videocard upgrade

Hi,

I as thinking of an upgrade for my videocard because I hope that Battlefild
1942 will play more smoothly then. Because I cannot spend that much I was
thinking about the Radeon 9200 or the nVidia 5200. Can anyone give me
advice?

More importantly, wil I see much difference with my GeForce4 MX440 ?

Thanks anyway!
Mike

AMD Athlon 2000+
GA-7VRXP (max. 4xAGP)
Leadtek Winfast GeForce4 MX440 64MB
Neovo F-15 TFT (no DVI)

Either would be faster than what you have. But I would suggest saving up a
bit more to get to the Radeon 9500-9600 level. That would give you more
speed plus full DX9 support for cureent and future games.

You can get a 64-meg Sapphire Radeon 9500 OEM for $99 from www.newegg.com A
128-meg 9600 is $113.

"Mike" wrote in message
news:i1vmb.2367$2o2.18094@amstwist00...
Hi,

I as thinking of an upgrade for my videocard because I hope that
Battlefild
1942 will play more smoothly then. Because I cannot spend that much I was
thinking about the Radeon 9200 or the nVidia 5200. Can anyone give me
advice?

More importantly, wil I see much difference with my GeForce4 MX440 ?

Thanks anyway!
Mike

AMD Athlon 2000+
GA-7VRXP (max. 4xAGP)
Leadtek Winfast GeForce4 MX440 64MB
Neovo F-15 TFT (no DVI)

Either would be faster than what you have. But I would suggest saving up a
bit more to get to the Radeon 9500-9600 level. That would give you more
speed plus full DX9 support for cureent and future games.

You can get a 64-meg Sapphire Radeon 9500 OEM for $99 from www.newegg.com
A
128-meg 9600 is $113.


I saw on Tom's Hardware
(http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...charts-05.html) that the
Ti4200 for example has a 2x higher score then my MX440.

And I can buy the Asus GeForce V9280 4 Ti4200 8X TD 64MB for $90. Doesn't
that do me more good?

Mike

Don't get the ATI 9200, get the 9100, it's faster.
The GPU in the 9200 is a slightly stripped down version of
the one what is in the 9100.

Spend a few extra bucks and get the ATI 9600.


"Mike" wrote in message
news:i1vmb.2367$2o2.18094@amstwist00...
Hi,

I as thinking of an upgrade for my videocard because I hope that
Battlefild
1942 will play more smoothly then. Because I cannot spend that much I was
thinking about the Radeon 9200 or the nVidia 5200. Can anyone give me
advice?

More importantly, wil I see much difference with my GeForce4 MX440 ?

Thanks anyway!
Mike

AMD Athlon 2000+
GA-7VRXP (max. 4xAGP)
Leadtek Winfast GeForce4 MX440 64MB
Neovo F-15 TFT (no DVI)

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Bjxmb.2392$2o2.18096@amstwist00...
Either would be faster than what you have. But I would suggest saving up
a
bit more to get to the Radeon 9500-9600 level. That would give you more
speed plus full DX9 support for cureent and future games.

You can get a 64-meg Sapphire Radeon 9500 OEM for $99 from
www.newegg.com
A
128-meg 9600 is $113.


I saw on Tom's Hardware
(http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...charts-05.html) that the
Ti4200 for example has a 2x higher score then my MX440.

And I can buy the Asus GeForce V9280 4 Ti4200 8X TD 64MB for $90. Doesn't
that do me more good?

No. The Ti4200 and 9500 non-pro are pretty close until you enable AA or AF,
when the Radeon will pull away big time. If you want good performance and
the best visual quality, plus DX9 support the Ti4200 does not offer, go with
the Radeon.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...00-dx9-p1.html

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...00-dx9-p2.html

The 64-meg Sapphire 9500 is $99, and the 128-meg 9600 is $113 at
www.newegg.com. Well worth the small price difference, if you ask me.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:48:12 GMT, Skid wrote:

No. The Ti4200 and 9500 non-pro are pretty close until you enable AA or AF,
when the Radeon will pull away big time. If you want good performance and
the best visual quality, plus DX9 support the Ti4200 does not offer, go with
the Radeon.

Plus, he coud probobly mod the 9500 NP to a 9700, which is a LOT faster
then both cards.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:19:49 GMT, Tod wrote:

Don't get the ATI 9200, get the 9100, it's faster.
The GPU in the 9200 is a slightly stripped down version of
the one what is in the 9100.

That's right. The 9200 has 4 pipelines and only one texture unit per
pipline, while 9100 (which is a renamed 8500) has two texture units per
pipeline.

Spend a few extra bucks and get the ATI 9600.

He could also opt for this.

Mike wrote:
Hi,

I as thinking of an upgrade for my videocard because I hope that
Battlefild 1942 will play more smoothly then. Because I cannot spend that
much I was thinking about the Radeon 9200 or the nVidia 5200. Can anyone
give me advice?

More importantly, wil I see much difference with my GeForce4 MX440 ?

Save up for a 9600... performance with DX9 games such as HL2 and Doom3 will
be so much better with a 9600 than either of those other two cards. Since
you are obviously on a budget, it doesn't make sense to spend money on a
card that will not cope with the games of tomorrow (and it is pretty soon
that games will start using DX9). For a gamer a can't recommend purchasing
anything less than a 9600, it simply isn't worth it.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

I as thinking of an upgrade for my videocard because I hope that
Battlefild 1942 will play more smoothly then. Because I cannot spend
that
much I was thinking about the Radeon 9200 or the nVidia 5200. Can anyone
give me advice?

More importantly, wil I see much difference with my GeForce4 MX440 ?

Save up for a 9600... performance with DX9 games such as HL2 and Doom3
will
be so much better with a 9600 than either of those other two cards. Since
you are obviously on a budget, it doesn't make sense to spend money on a
card that will not cope with the games of tomorrow (and it is pretty soon
that games will start using DX9). For a gamer a can't recommend
purchasing
anything less than a 9600, it simply isn't worth it.

The Geforce 5600 is less effective than the 9600, and still hardware DirectX
9 - but the slowest DX9 GF, the 5200 is slower than the 4200 Ti most of the
time, and undercut by the GF4 MX's.