Written By:
Date Posted: August 24, 2002

AntiAliasing has always been the thorn in a video card's side. Although there is a loss in performance, at 2xAA, we're still keeping above 8000 3D Marks. The Radeon 8500 isn't too far behind, but the Ti500 is faltering.

Going up 4xAA, we see a huge performance hit across the boards. The Ti4600 still does very well, when compared to the Ti500. A testament to nVidia's improvement to the architecture.

Dropping the Radeon 8500, we selected Quincunx AA via the Windows video control panel. Quincunx was nVidia's baby afterall, so we removed ATi's card from the equation. Comparing the Ti500 to the Ti4600, ...well, the benchmarks speak for themselves. I mentioned in my GeForce 3 review, and I want to point it out again. Quincunx isn't really all that nice. Actual gameplay felt jittery, and the image quality was more washed out than the other modes of AntiAliasing.

nVidia has been pimping their 4XS AA. It promises better image quality, as it samples pixels a little differently, and although the end result is a better picture, it hits the framerates very hard. Like we said, only Direct3D is supported at this time.

Villagemark

We added the Villagemark benchmark simply to test one feature, Occlusion Culling, or hidden surface removal. This trick is a good idea because, why render something you cannot see? No point in slowing the game down needlessly.

The benchmark was designed with the Kyro II in mind, but most modern video cards have some form of this optimization. Granted, the Ti4600 is a lot faster than the Ti500 in terms of raw power, but at almost 40 frames per second faster, my guess is the improved Occlusion Culling has been improved.

Image Quality

It's great having an ultra fast video card, but if your games look nasty, why bother? Thankfully, games look as good as they ever did, though in my opinion, the Radeon 8500 is still a tad nicer.

AntiAliasing was, well, pretty much the same as before. It's certainly faster now, but for OpenGL, image quality was comparable to the GeForce 3.

As with the GeForce 3, I didn't like Quincunx AA all that much, and much preferred 2xAA, and/or 4xAA. At 1024x768, I found 4xAA very nice, and playable so long as it's a single player game.

We tested the 4XS mode, and I must admit, the image quality was very nice.

Final Words

Like the Visiontek, this has been the fastest card we've tested, but I'll be honest and say that a Ti4600 would not be something I'd shop for now. The ATI Radeon 9700 would be on the top of my must have list for enthusiasts. Budget shoppers should opt for the Ti4200 or the ATI Radeon 9000 Pro. Then again, both ATI cards, though shipping to retail, may take awhile to become readily available.

As for the PNY Verto, well, it's fast, and relatively cheap for a Ti4600. It's about as "reference" as it gets, and there's nothing really anything special about the card that screams "buy me". I'm not trying to say our experience was bad, but there wasn't anything, other than the price, that makes me go "oooohhh"...

I liked the fact that it's cheap for a Ti4600, but it really lacks in the area of extras. The fact that it's a bare PCB does attribute to the lower price, so if you need a no frills Ti4600, this may be your ticket. Given that Visiontek is liquidating its assets, I expect to hear a lot more from PNY here in North America.

Pros: Still fast, relatively cheap, solid construction.

Cons: Plain, terrible software package, no extras.

Bottom Line: I'd recommend the Verto for anyone who simply wants a Ti4600 at the lowest price. For anyone who wants the fastest at the lowest price, I'd point then towards a Ti4200.

Agree? Disagree? Discuss it in our forums

Previous Page - Overclocking and Benchmarks

Home