UT2k3: GF3 Ti200 vs. GF4 TI4200/4400

[rh71]

Guys, I'm getting a hand-me-down GF3 Ti200. It basically saves me ~$150 since I was going to spring for the GF4 TI4200/4400.

My question is... is there any reason I should still spend the money on a GF4? I'm not a big gamer, just play UT a lot and now UT2k3. Will I even notice any difference in UT2k3? I'll probably play at 1024x768 res at most anyway.

Thanx.

 

[Moonbender]

Go for it, absolutely. The GF3 Ti200 is a great card, and I'm quite sure it'll run UT2003 at 1024x768 just fine. Unlike GF4 MX based cards, it's also DirectX 8 hardware, so you get pixel shaders and everything.

 

[neomits]

Originally posted by: Moonbender
Go for it, absolutely. The GF3 Ti200 is a great card, and I'm quite sure it'll run UT2003 at 1024x768 just fine. Unlike GF4 MX based cards, it's also DirectX 8 hardware, so you get pixel shaders and everything.

that response is quite confusing.... so he Should go for the 4?! but you listed a bunch of reasons why the GF3 is so great


I've got a GF3Ti200 and it runs UT2k3 AMAZINGLY. Their engine is soooo effecient that I don't really see a need for you (or me) to step up to a 4. I'd put your money in the bank and wait on Nvidia's next generation card.

One thing you should do though is make sure you get teh video apeture size set correctly in the bios when you install your new card.



Stick with the cheap route. The GF3Ti200 is still a great card

 

[sep]

I'm using a G2 Pro@240/480 and it's running UT2003 just fine for now. I would almost guarantee that the G3 ti200 would be a good card for this game. Save the money or send it my way!

-JC

 

[Moonbender]

Hm? I said that unlike GF4 MX cards, the GF3 Ti200 is DirectX 8 hardware, which means he'll get to see pixel shader effects like the shiny water in UT2003. The "GF4 MX" was thrown in because people who're planning to buy a GF3 Ti200 often consider it as an alternative, since it's about the same price. Sorry if that was confusing.

 

[rh71]

Thx guys. I'm coming from just playing the patched UT2k3 demo with a Voodoo3.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: neomits

One thing you should do though is make sure you get teh video apeture size set correctly in the bios when you install your new card.

What should the aperture size be? Thx.

 

[neomits]

Its however much RAM your card has


like the GF3Ti200 has 64 megs so you want to set it to 64


now the Ti4200 has 2 different versions a 64 meg version and a 128 meg version so you'd set it to whichever version you had

 

[mellondust]

Originally posted by: neomits

One thing you should do though is make sure you get teh video apeture size set correctly in the bios when you install your new card.

What exactly does this affect? I am not to familiar with the purpose of this. I have set mine between 32 and 64 for a 128 meg card and I don't know that I can really see a difference. Should I have it set to 128? Please enlighten me!

 

[neomits]

oh yes

set it ALL the way up to 128


basically its just telling your motherboard how much information to let the RAM on the Video card handle. Since your card can handle up to 128 there is no reason not to set it that high. It'll take a load off the CPU and onboard RAM and use the full potential of your Video Card hence a better result

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Actually, AGP arpeture size is the amount of system RAM that will be tagged for AGP texture storage. It's pretty much a useless feature now since all modern cards have 64-128 megs of RAM on them already, but back when the AGP standard was set and cards had only 32 megs of RAM at most it was a good idea. It still is actually, but current AGP transfers are just to slow for it to be used effectively. Anyway, the arpeture size really shouldn't effect performance more than 2% or so, if any at all, at any setting. As for the GF3 vs. GF4, I'd say you'll most likely be perfectly happy with a GF3 if a) you don't care about using FSAA and b)it's a 128 MB card. But even if it's 64MB you should be OK without the textures cranked all the way up.