a better deal? The MSI or BFG?

Er? This deal vs the 5900 deal? Definitely the 5900. $30 buys you a hell of a lot of performance.

Is $107 shipped, no tax a good deal on a new Ti4600? I just nabbed one on Ebay not too long ago. It was sealed in a retail box with a liftetime warranty (BFG Technologies).

Sal

Good price, imo. You'd be hard pressed to find a faster card for $107.

 

[Salvador]

I heard that BFG has fantastic tech support. I didn't take that into consideration until I had to RMA a card at PNY recently. I can't even get through to the bastards. I'll never buy PNY again. Their "limited" lifetime warranty isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Sal