But then if you want AA you do need the GF3 cards. When o/c's are accounted for the GF3 cards are 10-20% faster but as mentioned previously you are giving up a lot of image quality, dual display, TVout, fast Aniso (though lower quality) and DVD playback. So for UT2003 at defaults the GF3TI500 is the clear winner with Rad8500 cards in the middle and the GF3TI200 tied with the Rad8500LE at the bottom. Rad8500LE should easily reach Rad8500 speeds, GF3TI200 tend to get within about 10% the perf of GF3TI500 (although some exceed TI500) and neither Rad8500 nor GF3TI500 tend to o/c much at all. So in UT2003 with all cards at default clocks, high detail and no 'eye candy' the GF3TI200 is the same speed as Rad8500LE, the Rad8500 with 64MB is 5% faster, the Rad8500 with 128MB is 10% faster and top of the heap the GF3TI500 is 30% faster than the GF3TI200/Rad8500LE. Here check this out:ĪnAndTech 4200 roundup illustrating 64 vs 128 These are all very good cards but when push comes to shove any 64MB card is a bad idea when compared to the 128MB cards.ĮDIT: As for 64MB vs 128MB current games like Commanche4 and JK2 (IIRC) are ones which really benefit from the extra RAM, you often find you have to compromise detail settings and when you come to sell your card on in 6-12 months time any 64MB card will be hard to sell much like selling a 32MB card now. Now when you consider the price diff between Rad8500-128 and GF4TI4200-64 it makes sense to go for the Radeon (at least in the US & Canada), similarly when you look at the price diff between the 128MB and 64MB 4200 cards it makes sense to pay the extra. GF4TI4200 also get a nice boost from the extra RAM on the 128MB version, despite a 13% faster RAM clock the actual perf diff comes down to 2-3%, if the clocks are equal the 4200-128 is about 10% faster! When 64MB is limiting (some current games and many of the games due out) the perf hit is huge and a 4200-64 o/c'ed to 300/600 only perfs on par with a 4200-128 at it's def 250/444! Again this means Rad8500-128MB actually catches up with a 4200-64MB, to what degree depends largely upon the CPU in use. GF3 only seem to get a boost when the extra RAM is actually needed. How much 128MB helps over 64MB obviously varies by card and by game, Radeons really get a nice boost by simply having the extra RAM making a Rad8500LE 250/500 easily as fast as a Rad8500 275/550. This is something nVidia addressed with the GF4TI cards and they have much better image quality, dual display, TVout, QxAA as well as boosting 3D perf AND taking better advantage of faster CPUs than both GF3 or Rad8500. Of course a TI200 o/c's to about TI500 speeds and that's why they've been so popular but Rad8500 cards are still hugely better for image quality, dual display, TVout, fast Aniso (though lower quality) and DVD playback. Rad8500 tends to perf better in almost everything (excl AA) than a GF3TI500, and the Rad8500LE is only 10% slower meaning it easily kicks a GF3TI200's ass.
0 kommentar(er)
