GeForce3 Ti200 64Mb DDR vs. GeForce4

by **celticslegend33** on Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:36 pm

I've heard a lot of people here recommending GeForce4 Ti4200 64Mb-128Mb DDR as the video card of choice for NBA Live 2003.

I was hoping I could play NBA Live 2003 on its maximum settings. I had a GeForce2 MX400 32Mb just last week and it played well in average settings. I'm planning on getting a GeForce3 Ti200 tomorrow.

Question: Do you think a GeForce3 Ti200 64Mb DDR would suffice?

by **Coldkevin** on Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:52 am

well, geforce 3 is older than 4 and i think it's more expansive, i suggest to buy a ti 4200 but a good framerate depends also from cpu and ram.....

i have a p4 1500@1710 mhz, 512 mb sdram and a geforce 4 ti 4200 and i can't run nba live 2k3 at highest details!!!.....because of ram that slow down performance..... :cry:

by **flyingerm** on Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:13 am

I'm planning to buy new computer in the next few days, can anyone tell me whether this is good enough to run Live highest settings:

P4 2.0 GHz
Gigabyte P4 M/B GA-8SIMLH
256MB RAM DDR266
40GB 7200RPM HDD
64MB Geforce 4 MX440

If anyone got any suggestions please let me know.

thankss in advance

by **nuno** on Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:22 am

ok, that is a great CPU but i REALLY recommend you double the ram (at 512) and buy the 128 ram version of that geforce 4 (with THESE you WILL run NBA 2003 at the maximum ratings)

by **flyingerm** on Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:57 am

thanks nuno. But i'm a bit short of cash :oops:

. Have u got any cheaper suggestions?

Is there a cheaper graphics card that is as good and reliable as Geforce4 MX440?

Thanks.

by **celticslegend33** on Thu Jan 16, 2003 12:26 pm

Coldkevin wrote:well, geforce 3 is older than 4 and i think it's more expansive, i suggest to buy a ti 4200 but a good framerate depends also from cpu and ram.....

i have a p4 1500@1710 mhz, 512 mb sdram and a geforce 4 ti 4200 and i can't run nba live 2k3 at highest details!!!.....because of ram that slow down performance.....

Yes, GeForce3 is older, obviously...

..but I'm thinking GeForce3 would be sufficient enough since GeForce2 Ti VX (on my system) can run most details in maximum settings. My system is as follows:

Athlon 850
256Mb = 2 x 128Mb
Maxtor 40Gb 7200rpm HD

I'm using all the latest drivers and I'm planning on getting a Rumblepad from Logitech (with dual analog sticks), which I don't think would cause any problems (being a USB device).

GeForce3 is cheaper than a GeForce4 Ti4200. If I'm not mistaken, Coldkevin, you're from the Philippines also, right? A GeForce3 Ti200 here costs Php4,350 while a GeForce4 Ti4200 64Mb would cost around Php6,050. To those who are not familiar with Philippine currency, the rate goes around somewhere $1:Php53. You can do the math.

I'm about to buy the card. If there are any last minute warnings/advice/suggestions about my choice, please e-mail me or reply here right away.

Thank you.

By the way, as far as comparing my specs to what EA Sports had recommended, I think my specs has exceeded/matched them quite well.

by **nuno** on Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:26 pm

I have the Logitech Rumblepad with two analog stick's and it works great with NBA Live 2003 and all the other games i have. Go Get It!

by **nuno** on Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:34 pm

Well flyingerm i´ve obviously forgot the money issue here, im sorry. I guess you should stay with those specs because they are pretty good. However, the ram issue it´s REALLY important. Most recent games need more than 256 RAM in order to run with the maximum details.

by **Uncle Drew** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:42 am

You don't need that much cpu power to run live at max levels. I'm running a 1.4 ghz Athelon T-bird with 384 megs of sdram and a Geforce 4
ti 4200 64meg (Gainward) video card, and I can run Madden and Live with everything maxed out , and I get frame rates as smooth as butter.

by **flyingerm** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:08 am

i can probably spend a bit extra on it, though i may only be able to do one of the following:

1. upgrade to P4 2.4GHz
2. upgrade to Geforce 4 MX440 128MB
3. upgrade RAM to 512DDR

which one will u suggest? THank you all

by **flyingerm** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:10 am

or do u think changing to AMD 2100 instead of P4 is a good idea?
that way i will have enough cash to upgrade both VGA to 128M and RAM to 512DDR :lol:

i asked the guy at the shop, he told me gotta be careful with AMDs with overheating issues. How reliable are AMDs??

by **nuno** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:28 am

If i were you i would spend it on RAM. it IS that crucial.

About the AMD... STAY AWAY FROM THEM!!! Sorry to all AMD owners who do not experience problems but THREE guys i know have them and their CPU is always running into trouble...

by **flyingerm** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:34 pm

ok i went to the shop again. Now i'm thinking about a

ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128 MB card.

Its about AUD$140 (= US$70) more than the Geforce 4 MMX440 64MB. Is it worth it? Is there any known problems with that card with Live?

thanksss

by **bishibashiboy** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 4:52 pm

Adding more system RAM will not make your framerate jump to astonishing heights...the only thing that it might do is stop all those little pauses from occurring when Windows is doing a bunch of disk swapping...and possibly improve loads times...Live 2003 is NOT a memory intensive application. Having said that..with the cpu speed you are considering and the graphics card you are considering it should be more than adequate to play this game at decent speeds at decent graphics levels (although NOT max because this game is horribly optimized).

If I were you flyingerm, I would use your money..junk your P4 2.0..pick up an AMD athlon xp2100+ and use your remaining money and buy the fastest graphics card possible in your budget..possibly a Geforce4 ti4200..you will see much greater improvements overall than adding more RAM paired with a slower graphics card..trust me. I own an Athlon XP 1800+ combo'd with a Radeon 9000 64 megs OEM graphics card right now and I can tell you right now that it runs the game ALRIGHT on medium settings in the Live menu..no blazing frame rates..but easily in the mid 40's..overall..a decent card for the money. If you want max detail levels your graphics card will make a greater difference than how much more system RAM you stick into your system. An Athlon xp2100 with 256 megs of ram coupled with a ti4200 WILL perform better in games than an athlon xp2100 with 512 megs of ram coupled with a radeon 9000.

nuno wrote:About the AMD... STAY AWAY FROM THEM!!! Sorry to all AMD owners who do not experience problems but THREE guys i know have them and their CPU is always running into trouble..

What troubles exactly? Overheating? Easily solved..put in proper cooling. These CPU's are excellent..and have in fact much better price/performance ratio when comparing to Intel P4's. The PR rating is roughly equivalent to the P4 clock speed it is competing against. I can tell you right now out of most reviews I have read and from personal experiences..my 1800+ outperforms or is on par with a comparable P4 1800 in most applications at only 1500 mhz clock speed. And of course the main advantage is at the time i bought my system, my cpu was 50% cheaper than its intel counterpart.

by **celticslegend33** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:01 pm

I'd have to agree, AMD is a far more convenient alternative to Intel's P4. Unless you're going to purchase a Pentium 4 3.06 HyperThreading processor, stick to AMD Athlon. From above, you can see my specs and my NBA Live 2003 runs very smooth.

Just yesterday, I bought myself a GeForce3 Ti200 64Mb DDR. (Being the reason why I put up this topic.) I just ran the game at maximum and it played great. However, I just lowered 1 or 2 of my settings so the game would run much better.... other than those 2, I don't have any qualms about it.

Conclusion? Flyingerm, AMD is a better choice if you want better value. You just need proper cooling. As for video cards, go with (as everyone has recommended) a GeForce4 Ti4200 64/128Mb DDR. Just settle for a 256Mb system RAM. Remember, my GeForce3 Ti200 is doing quite good already. So why pay for extra 'power' when you're not going to need it?

by **flyingerm** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:33 pm

thank you guys, u've all been very helpful.

bishibashiboy, u said GForceTi4200 is better than Radeon 9000, how does it compared with Radeon 9000 Pro (in terms of prices and performance)?

thanks againnnn

by **flyingerm** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:40 pm

i was talking about the

Radeon 9000 Pro 128MB vs. GeForce 4 Ti4200 64MB

i believe they cost similar prices....?
so performance-wise, which one is better?

by **nuno** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:42 pm

I´ve seen a couple of reviews were they said that Radeon 9000 Pro was better at anti-aliasing (im not sure what this is but i think that it´s what it makes the graphics less pixilized).

About the AMD thingy. Im sorry for you guys that have AMD and are happy with it. It´s just that i know three guys that have them and they are not satisfied with it. And about that over heating thing? I think it´s not as easy to fix as you might say because it can really damage your cpu.

About the RAM. The Read Access Memory IS important specially the 256 vs 512 difference. Obvioulsly if you have 512 and upgrade to 1024 it won´t matter much because most of it won´t even be used.

by **bishibashiboy** on Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:50 pm

nuno wrote:About the RAM. The Read Access Memory IS important specially the 256 vs 512 difference. Obvioulsly if you have 512 and upgrade to 1024 it won´t matter much because most of it won´t even be used.

well it is true that RAM is important..but my opinion is that if given the choice between a jump from 256 to 512 or a better graphics card..i think that a better graphics card would definitely provide a bigger boost. :lol:

flyingerm wrote:bishibashiboy, u said GForceTi4200 is better than Radeon 9000, how does it compared with Radeon 9000 Pro (in terms of prices and performance)?

I can't be certain since most people do NOT review the radeon 9000 and I don't have a Pro to compare with. But generally you should expect the Pro version to be around 25% faster if that helps at all..haha
and if your choice is between a radeon 9000 pro and a geforce4 ti4200..DEFINITELY go for the geforce if you can afford it. The 9000 pro competes with the geforce4mx460..not the Ti series. In terms of image quality, they are about equal. I wouldn't recommend anti-aliasing or even ansiotropic filtering on the Radeon card..based on my experience simply because both those options will slow down the radeon since the card is not blazing fast the way it is with those options off.

by **flyingerm** on Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:25 pm

but the R9000 Pro is 128MB, thats twice more ram than the Ti4200 64MB

so is that gonna make the R9000 Pro a better card??

Sorry I don't know much about video cards, forgive me if its a stupid question :wink:

by **Roc386** on Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:19 am

I just picked up the Radeon 9700 pro and I can play any game on high and will be able to for some time with all the new games. Check out Pricewatch.com for video card prices, I saved $150 on this card at that site rather than buying it at Best buy. You can also find and order all other video cards. Good luck

by **Roc386** on Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:27 am

Almost forgot, with the Radeon 9700 Pro, I can run NBA Live at 1600X1200 and everything on max.

by **bishibashiboy** on Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:22 pm

haha no probs flyingerm..
More memory does not imply that the card will be ANY faster at all. In fact, in the case with the Geforce4 Ti4200, the 128 meg card will actually be slower than the 64 meg card simply because they use slower memory in the 128m geforce4. More memory *normally* implies that more textures and other crap can be loaded into the card. However, right now VERRRRy few games can benefit from 128m of ram for your video card, however that may change when new games come out (doom3 anyone?).
Anyways, in the case with the Radeon 9000 pro 128, the card is NOT faster than the geforce4 ti4200 regardless how much RAM it comes with. The difference in speed between the geforce4 and the radeon 9000 is NOT due to differences in memory configurations, but rather because the Geforce is just a better gaming card.
On a side note, in case the geforce4 ti4200 is out of your price range..you should look into a radeon 8500LE (64/128). This card is FASTER than the radeon 9000 pro (despite the nomenclature ATI uses) regardless how much ram the 9000 card has. It is not quite as fast as the gefoce however, but it is a good buy IMHO.

Roc386: Damn you're lucky. I wish I have that card. You must have spent quite a bit on it!

by **flyingerm** on Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:50 pm

thanks a lot guys.

bishibashiboy, i have already ordered the R9000 Pro before reading your last message damnnn :cry:

I will tell u how well it works after i get my comp tomorrow

GeForce3 Ti200 64Mb DDR vs. GeForce4

GeForce3 Ti200 64Mb DDR vs. GeForce4

JUST A LITTLE MORE MONEY...

Logitech Rublepad

Stay with those specs

spend on RAM

Radeon

Re: Radeon

Who is online