Whats better - 9600XT or Ti4200

MeatLoaf · 2 Jun 2006 at 22:12

Which is the better card?

A 64Mb Geforce 4 Ti4200 or a Radeon 9600XT 128Mb?

Will be used in the kids system with an Athlon 900

Rob43 · 2 Jun 2006 at 22:25

9600XT

Darkwave · 2 Jun 2006 at 22:29

Definitely the 9600XT, totally under-rated cards.

james.miller · 2 Jun 2006 at 22:29

they were crap, but slightly better than a ti4200 lol

Cyber-Mav · 3 Jun 2006 at 00:07

Curio · 3 Jun 2006 at 01:54

9600XT was a great little card - mine played HL2, FarCry, D3, etc no problems at sensible resolutions. They usually overclock very nicely as well

Cyber-Mav · 3 Jun 2006 at 07:32

9600 has direct x 9 compliance and mainly pixel shader version is above 1.4 so battlefield 2 will run on that card.

axe · 3 Jun 2006 at 13:23

Just wondering what you paying for these ? as wouldnt it make more sence to go for which ever is cheapest as on a amd 900 i dont think your going to be getting much gaming out of it?

locutus12 · 3 Jun 2006 at 15:31

james.miller said:
they were crap, but slightly better than a ti4200 lol

Truth

MeatLoaf · 3 Jun 2006 at 15:40

Well ive already got the 9600XT and im getting the 4200 for nowt, just wondered whats better.

pegasus1 · 3 Jun 2006 at 17:07

Several versions of that card were made If i remember not all were 8 x AGP and some only had a 64 bit interface. I had a great one and it run stuff like IL2 and Ghost recon very nicelly, clocked very well but cant remeber the speeds.
I thought it was with the 9700 model that ATI realy showed Nvidia how its done.

MuSsEr · 3 Jun 2006 at 17:23

9600 ***, nice card when it 1st came out

4200 sux, lol

pegasus1 · 3 Jun 2006 at 19:44

MuSsEr said:
9600 ***, nice card when it 1st came out

So was the 4200, how do you judge a GFX card, probably by its price/performance and against the compertition, not against current standards, that would make the 9800pro a poor card were as we all know its a great card both when it came out and even now on less shader dependant games.

MoD_Callidus · 3 Jun 2006 at 20:25

MuSsEr said:
9600 ***, nice card when it 1st came out

4200 sux, lol

4200 series was the 9800 of it's day, sux,sucks,sucky nah mate not applicable , try the following , rox,rocks,rocked

Duke · 3 Jun 2006 at 20:30

9600 is somewhat newer than the 4200 so is quicker all round. 4200 certainly rocked in its days though

axe · 3 Jun 2006 at 21:18

I prefer the Ti4200 as it can behad for like £25 but the 9600xt seems to be £50-60

OV3RCLOCK3R · 3 Jun 2006 at 23:24

axe said:
I prefer the Ti4200 as it can behad for like £25 but the 9600xt seems to be £50-60

9800pro and 9800xt can be had for £50-60.

locutus12 · 3 Jun 2006 at 23:29

MuSsEr said:
9600 ***, nice card when it 1st came out

4200 sux, lol

the 9600XT was as much of a waste of space as the 9800XT and the 5950, 30% more £££ for that extra 7 to 10 fps.

the 4200 was and in many wasy still is a legendary card.

but in real world second hand terms today then the 9600XT wind due to the modern pixel shader support and faster memory / GPU

Richdog · 3 Jun 2006 at 23:37

9600XT is undoubtedy the faster and better-featured card, but in its time the Ti4200 was one of if not the best price/performance card ever released... I get a dewy eye just thinking about it.

axe · 3 Jun 2006 at 23:55

OV3RCLOCK3R said:
9800pro and 9800xt can be had for £50-60.

Well 128mb 9600xt is 40 and 256mb is 50 seems to be the general price on the Bay