Which GeForce3?

Zaphod Beeblebrox · 05-12-2001 10:51pm #1

Greetings,

Ordering new comp, comes with Geforce 3 Titanium 200 (Ti200), but for 100 squid I can upgrade to a Ti500.
Specs of normal GeForce 3, Ti200 and Ti500 below:

GeForce3 Ti 500
Graphics Core: 256-bit
Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR
Fill Rate: 3.84 Billion AA Samples/Sec.
Operations per Second: 960 Billion
Memory Bandwidth: 8.0GB/Sec.

GeForce3
Graphics Core:: 256-bit
Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR
Fill Rate: 3.2 Billion AA Samples/Sec.
Operations per Second: 800 Billion
Memory Bandwidth: 7.36GB/Sec.

GeForce3 Ti 200
Graphics Core:: 256-bit
Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR
Fill Rate: 2.8 Billion AA Samples/Sec.
Operations per Second: 700 Billion
Memory Bandwidth: 6.4GB/Sec.

As u see the Ti200 seems to be worse than the normal GF3, but according to Nvidia both Ti cards have new features called "shadow buffer technology and 3D textures" which you don't get on the normal GF3. So I'm going for the Ti200 over the normal GeForce 3, even though it has lower specs. Question is, at the current rate of advances in game graphics, is it worth forking out the extra 100 for the Ti500?

Ooh one other thing, is PC2100 memory better than PC133/PC100/etc?

(uhuhuh)Thankyouverymuch.

NeoSlicerZ · 05-12-2001 11:04pm

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Greetings,

Ordering new comp, comes with Geforce 3 Titanium 200 (Ti200), but for 100 squid I can upgrade to a Ti500.
Specs of normal GeForce 3, Ti200 and Ti500 below:

GeForce3 Ti 500
Graphics Core: 256-bit
Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR
Fill Rate: 3.84 Billion AA Samples/Sec.
Operations per Second: 960 Billion
Memory Bandwidth: 8.0GB/Sec.

GeForce3
Graphics Core:: 256-bit
Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR
Fill Rate: 3.2 Billion AA Samples/Sec.
Operations per Second: 800 Billion
Memory Bandwidth: 7.36GB/Sec.

GeForce3 Ti 200
Graphics Core:: 256-bit
Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR
Fill Rate: 2.8 Billion AA Samples/Sec.
Operations per Second: 700 Billion
Memory Bandwidth: 6.4GB/Sec.

As u see the Ti200 seems to be worse than the normal GF3, but according to Nvidia both Ti cards have new features called "shadow buffer technology and 3D textures" which you don't get on the normal GF3. So I'm going for the Ti200 over the normal GeForce 3, even though it has lower specs. Question is, at the current rate of advances in game graphics, is it worth forking out the extra 100 for the Ti500?

Ooh one other thing, is PC2100 memory better than PC133/PC100/etc?

(uhuhuh)Thankyouverymuch.

Let me guess : Dell. Or something like that
Don't mind that new stuff not a huge improvment imo
IMHO you should get the original gf3 performance difference is negligeble. around 3% average
PC2100 = 133fsb DDR
PC-133 = 133fsb SDRAM
PC-100 = 100fsb SDRAM= ****
Arranged in order of performance

koneko · 06-12-2001 9:29am

The difference between the original GF3 and the Ti200 isn't much. You can overclock your Ti200 and they should be about the same. The Ti500 is better though, but only because it's faster (there's no other improvements on the card).

As far as value for features goes the Ti200 is best value for money, but the Ti500 is definitely a better card (not sure if it's worth the money though).

strat · 06-12-2001 9:50am

Originally posted by koneko
The difference between the original GF3 and the Ti200 isn't much. You can overclock your Ti200 and they should be about the same. The Ti500 is better though, but only because it's faster (there's no other improvements on the card).

As far as value for features goes the Ti200 is best value for money, but the Ti500 is definitely a better card (not sure if it's worth the money though).

I ordered a new Geforce 3 Ti 500 last week - still hasent arrived yet

im bl33ting at them as i type, but that said wood still take a regular gf3 over a ti 200 anyday and I would pay the extra ton for the 500 - sounds like a good deal, and idea which make of GF3 it is ?

when it arrives il tell ya how manny million 3dmarks i get

bonkey · 06-12-2001 11:00am

The GF3 Ti200 is basically an attempt by nVidia to fill a gap in the market - to supply a card with all the features of a normal GF3, but which isnt as pricey.

The nVidia trend is to offer new models every 6 months. This has typically taken the form of a new tech arriving annually, with an extended range (both faster and slower) 6 months later for the Chrimbo market.

The Ti 200 is fine, as long as you arent building the absolute maximum gaming machine. Is a Ti500 worth the extra hundred bills? Well, if you have 'em, and the rest of your pc's spec is up to it, then absolutely. But if youre doing something silly like running a machine with only 128MB of RAM, there *may* be better places to spend your extra few notes.

Me - I'm getting a Ti200 for my 1.4 AMD. Why? Simple - the flatscreen I use only runs to 1024x768. A ti200 can p1ss all over that resolution, even with FSAA turned on in most cases. Had I a big CRT though, capable of "decent" resolutions, I'd definitely get a Ti500 instead.

AS for the "basic" GF3. AFAIK, its the exact same tech. All the Ti series has done is used a different manuf process (.13 micron instead of .16 IIRC) and upped/downed the core speeds. If you see a "conventional" GF3 for much cheaper than a Ti500, its well worth the pennies.

jc

koneko · 06-12-2001 11:50am

I wouldn't go for the Ti200 meself, either, but value wise is pretty good. If you can afford more get a Ti500, definitely. I'm getting mine next week or so, and getting rid of my GF3. My situation is a little diff though as I can get them really cheap, so it's more of a constant upgrade

I have a 21" monitor (oh yay crank that resolution up baybee), and just about everythin in my pc is overclocked heh.

jaarius · 06-12-2001 12:58pm

im running a GeForce3 64Mb Ti200 card and i have no prolems with it.

jaz?

JustHalf · 06-12-2001 1:53pm

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
As u see the Ti200 seems to be worse than the normal GF3, but according to Nvidia both Ti cards have new features called "shadow buffer technology and 3D textures" which you don't get on the normal GF3. So I'm going for the Ti200 over the normal GeForce 3, even though it has lower specs. Question is, at the current rate of advances in game graphics, is it worth forking out the extra 100 for the Ti500?

The GeForce Ti 200 is indeed "worse" than the other cards, but not by much... in fact, I've seen a fair few Ti200 cards ship with exactly the same memory latency rating as the regular GeForce3 (and I think a few, if not all, Ti500 cards too). You should be able to clock it up to the same speed as a regular GeForce3, at least, if you want to .

There's not much point in forking out an extra for the Ti500, as the difference between these cards and regular GeForce3 cards isn't worth that much.

The extra "shadow buffer and 3D textures" mentioned are features on all GeForce3's that have been activated with later drivers.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Ooh one other thing, is PC2100 memory better than PC133/PC100/etc?

Yes. PC2100 is better than PC133, and PC133 is better than PC100. You will need a DDR motherboard to support PC2100 RAM.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · 06-12-2001 9:11pm

Originally posted by NeoSlicers

Let me guess : Dell. Or something like that

Hehe nope. I'm stupid, but not that stupid

The comp's an Evesham, which ppl seem to either love or hate. Athlon XP 1900+, Asus A7V266e, 512MB pc2100 RAM, 100GB hdd, 19" LG crt, Soundblaster Audigy etc. Niiiice

Thankyou ladies, gentlemen and hermaphrodites for your valuable time. I'm getting the Ti500 btw.

koneko · 07-12-2001 9:23am

Evesham, dang, heard nothing but bad things about them.

Specs sound good though. Why not buid your own?

Good choice on the graphics...

Fidelis · 07-12-2001 1:16pm

What about the GF2 Ti 450 cards ? Are they worth £150?

superfly · 07-12-2001 1:59pm

i seen a Hercules 4000XT 64mb graphics card in town for £100
is this any good or what?

Fidelis · 07-12-2001 7:32pm

Well I think the 4000XT is the Kyro I and not the Kyro II which is the latest one. £100 for an obsolete card doesn't seem good.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · 07-12-2001 7:46pm

£100 for a Kyro 1? Cmon now. My last card was a Kyro 2 for £70, which sounds good for the price but comes up with weird graphical glitches eg painting textured squares with the flashlight in HL or pretty rainbow textures when you use flashlight or flares in Aliens v Predator 2. Also for some reason the latest drivers are screwed up, since all games and video files take about 10 minutes to load, freezing ur comp as they do so. Finally, you might want to consider it for new games but if you'll only be playing HL go for an old Voodoo 3 or something, since Kyro II works fine on Max Payne and Operation Flashpoint but gives ****e fps in CS.

The Clown Man · 07-12-2001 8:53pm

I was thinking about getting a ti-200 and I have found a few that are within my price range:

64Mb ABIT Siluro GeForce 3 Ti-200 Pure
64Mb Asus V8200-Ti-200 GeForce 3 Pure
64Mb GeForce 3 Hercules Ti-200 TV Out
64Mb MSI Ge Force 3 Ti-200 TV/out / DVI

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they all geforce3 ti-200's. The prices differ ~£30 but are they not the same card with a different fan/colour daughterboard/little tag at the end. I mean is there any real difference to these cards and if so what?

Which is the best?

I just want to know cause if there's not then I will get the cheapest and be happy with it. But I don't want to get the worst one if all I needed to do was pay another £30 or if the £30 would have actually got me a difference in performance that was worth £30.

...

Thx

NeoSlicerZ · 07-12-2001 9:11pm

get the ASUS card clown, tis the better one

BabyEater · 07-12-2001 9:20pm

There is little performance difference in those cards.
The main difference between those cards is there hardware(video-in, video-out), software bundle and how overclockable they are.

While on the subject of graphics cards i was wondering people's opinions on the RADEON 8500 if anyone actuallly has one of these cards. Since this card is only a wee bit dearer than the Ti200 i was going to go for it instead of a Geforce.

_CreeD_ · 08-12-2001 5:54am

Actually I'd go with the Asus too. Even their 'pure' (basic, no extra video features) has onboard temperature sensors - which are very handy when you're overclocking it at first. Also they have an excellent utility that can lower the card clock speed dynamically if it starts to get too hot, then ramp it up when things have cooled down again - Though it's better to just play with the speeds yourself so you can find the optimum constant performance/stability point, that option is still good if you don't want to spend the time.
I picked up the 8200 deluxe (normal Gf3) a few weeks back and was stunned at how stable it was. It runs fine at 260 core and 560 Ram, which is quite a bit over a Ti500, with the onboard fan replaced by a 20cfm 40mm. I haven't pushed it further as there's no need to at the moment (Mech commander 2 zipping along at 1280x1024@32 with 4x Fsaa is pretty..:)..).

Zaphod Beeblebrox · 09-12-2001 1:40am

Gah. Mine's a no-name card, I eventually found its a Leadtek. Which sounds like cheat ****e but I'll just have to wait and see.
BTW CreeD let me know if your GF3 blows up or anything, if not I might give this overclocking lark a try.

po0k · 10-12-2001 9:59am

What about getting a GF2 Ultra (ram is 460Mhz as opposed to the GF2 Ti's 400Mhz _ core is same on both) 32Meg DDR for around £170 Irish delivered to my door?

I'm also looking for a quiet fast DVD drive. A Disc exploded in my 16x/40x AOpen Satuday night. Twas amazing how the thing broke up into so many little pieces. Bits in every nook and cranny of the drive. Unless I can get a replacement from some RMA warrenty or something (have to lie or be economic with the truth for that) I'll be loking to shell out another £50-60 odd quid on one.
If i get the cash I'd buy a GF2Ultra/GF3Ti200 and overclock it or a Regualr GF3 and do the same. Would have to have TV out though.
Do Asus use low latency ram in their cards?

All the yankee overclocking rich kids in California seem to use nothing but Asus.

bonkey · 10-12-2001 10:27am

Originally posted by [FCA]SyxPak
What about getting a GF2 Ultra (ram is 460Mhz as opposed to the GF2 Ti's 400Mhz _ core is same on both) 32Meg DDR for around £170 Irish delivered to my door?

Personally, I cant see why anyone would want to stay with a GF2, now that the GF3 range has an affordable card, but there you go

I'm also looking for a quiet fast DVD drive. A Disc exploded in my 16x/40x AOpen Satuday night. Twas amazing how the thing broke up into so many little pieces. Bits in every nook and cranny of the drive. Unless I can get a replacement from some RMA warrenty or something (have to lie or be economic with the truth for that) I'll be loking to shell out another £50-60 odd quid on one.

I would have thought that the DVD manufacturer would be liable for preoducing faulty goods here. Disks do not explode unless faulty

Of course, thats probably a dead-end street, but maybe worth a small bit of effort.

jc

Gerry · 10-12-2001 12:32pm

Right, heres the deal. For god knows how long now, nvidia have always designed a board to go along with their video chips when they release a new one. Manufacturers used to design their own boards, now they are just content to implement nvidias reference design. Hence the vast majority of nvidia based cards differ only in their colour, and perhaps the heatsinks on the card.

Sometimes makers will use faster ram on their cards too boost it a bit, usually however the ram is the same speed across the board, and it is one of a few brands.

The cards have gotten so similar that even the ancilliary components on the cards, like voltage regulators, and capacitors are often the same brand across different boards.

It used to be the case that cards with extra features like tv-out would use a non-standard design, but afaik, nvidia now have a reference design for a tv out card as well. Afaik the only manufacturer who strays from the reference design is asus. But their geforce3 (well the deluxe version) is not faster, it just has extra features like tv in and 3d-glasses output.

There is an awful lot of hype surrounding video cards, despite the fact that they all seem to perform the same.

Very cheap cards, with no name on them at all, will perhaps be of lower quality. Apart from that you are really paying for the name.
Zaphod mentions Leadtek. They are actually quite a high quality manufacturer, and they have made dells nvidia video cards for years. But they don't get much press over here, so they seem to be an unknown quantity because they aren't hyped to death.

The quality of almost all the cards you can buy is very similar, in terms of reliability and stability. Manufacturing quality does not differ very much these days.

Take the hercules cards, they have a blue pcb, and ram sinks, but it is still a reference design. Is that worth paying extra for? Do nvidia give them the pick of the geforce chips so a hercules card will overclock higher? I really don't think so. Yet plenty of people seem to swear by their "herc". Rather hilarious.

In my opinion, you should get the cheapest card, unless you are looking for extra features, or "free" games thrown in. If you haven't heard of the make, read a few reviews on the net. I've only encountered a sub-par card once, it was a voodoo banshee, and wouldn't tolerate any pci bus speed above 33mhz. The maker proved almost impossible to track down, but it was a generic no-name card, and this is the exception rather than the rule.

astrofool · 10-12-2001 4:21pm

Creative have just about the cheapest Ti 200 out, was about 139 sterling, was about to get it, but it was out of stock so got the next cheapest and in stock asus Ti 200 at 166 sterling, had no problems with it, but the creative one would have performed the exact same.

Got 3 games with the Asus, Messiah, Sacrifice and Star Trek New Worlds, whether they're worth the extra 26 i dunno, ain't installed them yet

Kairo · 10-12-2001 4:29pm

My Geforce3 Ti200 should be arriving by the end of this week.
In fairness, a Geforce3 is a Geforce3. They can allways be clocked, and the performance isn't that much less considering the amount of money you're saving.

OEM would be better tho, if you ask me. The 'free' games they give are usually shíte.

po0k · 10-12-2001 4:51pm

Astro, could you post up a link to where you got that?
I'd nearly go for one.
Have a GF256 SDR at the moment and am looking to upgrade at least a Generation ahead ( Though I ahd considered a GF2 Ultra for IR£160-170 quid to my door rather good......

JustHalf · 10-12-2001 5:11pm

In response to Astrofool's post.
I have a ASUS v8200 Deluxe.

Sacrifice isn't bad (looks great too), Messiah is a VERY annoying (not sure yet if it's in a good/bad way), and New Worlds is quite possibly the WORST REAL TIME STRATEGY GAME EVER.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · 10-12-2001 7:02pm

Anyone know a good tutorial for overclocking a GeForce 3 Ti200?
Hopefully at idiot-level, since installing sound/vid cards and RAM is about as technical as I get. Thanks.

bonkey · 11-12-2001 8:42am

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Anyone know a good tutorial for overclocking a GeForce 3 Ti200?
Hopefully at idiot-level, since installing sound/vid cards and RAM is about as technical as I get. Thanks.

HAve they locked it or something? Normally, all nvidia cards can be overclocked directly from the display control panel (nvidia reference drivers) or using any myriad of tools out there like nvmax.

jc

The Clown Man · 11-12-2001 9:04am

Btw i'm getting the asus 8200 ti-200 pure. Thx for the help lads.

Along with my new epox 7kha+ and amd 1800+ xp it should be nice

_CreeD_ · 11-12-2001 12:07pm

Zaph, you need a reg hack to make the drivers display the overclocking tab. Download whichever one of these suits your OS and run it. Go to the Geforce advanced display properties and you can find it there. I recommend moving up in 10Mhz increments (2x that for the ram). Then try something like 3dmark on each, play a few games etc. If it's okay then move up again. When you hit a point where it hangs, lower both ram and core by 10 and then up one of them a few Mhz at a time. When you hit a stopping point again, go back to the last known good setting and then start raising the other slider. Takes a while but it'll help you squeeze every bit of performanc you can from the card.
As a guideline just about every card under the sun should overclock by 10%, 20% is doing well, 30% is very lucky.

http://www.dangerousdog.com/downloads/videotweaking/coolbits/coolbits.htm

astrofool · 11-12-2001 4:55pm

got my one at www.dabs.com

I wouldn't go near a gef2 ultra now, seeing as Ti 200's will be alot more future proof and outperform them in many cases, the only time the gef2 ultra can win is in situations where raw clock speed is all that matters to a game, and in those games, you'll be getting 100+ fps in them anyway so it's not a huge gain at all.

Almost all newer games should be faster on gef3's

Zaphod Beeblebrox · 11-12-2001 6:10pm

Thanks for the help, just a couple of questions though.

First, if I overclock my card by say 20%, is it likely to damage my card or reduce it's lifetime even if it seems stable?
Second, am I likely to need a new fan to overclock it by that much? The one that comes on my card looks a bit puny.

Thanks again.

Gerry · 11-12-2001 7:50pm

Well, if it is stable, you aren't damaging your card. The major trick is to ensure your system is fully stable before you start overclocking, that way, if it crashes you know its because you overclocked it.

The standard fan may not be up to much, so you will have to work within its limitations, or else fit a better fan. Do ensure though, that there is some cold air blowing at the card, that will help whatever cooling is on it.

BabyEater · 11-12-2001 9:01pm

I use a program called Riva Tuner for o/c me graphics card.
The Ti200 seems very o/c,able HardOCP got a hercules card to 245 core and 510 memory. Aanother reputable site which i cant remember at this minute got a reference board to 230 core and 520 memory which performed better than a Ti500 in benchmarks Which is over the 20% you mentioned so it is probable that yours will do somewhat the same.

_CreeD_ · 12-12-2001 6:05am

I recommend replacing the fan, but dont go overboard. I once put a peltier on a GF1 and after a lot of hassle getting it all setup it didnt make one tiny bit of difference. if you can't do it with a normal decent fan then chances are it can't be done.
What you replace it with depends on the card's HSF. The Blue Orbs were great for Hercules GF2's as you could just pop them on using the same fittings as the original. Asus and a lot of other companies use a much large ram-covering heatsink, what I did on mine was to take off the fan that came with it and superglued a decent 40mm fan on in it's place. Make sure the bond between them is very good as you really don't want the fan falling off and munching on whatever card is below.

po0k · 12-12-2001 1:52pm

Yeah, I did the exact same thing with my GF256.
Except as i had no supergue handy i used cheap ass electrical insulation tape.
The real reason I wanted to replace the fan was because the origional one was making an aweful racket as it had gotten all clogged up.

Running chip at 125/173 atm I think. Much room for improvement.

koneko · 12-12-2001 2:35pm

More details on overclocking GF3s... Only for those who know what they're doing.

http://xbitlabs.com/video/geforce3-overclocking/

JustHalf · 12-12-2001 3:37pm

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Xbitlabs rock.

phoenix2181 · 17-12-2001 12:53pm

aha dell have to be the best expercience......

bought a 1.7ghz back in late june & dell charged me twice...i was not a happy camper, so I rang credit card services who then reimburst me with the 1800 smackaroones it cost, then 10 days later dell reimburst me also.....so I got a top of the range dell pc for free....so thats what I call customer service! even though it was a mistake on their part!!!

Which GeForce3?

Comments