| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 36941 | 2003-08-24 02:28:00 | FX5200 and FSB | hamstar (4) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 170042 | 2003-08-24 02:28:00 | I want to sell my Geforce 4 MX440 card to get a FX5200 128MB card. If I have Windows 2000, a 1800XP Anthlon 256MB DDR RAM will this new card work? Also can I upgrade my Front side bus. I didn't do enough research when buying my computer and ame away with a 133Mhz FSB. Can I replace this bus, or would it be cheaper buying a new motherboard? Cheers |
hamstar (4) | ||
| 170043 | 2003-08-24 02:30:00 | Also why are the Geforce FX so cheap. Is it like with AMD how they have a Palamino Core and a Thorougbred Core. | hamstar (4) | ||
| 170044 | 2003-08-24 03:07:00 | dunno, but i think i would rather have what you have than a fx 5200, but i guess its personal choice. One thing helpful www6.tomshardware.com VGA Card Buyer's Guide 07/2003 How much are you selling the Geforce 4 for? Does it support 2 monitors? |
mejobloggs (264) | ||
| 170045 | 2003-08-24 03:16:00 | The reason the FX5200 is so cheap is because it has about the same performance as the card you already have. FX5200 ULTRA would be a lot faster but much more expensive. See here (www17.tomshardware.com) |
Rod ger (316) | ||
| 170046 | 2003-08-24 03:18:00 | Yer you won't see much performance increase from a mx440 -> 5200. Get one of the better FX's. | PoWa (203) | ||
| 170047 | 2003-08-25 11:27:00 | Holy **** you're right! My one is waaay better than the one on there, better raise the price on trademe so nobody bids! :D Shoulda done ma research first! Too bad I don't have the money for an Ultra. Why is the FX5200 so much shitter than the MX440? Different chipsets? Different RAMDAC's? Slower GPU's? How come it costs more then in that case? Thanks for the heads up everybody! One again much appreciated --=[HAM]=-- |
hamstar (4) | ||
| 170048 | 2003-08-26 19:58:00 | The FX5200 supports DirectX 9.0 | willtell (4339) | ||
| 170049 | 2003-08-26 21:37:00 | Quote from Toms Hardware : "DirectX 9 support is more of a paper feature than a real bonus. In practice, the chip is simply too slow for DirectX 9 calculations at resolutions of 1024x768 and above." Here (www6.tomshardware.com) |
Rod ger (316) | ||
| 1 | |||||