ti4200 vs 8500 = no difference? Grrrrrr!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Li'l ol' me
  • Start date Start date
L

Li'l ol' me

Just bought a ti4200 on the cheap thinking there would be a modest but
noticable speed improvement from a Radeon 8500. But after running 3DMark03
and UT2003 benchmarks I've found they give virtually identical results. Is
this right?

The only possible improvement is at 1600x1200, but I don't use daft modes
like this (I can never see a difference with anything above 1024 except in
Windows apps).

It's an Inno3d card BTW. Is this a good overclocker? I can't overclock the
8500 at all (I'm sure the so-called 275mhz memory is pre-overclocked 250, as
I have to put those little heat sinks on the chips to stop it overheating at
std settings!).
 
Just bought a ti4200 on the cheap thinking there would be a modest but
noticable speed improvement from a Radeon 8500. But after running 3DMark03
and UT2003 benchmarks I've found they give virtually identical results. Is
this right?
Click to expand...

They are of the same generation and I wouldn't expect to see much of a
difference. In fact, I've had both and in my machine, the ti4200 was
a little faster. Why are you bothering with an outdated 8500 anyway?

jw
 
Despite the recent vogue saying, artificial benchmarks do mean something
though they are often overemphasized. And the difference between the 2
cards is modest in real games unless the 4200 clocks to 4600 speeds.

Mike
 
ELVIS2000 said:
They are of the same generation and I wouldn't expect to see much of a
difference. In fact, I've had both and in my machine, the ti4200 was
a little faster. Why are you bothering with an outdated 8500 anyway?
Click to expand...

He's not... thats why he's replacing it... unfortunately with a card of a
similar generation and has gone sideways rather than up.

Ben
 
The 8500 was a good card in it's time, only a little off the nVidia pace.
The speed difference should be ~15-20%, unless you have a particularly slow
CPU. On my last upgrade, one thing I noticed is that you need a quite
significant performance boost to really notice while gaming. On many games
it's really the graphics engine holding back the visual experience, as it
has to be written to run adequately on 3 year old hardware if the developer
actually wants to sell a lot of copies.
 
Just bought a ti4200 on the cheap thinking there would be a modest but
noticable speed improvement from a Radeon 8500. But after running 3DMark03
and UT2003 benchmarks I've found they give virtually identical results. Is
this right?

The only possible improvement is at 1600x1200, but I don't use daft modes
like this (I can never see a difference with anything above 1024 except in
Windows apps).

It's an Inno3d card BTW. Is this a good overclocker? I can't overclock the
8500 at all (I'm sure the so-called 275mhz memory is pre-overclocked 250, as
I have to put those little heat sinks on the chips to stop it overheating at
std settings!).
Click to expand...

What cpu you have? If the cpu is not fast enough then the vid card can
be held back. I went from an 8500 to a GF4 Ti4200 and the 4200 was
faster in all the games I played. Not a lot, but it was faster.
 
They are of the same generation and I wouldn't expect to see much of a
difference. In fact, I've had both and in my machine, the ti4200 was
a little faster. Why are you bothering with an outdated 8500 anyway?

jw
Click to expand...

He wasn't bothering with it. He was trying to upgrade from it
to a GF4 ti4200. Why should he bother with an outdated ti4200? Should
of bought at least a 5600 Ultra, or 9600 Pro. Maybe just a 9600 Pro.
:)
 
Wrong. They mean nothing.

Mike P said:
Despite the recent vogue saying, artificial benchmarks do mean something
though they are often overemphasized. And the difference between the 2
cards is modest in real games unless the 4200 clocks to 4600 speeds.

Mike
Click to expand...
 
JTBurn said:
Wrong. They mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Benchmarks mean something... But you need to have an understanding of what
they are testing and what that means with respect to what you're interested
in. Far too many people make sweeping statements based on information they
THINK the benchmarks are telling them.

Ben
 
Li'l ol' me said:
Just bought a ti4200 on the cheap thinking there would be a modest but
noticable speed improvement from a Radeon 8500. But after running
3DMark03 and UT2003 benchmarks I've found they give virtually
identical results. Is this right?
Click to expand...

That version of 3Dmark is for DX-9 benchmarking. 3DMark is argueably not
worth much, but you should at least try the last version to bench your DX-8
cards with. At standard resolutions, the UT2K3 benchmark (especially the
flyby part) is more processor intensive than it is GPU intensive. So, your
choice of benchmarks for those two cards could be improved.

Just to ease your mind, your TI-4200 is a far superior card to your Radeon
8500. Far Superior.
 
That's what I'm saying. People who regurgitate what they read about them
meaning nothing are as ignorant as those who pay too much attention to them.
I can't be bothered to argue about it.

Mike
 
i'm_tired said:
That version of 3Dmark is for DX-9 benchmarking. 3DMark is argueably not
worth much, but you should at least try the last version to bench your DX-8
cards with.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference; the Ti4200 is not much faster than the original
(275/275) ATI 8500 regardless of your preferred benchmark:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzI4LDM

Just to ease your mind, your TI-4200 is a far superior card to your Radeon
8500. Far Superior.
Click to expand...

Nope...the Ti4200 was a bit faster (~10%) overall, but they were pretty
much the same. The main difference was that Ti4200 cards could often
be overclocked to very high speeds, whereas the 275Mhz 8500 core
was already nearly maxed out.

You are probably confused by the many different versions of the 8500
produced at lower clock speeds than the original 275 / 275.

-Mike
 
El said:
It makes no difference; the Ti4200 is not much faster than the
original (275/275) ATI 8500 regardless of your preferred benchmark:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzI4LDM



Nope...the Ti4200 was a bit faster (~10%) overall, but they were
pretty much the same. The main difference was that Ti4200 cards could
often
be overclocked to very high speeds, whereas the 275Mhz 8500 core
was already nearly maxed out.

You are probably confused by the many different versions of the 8500
produced at lower clock speeds than the original 275 / 275.
Click to expand...

The GeForce 3 TI-200 at 250mhz GPU was as fast and in a couple of cases
slightly faster than the 8500 at 275. The GeForce 3 TI-500 simply killed
it. The 8500 can't even claim to be in the same league as a GeForce 4
TI-4200.
 
i'm_tired said:
The GeForce 3 TI-200 at 250mhz GPU was as fast and in a couple of cases
slightly faster than the 8500 at 275. The GeForce 3 TI-500 simply killed
it. The 8500 can't even claim to be in the same league as a GeForce 4
TI-4200.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Did you view the link I provided? It shows the 8500 and
Ti4200 performing about the same in various games.

-Mike
 
That's retarded. When he runs the "benchmark" part, and it,
for example, shows the fps as 50 with both cards, doesn't that show
he's only getting 50fps with each card. What! If he runs the game
part, then one card will get more fps magicly?
 
Back
Top