Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on December 22, 2002, 05:25:36 am
-
I'm currently on a Matrox G400 32MB Dual Head
Upgrade to 64Mb DDR Radeon 9000
Or GForce 4 MX 440 64MB
or stay with matrox?
-
If you want a power card, get GeForce 4 Ti but...
GeForce 4 MX is cheaper and should go as well.
-
The GF4 MX series sucks beyond all recognition. Avoid at all costs.
Out of those, I'd recommend the Radeon 9000. Not a great card by any means, but it's far better than any GF4 MX. Of course, I'd recommend a GF3 or a Radeon 8500 instead if you can find one of those cheap, but I doubt you can.
-
I'd wait until the Radeon 9700 pro gets cheaper or when the Geforce FX comes out.
-
From, those, Radeon 9000 Pro. Stay away from GF4MX's indeed, they're just DX7 and getting old fast. R9000 Pro is more advanced, and faster in most games.
But you should also consider Radeon 9100 (was 8500 but got renamed because it was better than R9000), as it's fast and advanced. You might be able to find one, or then get a GF4Ti4200, it's pretty cheap too.
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
GeForce 4 MX is cheaper and should go as well.
In my experience it doesn't go as well. Some stuff runs ok, but a lot of it does not.
Originally posted by Jabu
The GF4 MX series sucks beyond all recognition. Avoid at all costs.
:nod:
I'd reccomend waiting until the GeForce FX comes out and either get that or a reduced in price GeForce Ti.
-
If you got the cash, look at Radeon 9500. It's a DX9 part. :nod:
Otherwise something similar to the Radeon 9100 (the 'old' 8500), should work well, too.
Avoid ALL MX cards. :ick Shun like the plague(sp?)
-
I can only echo what they say about MX cards... if you have little cash then they're an option but otherwise a low end Ti card would be a far better option.
GF FX cards are going to cost a lot but should drive the price of the high end Ti cards down pretty drastically. If you have the cash then go with one of them or if you're really in the money then go with an FX...
I've not covered Radeon solutions mind you....
-
Skip GF-MX cards: they're actually GF2 cards with a few changes. Save your money for a Ti or FX part.
Skip the Radeon cards. I say this because I've never had a machine be stable with a Radeon card in it.
Keep your G400 for now--especially if its got two video out channels. I might want to buy it. ;)
-
Wait for Radeon 9700, wait for GeForce FX, wait for this, wait for that...
Obviously, he doesen't have a lot of money to buy those. In that case, GeForce FX is best, no matter what others say.
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
Obviously, he doesen't have a lot of money to buy those. In that case, GeForce FX is best, no matter what others say.
You mean MX? And no, the MX series isn't good for anything other than hitting people like you over the head with. And even then I'd rather use my patented Ignorance-be-gone Stick.
Quite simply, Radeon 9000 >> GeForce MX 440. Cheaper, too.
-
Thanks guys, all good points. I did a little research and basically decided I'm going to stick with my current card and get something else (don't quite know what yet!) :)
-
Originally posted by Jabu
You mean MX? And no, the MX series isn't good for anything other than hitting people like you over the head with. And even then I'd rather use my patented Ignorance-be-gone Stick.
Quite simply, Radeon 9000 >> GeForce MX 440. Cheaper, too.
no Jabu...he means FX...the newest GeForce card...
-
Originally posted by Analazon
no Jabu...he means FX...the newest GeForce card...
But you see, that doesn't actually make any sense. The FX costs a crapload of money, so it would NOT be best for someone who "doesn't have a lot of money to buy those." 'Those', here, actually referring to the Radeon 9700 and GeForce FX.
So I still think it was a typo. I'm willing to bet a lot of money on that.
-
I mean MX, yes and I don't see any point why it should suck that much...
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
I mean MX, yes and I don't see any point why it should suck that much...
Because it's, as AnandTech puts it, "a glorified GeForce2 MX with a GeForce4-derived memory controller." If you can't see how this would be a "bad" thing...
It's slow. Very, very slow. It's not even DirectX 8 compliant, for chrissakes. The GF4 MX line (NV17) has nothing to do with the GF4 Ti (NV25) line, aside from a few common technological solutions.
Quite simply, a card that loses to the Radeon 7500 in most benchmarks yet pretends to be a cutting-edge piece of graphics technology does not deserve to exist!
-
If you say so...
-
Hey guys have I started a fight? erm... Yay! :D
-
Yes...BURN THE HERETIC!!!
:D
-
Originally posted by Jabu
So I still think it was a typo. I'm willing to bet a lot of money on that.
dangit...you're right....
but HA! we never bet! HAHAHA!!
-
If you want power now, go with a Ti 4200. I heard they're around $200(?) stateside, and are at about $250 here in Canada.
-
Originally posted by Thor
If you want power now, go with a Ti 4200. I heard they're around $200(?) stateside, and are at about $250 here in Canada.
For that price, you're better off getting the brand new Radeon 9500 PRO. Kicks Ti 4200 (and Ti 4400) arse, supports DirectX 9 and has far, FAR superior anisotropic filtering and FSAA. Great card overall. Basically a Radeon 9700 with half the memory bandwidth, bringing it down to GF4 Ti levels.
-
But don't forget that most of the games are optimized for Geforce
-
Last time I checked, Radeon's where three times that price (@$650). but that's here in Canada.
-
u got g400 or g400 max ? :)
-
Originally posted by Thor
If you want power now, go with a Ti 4200. I heard they're around $200(?) stateside, and are at about $250 here in Canada.
that much? I got mine (with 128 megs of vram, mind you) for 170 bucks. (US)
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
that much? I got mine (with 128 megs of vram, mind you) for 170 bucks. (US)
ehhh, why vram?
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
But don't forget that most of the games are optimized for Geforce
most games do support GeForces special features, such as shadow buffering, dual vertex shaders, etc. but most of the newer ATI cards are capable of well handling that, plus the MX series don´t have those bells and whistles, since theyre based on the NV17. Also, quoting from nVidia.com
GeForce4 MX Series Enjoy the Views
The ideal solutions for:
desktop flexibility
- 2D office applications
- Web surfing
nope, nothing about games. nor 3d apps, which is the primary interest of HLP.
-
The MX models are simply a revamped GeForce 2. They don't support pixel shaders or other features.
FX cards will cost an arm and a leg, wait a year before getting one. In the meantime a GeForce 4 Ti is wow :)
-
Originally posted by Ace
In the meantime a GeForce 4 Ti is wow :)
Amen
-
G400.. now thats a sweet card for 2D work -- beats NV and ATi stuff hands down (esp. with higher resolutions). I still have one in stock.. Would never trade it for MX400 *shivers*
HH!
-
meh, i would go for any of them, they all suck in comparison to my wildcat VP ;p
And dont you beleive about what ATI say - i very much doubt the 9600 will run very well with DX9.....but it makes a change for them to plug driver support, i'll agree.
-
Originally posted by castor
G400.. now thats a sweet card for 2D work -- beats NV and ATi stuff hands down (esp. with higher resolutions). I still have one in stock.. Would never trade it for MX400 *shivers*
HH!
tree candles or something? :D
-
Yup, the thing casts somewhat psychedelic reflections on my screen :D
-
*sings "Rockin' around christmas tree"*
*rocks around the christmas tree*