Low end Graphic Card comparison

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I enjoy playing the Direct 3D Microsoft Flightsim 2004 on my
P4 - with a Nvidia GeForce 2 Mx/Mx 400 -32 meg card.
Now I can claim another low end card ( $ 20 to me), namely an:
Asus Radeon 9250-TD-128 M-Tv-DVI.

Could the Radeon Card be considered an improvement over the Geforce 2?

Thanks & kind regards
Ulrich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"" wrote:
> I enjoy playing the Direct 3D Microsoft Flightsim 2004 on my
> P4 - with a Nvidia GeForce 2 Mx/Mx 400 -32 meg card.
> Now I can claim another low end card ( $ 20 to me), namely an:
> Asus Radeon 9250-TD-128 M-Tv-DVI.
>
> Could the Radeon Card be considered an improvement over the
> Geforce 2?
>
> Thanks & kind regards
> Ulrich

I barely count that as an upgrade.
An upgrade would be first, a 9550
then a 9600 Pro
then a 9800 Pro or X700 Pro or Nvidia 6600 GT
then a 6800 GT or X800XL

--
Posted using the http://www.hardwareforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/Home-Built-Low-end-Graphic-Card-comparison-ftopict58406.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/eform.php?p=295338

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Ulrich Sudhaus" <usudhaus@uq.net.au> wrote in message
newstahc11e9fp0ndlnie2oci6erbkvmn69h1@4ax.com...
>
> I enjoy playing the Direct 3D Microsoft Flightsim 2004 on my
> P4 - with a Nvidia GeForce 2 Mx/Mx 400 -32 meg card.
> Now I can claim another low end card ( $ 20 to me), namely an:
> Asus Radeon 9250-TD-128 M-Tv-DVI.
>
> Could the Radeon Card be considered an improvement over the Geforce 2?

From a GeForce 2? Wow, that's old... For $20, it would be completely worth
it. The GeForce FX5250 is a very low end card, but it's 3 generations newer.
I know the FX5200 slightly outperforms the MX440 in most tests, which is
GeForce 4 based, and the FX5250 is supposedly faster than the FX5200, so
I'll wager you should see a difference. Besides, in Tom's Hardware VGA
Charts II, the 64MB version of your card is much, much slower than the
GeForce 4 MX440 card. In most tests, The MX440 was twice as fast. Not to
mention, the newer architecture should support a newer version of DirectX.

Like I said, for $20 you can't go wrong.

Compare the GeForce 2 MX400 64MB vs. GeForce 4 MX440 cards:

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/index.html

Compare the GeForce 4 MX440 vs. the FX5200:

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

If you take a look at the GeForce FX5200 U (Ultra), I'd assume the FX5250
would have similar results.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"" wrote:
> "Ulrich Sudhaus" <usudhaus@uq.net.au> wrote in message
> newstahc11e9fp0ndlnie2oci6erbkvmn69h1@4ax.com...
> >
> > I enjoy playing the Direct 3D Microsoft Flightsim 2004 on
> my
> > P4 - with a Nvidia GeForce 2 Mx/Mx 400 -32 meg card.
> > Now I can claim another low end card ( $ 20 to me), namely
> an:
> > Asus Radeon 9250-TD-128 M-Tv-DVI.
> >
> > Could the Radeon Card be considered an improvement over the
> Geforce 2?
>
> From a GeForce 2? Wow, that's old... For $20, it would be
> completely worth
> it. The GeForce FX5250 is a very low end card, but it's 3
> generations newer.
> I know the FX5200 slightly outperforms the MX440 in most
> tests, which is
> GeForce 4 based, and the FX5250 is supposedly faster than the
> FX5200, so
> I'll wager you should see a difference. Besides, in Tom's
> Hardware VGA
> Charts II, the 64MB version of your card is much, much slower
> than the
> GeForce 4 MX440 card. In most tests, The MX440 was twice as
> fast. Not to
> mention, the newer architecture should support a newer version
> of DirectX.
>
> Like I said, for $20 you can't go wrong.
>
> Compare the GeForce 2 MX400 64MB vs. GeForce 4 MX440 cards:
>
> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/index.html
>
> Compare the GeForce 4 MX440 vs. the FX5200:
>
> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html
>
> If you take a look at the GeForce FX5200 U (Ultra), I'd assume
> the FX5250
> would have similar results.

I do not recommend any of the Geforce FX cards. They have bad image
quality.
Even my Ti4200 is better than that FX5200 but it won’t play games like
BF2.
So, minimum now in Geforce cards would be 6200. But the 6200 is
hardly worth it because of its performance. So, like I said, minimum
9550 is you want to play newer games, 9600 Pro if you can pay a little
more and get better performance. And then the other cards I mentioned
above if you want some of the best performing video cards.

--
Posted using the http://www.hardwareforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/Home-Built-Low-end-Graphic-Card-comparison-ftopict58406.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.hardwareforumz.com/eform.php?p=296040

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> I do not recommend any of the Geforce FX cards. They have bad image
> quality.
> Even my Ti4200 is better than that FX5200 but it won't play games like
> BF2.
> So, minimum now in Geforce cards would be 6200. But the 6200 is
> hardly worth it because of its performance. So, like I said, minimum
> 9550 is you want to play newer games, 9600 Pro if you can pay a little
> more and get better performance. And then the other cards I mentioned
> above if you want some of the best performing video cards.

Funny that I have an FX5200 card and its imaging is fine.