PCGamer bashes ATI

[Martin]

I was reading a quick copy of PC Gamer yesterday, and while flipping through it they had an NVIDIA vs ATI comparison. Basically here's how they "broke it down" with price and ratings.

Ti4600 - 400$ - 91%
Ti4400 - 300$ - 92%
TI4200 - 160$ - 94%

8500 128 meg retail - 300$ - 77%
8500 128 meg LE - 200$ - 79%

Basically they stated an R8500 was an inferior performer, and that you could get a GF4 Ti 4200 or 4400 for cheaper or slightly more and get way better performance.

What I don't get though is why they would compare NVIDIA's latest generation product to ATI's 6-month-old chip, which was originally in direct competition with NVIDIA's GeForce3 line of cards produced a year ago.

http://home.nyc.rr.com/rieper/images/pcgamer1.JPG

http://home.nyc.rr.com/rieper/images/pcgamer2.JPG

 

[Martin]

I was reading a quick copy of PC Gamer yesterday, and while flipping through it they had an NVIDIA vs ATI comparison. Basically here's how they "broke it down" with price and ratings.

Ti4600 - 400$ - 91%
Ti4400 - 300$ - 92%
TI4200 - 160$ - 94%

8500 128 meg retail - 300$ - 77%
8500 128 meg LE - 200$ - 79%

Basically they stated an R8500 was an inferior performer, and that you could get a GF4 Ti 4200 or 4400 for cheaper or slightly more and get way better performance.

What I don't get though is why they would compare NVIDIA's latest generation product to ATI's 6-month-old chip, which was originally in direct competition with NVIDIA's GeForce3 line of cards produced a year ago.

http://home.nyc.rr.com/rieper/images/pcgamer1.JPG

http://home.nyc.rr.com/rieper/images/pcgamer2.JPG

 

[Jorsoft]

I have that same issue. ATI released the 8500 cards to compete with GF3, yes, but because their new technology was not yet ready to compete with Nvidia's new Geforce 4, they kind of "re-released" those cards with different names (XT and LE, I believe). The core technology itself was still 6 months old, however, so PC Gamer was just doing it's job to compare these cards and help consumers make an informed decision. Currently, though, ATI cards give better performance and compatibility than Nvidia's latest.

 

[The Merlin]

Isn't the Ti4600 abit old aswell......

 

[aye29]

Isn't the Ti4600 abit old aswell......

That issue came out a long time ago well before the Radoen 9700 was available when the Ti4600 was still pretty new.

 

[Harper]

What I don't get though is why they would compare NVIDIA's latest generation product to ATI's 6-month-old chip, which was originally in direct competition with NVIDIA's GeForce3 line of cards produced a year ago.

Although I am a Pro-nVidia person myself, I do find that it's biased that some one would compair prices on a current chipset vs a older chipset.

As I tell customers from time to time, "Compare apples with apples please, and stop B.S.ing me around."

We are talking about a current issue here of PC Gamer, right?

 

[mousepad]

If so tell me what page, I want to look at it.

 

[Martin]

Gee, looks like someone managed to bump up one of my old threads from almost two years ago.

Anyways, as I later found out, the Radeon 8500 and GeForce4 Ti 4200 are both DirectX 8.1 cards, but I still couldn't overlook why they failed to look at other important features in the long run. I still find it to be more technically advanced than the GeForce4, but I don't quite remember if driver issues were put into the equation.

 

[Erik]

Appearently the Ti4600 is a decent card because it's still well over the $100 mark on newegg.