FX 5200 or MX 440

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message
news:RqKdnaULftXjI-zd4p2dnA@arkansas.net...
> Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD. Mostly
2D
> stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128 meg or
> ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.

Unless that 5200 has 128bit memory, I'd stick with the MX 440. 64bit 5200's
are complete slugs, not even at Geforce2 GTS levels. Their only "advantage"
is DX9 ability.....if you like playing DX9 games at 8-10 fps.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

That I do not know.

"Augustus" <sashforth@wrsd.ca> wrote in message
news:EVjcc.6499$Sh4.689@edtnps84...
>
> "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message
> news:RqKdnaULftXjI-zd4p2dnA@arkansas.net...
> > Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD.
Mostly
> 2D
> > stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128 meg
or
> > ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.
>
> Unless that 5200 has 128bit memory, I'd stick with the MX 440. 64bit
5200's
> are complete slugs, not even at Geforce2 GTS levels. Their only
"advantage"
> is DX9 ability.....if you like playing DX9 games at 8-10 fps.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Sorry to hear that those are your only choices. They're both slowww.

--
DaveW



"Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message
news:RqKdnaULftXjI-zd4p2dnA@arkansas.net...
> Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD. Mostly
2D
> stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128 meg or
> ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Tell me about it. The company refuses to buy us half way decent video cards.
We have Hyperthread 2.6 P4's with a gig of ram. Yet they continue to skimp
on the video cards. We use AutoCAD Architectural Desktop. Seems they would
go with a GL card of some type. Instead of the entry level kind.


"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
news:RFlcc.193676$Cb.1735576@attbi_s51...
> Sorry to hear that those are your only choices. They're both slowww.
>
> --
> DaveW
>
>
>
> "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message
> news:RqKdnaULftXjI-zd4p2dnA@arkansas.net...
> > Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD.
Mostly
> 2D
> > stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128 meg
or
> > ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:16:45 -0500, "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote:

>Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD. Mostly 2D
>stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128 meg or
>ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.
>
>Thanks,
>Greg
>

Short and sweet => Whichever cost the least...

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message news:<cZWdnQSmLtxUSezd4p2dnA@arkansas.net>...
> That I do not know.
>
> "Augustus" <sashforth@wrsd.ca> wrote in message
> news:EVjcc.6499$Sh4.689@edtnps84...
> >
> > "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message
> > news:RqKdnaULftXjI-zd4p2dnA@arkansas.net...
> > > Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD.
> Mostly
> 2D
> > > stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128 meg
> or
> > > ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.
> >
> > Unless that 5200 has 128bit memory, I'd stick with the MX 440. 64bit
> 5200's
> > are complete slugs, not even at Geforce2 GTS levels. Their only
> "advantage"
> > is DX9 ability.....if you like playing DX9 games at 8-10 fps.
> >
> >

Aida32 ( http://www.aida32.ru )

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message news:<ssydnU-S5bfdNu_dRVn-gw@arkansas.net>...
> Tell me about it. The company refuses to buy us half way decent video cards.
> We have Hyperthread 2.6 P4's with a gig of ram. Yet they continue to skimp
> on the video cards. We use AutoCAD Architectural Desktop. Seems they would
> go with a GL card of some type. Instead of the entry level kind.
>
>
> "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
> news:RFlcc.193676$Cb.1735576@attbi_s51...
> > Sorry to hear that those are your only choices. They're both slowww.
> >
> > --
> > DaveW
> >
> >
> >

There is always the Quadro mod, wich has two versions :-p

Softmod, in what the driver thinks he talks to a Quadro card...
Hardmod, by moving one small piece on the card the card becomes a
fully fledged quadro!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

This sort of backward thinking is typical of companies which base
everything on such categories as "cost effective" or "budget"... Most
of them can't see exactly what the hell they are actually doing.. The
nett result is that their products are usually of the same standard...

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:06:56 -0500, "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote:

>Tell me about it. The company refuses to buy us half way decent video cards.
>We have Hyperthread 2.6 P4's with a gig of ram. Yet they continue to skimp
>on the video cards. We use AutoCAD Architectural Desktop. Seems they would
>go with a GL card of some type. Instead of the entry level kind.
>
>
>"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
>news:RFlcc.193676$Cb.1735576@attbi_s51...
>> Sorry to hear that those are your only choices. They're both slowww.
>>
>> --
>> DaveW
>>
>>
>>
>> "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message
>> news:RqKdnaULftXjI-zd4p2dnA@arkansas.net...
>> > Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD.
>Mostly
>> 2D
>> > stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128 meg
>or
>> > ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Greg
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I wouldn't go that far. Since 1993 we've executed more that 400 projects
with a construction value of over 800,000,000.00 dollars. Our video cards
may be substandard. But our work isn't. Sorry. Just the proud part of me
took offense at the last part of your sentence.


"Bruce Tyler" <top@bottom.au> wrote in message
news:ip5670541biriujpt1db2rl8cuv1qumr33@4ax.com...
> This sort of backward thinking is typical of companies which base
> everything on such categories as "cost effective" or "budget"... Most
> of them can't see exactly what the hell they are actually doing.. The
> nett result is that their products are usually of the same standard...
>
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:06:56 -0500, "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote:
>
> >Tell me about it. The company refuses to buy us half way decent video
cards.
> >We have Hyperthread 2.6 P4's with a gig of ram. Yet they continue to
skimp
> >on the video cards. We use AutoCAD Architectural Desktop. Seems they
would
> >go with a GL card of some type. Instead of the entry level kind.
> >
> >
> >"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
> >news:RFlcc.193676$Cb.1735576@attbi_s51...
> >> Sorry to hear that those are your only choices. They're both slowww.
> >>
> >> --
> >> DaveW
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Greg" <ghays@aw.com> wrote in message
> >> news:RqKdnaULftXjI-zd4p2dnA@arkansas.net...
> >> > Which would you say is better for desktop use. Also using AutoCAD.
> >Mostly
> >> 2D
> >> > stuff. Some 3D rendering. The FX 5200 or the MX 440. Both have 128
meg
> >or
> >> > ram and are 8X AGP. I have the option to use one or the other.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Greg
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>