Do you think this is possible?

Here is something I came across. Do you think this is possible? I
own an FX 5200 and I can't run BF in medium settings, let alone
"MAX"



From: "MheAd"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
References:
Subject: GeForce 4 MX 440 vs GeForce 3 Ti 200
Lines: 47
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: qPwYa.21664$KF1.308985@amstwist00
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:22:44 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.217.72.171
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: amstwist00 1060280662 80.217.72.171 (Thu, 07 Aug 2003
20:24:22 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:24:22 MET
DST


"[NBS]Druidwitch" skrev i meddelandet
...
Hi all

I upgrraded?! to a GF MX440 a few months back and have found
serious degrade
in games performance since. Allied Assault runs poorly even with
default settings, but crank it up to trilinear filtering and the
game becomes unplayable. Battlefield 1942 is completely unplayable
on even the lowest settings available but I know this game is
reputed to be poorly coded to I see that one as a double whammy.

Would I be advised to get back my Ti200 adn replace the MX or is
this some other issue?

My rig is

P4 1.7
512MB SDRAM
GeForce 4 MX440 64MB DDR
1x80Gb 1x40Gb HDD
Soundblaster Live 5.1
Cambridge Soundworks 2200 5.1 Speakers
15" TFT Monitor

Regards


Daniel Yates

--
[NBS]Druidwitch
http://www.nbsnipers.com




Like people already explained for you, you made a huge mistake, as
GF 3 Ti200 is much faster then GF 4 MX440.
But, there is some other thing that wories me even more. You are
describing Medal Of Honor and BF1942 as being *unplayable* on GF4
MX. Something is wrong with your cards drivers or something. I have
more or less same system as you do, and with GF4 MX, I was able to
get both game run smoothly in 1024*768 resoulution with all details
set at MAX. So you should check your graphic drivers out.

That sounds right. The FX5200 is really not even as good as a GF3. I think
the ultra version gets between a GF3 and a GF4 in performance.

--
Robert Pendell


"Psymaster" wrote in message
...
Here is something I came across. Do you think this is possible? I
own an FX 5200 and I can't run BF in medium settings, let alone
"MAX"



From: "MheAd"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia
References:
Subject: GeForce 4 MX 440 vs GeForce 3 Ti 200
Lines: 47
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: qPwYa.21664$KF1.308985@amstwist00
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:22:44 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.217.72.171
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: amstwist00 1060280662 80.217.72.171 (Thu, 07 Aug 2003
20:24:22 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:24:22 MET
DST


"[NBS]Druidwitch" skrev i meddelandet
...
Hi all

I upgrraded?! to a GF MX440 a few months back and have found
serious degrade
in games performance since. Allied Assault runs poorly even with
default settings, but crank it up to trilinear filtering and the
game becomes unplayable. Battlefield 1942 is completely unplayable
on even the lowest settings available but I know this game is
reputed to be poorly coded to I see that one as a double whammy.

Would I be advised to get back my Ti200 adn replace the MX or is
this some other issue?

My rig is

P4 1.7
512MB SDRAM
GeForce 4 MX440 64MB DDR
1x80Gb 1x40Gb HDD
Soundblaster Live 5.1
Cambridge Soundworks 2200 5.1 Speakers
15" TFT Monitor

Regards


Daniel Yates

--
[NBS]Druidwitch
http://www.nbsnipers.com




Like people already explained for you, you made a huge mistake, as
GF 3 Ti200 is much faster then GF 4 MX440.
But, there is some other thing that wories me even more. You are
describing Medal Of Honor and BF1942 as being *unplayable* on GF4
MX. Something is wrong with your cards drivers or something. I have
more or less same system as you do, and with GF4 MX, I was able to
get both game run smoothly in 1024*768 resoulution with all details
set at MAX. So you should check your graphic drivers out.

On 2 Dec 2003 17:00:26 GMT Psymaster meeped :

Here is something I came across. Do you think this is possible? I
own an FX 5200 and I can't run BF in medium settings, let alone
"MAX"



it'd help if you gave us your CPU details.

"Robert Pendell" wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2003
17:31:23 GMT in alt.games.battlefield1942:

That sounds right. The FX5200 is really not even as good as a
GF3. I think the ultra version gets between a GF3 and a GF4 in
performance.


Did you actually read the article I posted? He said he ran all those
games at max on a GeForce 4 MX. That is essentially a GeForce 2 card.

Granulated wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2003
18:15:13 GMT in alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia:

Here is something I came across. Do you think this is possible? I
own an FX 5200 and I can't run BF in medium settings, let alone
"MAX"



it'd help if you gave us your CPU details.


Athlon XP 2000+ @ 1812 MHz

On 2 Dec 2003 17:00:26 GMT, Psymaster
wrote:

Here is something I came across. Do you think this is possible? I
own an FX 5200 and I can't run BF in medium settings, let alone
"MAX"


Possibly................

It is possible that you have the 64-bit data-path ( 3.6Gbyte
bandwidth) and not the 128-bit data-path version ( 7.2Gbyte
bandwidth) Both are sold as "5200" (non-Ultra). Both with
128 Mbytes of RAM. You have to carefully consult the
manufacturer's web-site to spot the difference. And if memory
bandwidth is not mentioned anywhere in the web-site
specs ---- watch out !

If you only have 4 memory devices on board, it is very likely
to be the 64-bit version. Especially if you see empty spaces for
4 more devices.......

( FYI: The 5200 Ultra has ~ 8.4Gbytes of memory bandwidth )

I also recommend that you check your video driver for
corruption and if necessary use Detonator RIP or similar
utility to clean out junk and then reinstall the driver.

Caveat Emptor ( Latin)............let the buyer beware.
NEVER believe any (so-called) specs printed on the box
of any video card from any manufacturer. Critically
important information is always left out...............

John Lewis

(John Lewis) wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:51:02
GMT in alt.games.battlefield1942:

If you only have 4 memory devices on board, it is very likely
to be the 64-bit version. Especially if you see empty spaces for
4 more devices.......


Oops... I think that's what I've got... Does this impact performance a
lot?

Yea, the 64 bit version is seriously crippled.


"Psymaster" wrote in message
...
(John Lewis) wrote on Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:51:02
GMT in alt.games.battlefield1942:

If you only have 4 memory devices on board, it is very likely
to be the 64-bit version. Especially if you see empty spaces for
4 more devices.......


Oops... I think that's what I've got... Does this impact performance a
lot?

"Psymaster" wrote in message
...

Did you actually read the article I posted? He said he ran all those
games at max on a GeForce 4 MX. That is essentially a GeForce 2 card.

My wife's computer has a Celeron 900, 512MB PC100 and a GF4/MX440 (AGP 4X,
270/400) and runs BF1942 at 1024x768, 32 bit perfectly as long as AA is off.
AA on... that's another story. The only thing I can think of is the 64 bit
memory theory. I had a TNT2 and a TNT2/M64 and there was a huge difference
because of memory bandwidth. The M64 version was only good at 16 bit.

how does the Geforce FX 5600 compare in the scheme of things?



"Psymaster" wrote in message
...
Here is something I came across. Do you think this is possible? I
own an FX 5200 and I can't run BF in medium settings, let alone
"MAX"