Upgrade Dell 4300 or Not

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

I have a Dell 4300, P4 1.6MHz system with a GeForce 2MX card with 32MB.
Last week I picked up the Conquerer FX 5200+ AGP card with 128 MB at
CompUSA for $29 (after rebate). Is it worth it to upgrade my video card
for this machine.
7 answers Last reply
More about upgrade dell 4300
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:
    > I have a Dell 4300, P4 1.6MHz system with a GeForce 2MX card with 32MB.
    > Last week I picked up the Conquerer FX 5200+ AGP card with 128 MB at
    > CompUSA for $29 (after rebate). Is it worth it to upgrade my video card
    > for this machine.

    You mean, is it worth it to use the FX5200, or to get something better
    than that? The FX5200 is certainly not a fast card, but surely faster
    than a GeForce2 MX. Likely a faster card than that would give a benefit
    as well, but with something like a 6600GT you'd likely be CPU limited..

    --
    Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
    To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
    Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Robert Hancock wrote:
    > Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:
    >
    >> I have a Dell 4300, P4 1.6MHz system with a GeForce 2MX card with
    >> 32MB. Last week I picked up the Conquerer FX 5200+ AGP card with 128
    >> MB at CompUSA for $29 (after rebate). Is it worth it to upgrade my
    >> video card for this machine.
    >
    >
    > You mean, is it worth it to use the FX5200, or to get something better
    > than that? The FX5200 is certainly not a fast card, but surely faster
    > than a GeForce2 MX. Likely a faster card than that would give a benefit
    > as well, but with something like a 6600GT you'd likely be CPU limited..
    >

    What I want to know is if it will give a reasonable improvment over what
    I have now to justify $29 on a 3 year old system. I know there are
    better cards out there for far more money. What is the next price point
    to show a measurable improvement.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:
    > Robert Hancock wrote:
    >
    >> Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have a Dell 4300, P4 1.6MHz system with a GeForce 2MX card with
    >>> 32MB. Last week I picked up the Conquerer FX 5200+ AGP card with 128
    >>> MB at CompUSA for $29 (after rebate). Is it worth it to upgrade my
    >>> video card for this machine.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> You mean, is it worth it to use the FX5200, or to get something better
    >> than that? The FX5200 is certainly not a fast card, but surely faster
    >> than a GeForce2 MX. Likely a faster card than that would give a
    >> benefit as well, but with something like a 6600GT you'd likely be CPU
    >> limited..
    >>
    >
    > What I want to know is if it will give a reasonable improvment over what
    > I have now to justify $29 on a 3 year old system. I know there are
    > better cards out there for far more money. What is the next price point
    > to show a measurable improvement.

    Well, just looking at 3DMark2001 scores as an example, a GeForce2MX on a
    Pentium 4 1.6GHz seems to give around 3500-4200 points. A GeForce
    FX5200 (non-LE) gives around 6000-7100 points.

    A GeForce FX5600 puts it at around 7000-8200 and a 6600GT puts it around
    7700-9050, so it looks like much faster than an FX5200 starts to become
    CPU limited on that system.

    --
    Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
    To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
    Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Robert Hancock wrote:
    > Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Hancock wrote:
    >>
    >>> Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have a Dell 4300, P4 1.6MHz system with a GeForce 2MX card with
    >>>> 32MB. Last week I picked up the Conquerer FX 5200+ AGP card with 128
    >>>> MB at CompUSA for $29 (after rebate). Is it worth it to upgrade my
    >>>> video card for this machine.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You mean, is it worth it to use the FX5200, or to get something
    >>> better than that? The FX5200 is certainly not a fast card, but surely
    >>> faster than a GeForce2 MX. Likely a faster card than that would give
    >>> a benefit as well, but with something like a 6600GT you'd likely be
    >>> CPU limited..
    >>>
    >>
    >> What I want to know is if it will give a reasonable improvment over
    >> what I have now to justify $29 on a 3 year old system. I know there
    >> are better cards out there for far more money. What is the next price
    >> point to show a measurable improvement.
    >
    >
    > Well, just looking at 3DMark2001 scores as an example, a GeForce2MX on a
    > Pentium 4 1.6GHz seems to give around 3500-4200 points. A GeForce
    > FX5200 (non-LE) gives around 6000-7100 points.
    >
    > A GeForce FX5600 puts it at around 7000-8200 and a 6600GT puts it around
    > 7700-9050, so it looks like much faster than an FX5200 starts to become
    > CPU limited on that system.
    >
    Thanks. Seems like the Fx 5200 card gives a 70% improvement over the
    GeForce2MX. Not bad for $29. The FX 5600 based card only gives another
    30 % and seems to cost 5 times as much, from what I've found. guess,
    I'll go with FX 5200.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:

    > I have a Dell 4300, P4 1.6MHz system with a GeForce 2MX card with
    > 32MB. Last week I picked up the Conquerer FX 5200+ AGP card with 128
    > MB at CompUSA for $29 (after rebate). Is it worth it to upgrade my
    > video card for this machine.

    No. The FX5200 is hardly better than a GF4MX440 which itself is just a tad
    faster than Your GF2MX. So no, the FX5200 won't be a upgrade which is worth
    its money. This would be more the case for something like a FX5700 or
    better...

    But there's something to consider: the Dell Dimension 4300 is a Socket478
    system which means You can go up to at least a P4 2.4GHz. But then, this
    system also uses SDRAM instead of RDRAM or DDR-SDRAM. And SDRAM is a real
    bottleneck for a P4 system even with only 1.6GHz (the Dimension 4300 is
    around as fast as a 1GHz PIII in most apps due to the slow memory). So I
    wouldn't really upgrade it but replace it with a faster system...

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

    Benjamin Gawert wrote:
    > Jeffrey Augenbaum wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I have a Dell 4300, P4 1.6MHz system with a GeForce 2MX card with
    >>32MB. Last week I picked up the Conquerer FX 5200+ AGP card with 128
    >>MB at CompUSA for $29 (after rebate). Is it worth it to upgrade my
    >>video card for this machine.
    >
    >
    > No. The FX5200 is hardly better than a GF4MX440 which itself is just a tad
    > faster than Your GF2MX. So no, the FX5200 won't be a upgrade which is worth
    > its money. This would be more the case for something like a FX5700 or
    > better...
    >
    > But there's something to consider: the Dell Dimension 4300 is a Socket478
    > system which means You can go up to at least a P4 2.4GHz. But then, this
    > system also uses SDRAM instead of RDRAM or DDR-SDRAM. And SDRAM is a real
    > bottleneck for a P4 system even with only 1.6GHz (the Dimension 4300 is
    > around as fast as a 1GHz PIII in most apps due to the slow memory). So I
    > wouldn't really upgrade it but replace it with a faster system...
    >
    > Benjamin
    >
    >
    An FX5200 may be only a bit faster than an MX440, but an MX440 is
    significantly faster than a GeForce2 MX..

    --
    Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
    To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
    Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Robert Hancock wrote:

    [useless fullquote deleted]

    > An FX5200 may be only a bit faster than an MX440, but an MX440 is
    > significantly faster than a GeForce2 MX..

    It depends on what You understand as "significantly". A upgrade from a
    GF2MX200 to a GF4MX440 is probably worth it, but from a GF2MX or GF2MX400 to
    a GF4MX440 it's not.

    Benjamin
Ask a new question

Read More

Nvidia Dell Graphics