I couldn't disagree more.
Here is how I find relativity around the cards now:
-The 9500PRO contends the Ti4400, and manages to occasionally outrun the Ti4600, and when it comes to AA and Aniso, rapes.
-The 9600PRO is less powerful than the 9500PRO overall (Ape, can it, no overclocks allowed!!! :tongue: ), and therefore contends more along the lines of Ti4400 anytime.
-The old rev. FX5600 Ultra sucked badly, could not even beat the 9500PRO.
-The new FX5600 Ultra seems to be on the lines of the 9600PRO.
-The FX 5600 regular, assuming it is weaker by a 20% margin, means it performs around a Ti500. (going down the line, before a Ti4200 comes a Ti500 by 15%)
Therefore, the MX440 which was overall a Ti200 but with 5% less performance, shall give him, about 2x the performance and DX9.
But WAIT! The catch is, ya can't run the new hardware technologies without the POWER of the hardware. And well, I feel compelled to just trash the FX serie and their DX9 prowess, by saying the FX5600 WILL SUCK in DirectX 9.
Luckily he didn't fall for an FX5200, which kinda makes it a bit better.
And I guess the price DOES give a good price/performance ratio. What worries me most, as I said, is that the FX5600 has done nothing but instability to users in the forum here.
PS: I think most users here are indeed regurgitating or spewing big-time FUD when they compare card performance lately. Seriously, FX5600 tying a damn Ti4400 with 8X?!
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/07/03 08:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>