PDA

View Full Version : PCI GF2MX vs. PCI GF4MX...


Chris Wilkinson
July 1st 03, 09:21 AM
Hi there,

I'm using a 32MB PCI GeForce2 MX200 in a linux box currently.
It plays Unreal Tournament comfortably at up to 1024*768, but
Unreal Tournament 2003 price has just dropped very significantly
at the local game shop. Without a major interior overhaul (ie...
new mobo -with- AGP) I'm limited to a PCI card. I know its dark
ages to use a PCI card today, but a local supplier can sell me
a 64MB PCI GeForce4 MX440 with TV-out for a very good price.

My question: Is the upgrade worth it? No sales guy I've talked
to can answer my questions about expected frame rate increase, how
much better visuals, PCI bus limitations affecting card performance
etc...

I'd like to get UT2003, but feel a GF2 MX200 is a bit long in the
tooth to handle that game at anything like playable res and frame-
rate (800*600 and better than 25fps is my minimum 'spec').

Does anyone have experience running UT2003 with a GF4 MX440 PCI
card? Doesn't matter if you run the Linux or Win version since
all I'm questioning is whether that card will handle the game OK.

Also, is there a website that compares timedemo stats for different
cards, including PCI and older ones?

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Middle Earth, New Zealand.

Martin Eriksson
July 1st 03, 11:47 AM
"Chris Wilkinson" > wrote in message
...
> Hi there,
>
> I'm using a 32MB PCI GeForce2 MX200 in a linux box currently.
> It plays Unreal Tournament comfortably at up to 1024*768, but
> Unreal Tournament 2003 price has just dropped very significantly
> at the local game shop. Without a major interior overhaul (ie...
> new mobo -with- AGP) I'm limited to a PCI card. I know its dark
> ages to use a PCI card today, but a local supplier can sell me
> a 64MB PCI GeForce4 MX440 with TV-out for a very good price.
>
> My question: Is the upgrade worth it? No sales guy I've talked
> to can answer my questions about expected frame rate increase, how
> much better visuals, PCI bus limitations affecting card performance
> etc...
>
> I'd like to get UT2003, but feel a GF2 MX200 is a bit long in the
> tooth to handle that game at anything like playable res and frame-
> rate (800*600 and better than 25fps is my minimum 'spec').
>
> Does anyone have experience running UT2003 with a GF4 MX440 PCI
> card? Doesn't matter if you run the Linux or Win version since
> all I'm questioning is whether that card will handle the game OK.

I strongly suspect that it's not the PCI bus that is limiting you, but
rather your CPU and main memory bus. UT2003 is very CPU intensive afaik.

Otherwise PCI cards aren't much slower than AGP actually, since most stuff
being rendered reside in the gfx card memory.

/M

Brad
July 2nd 03, 03:45 PM
Board w/o AGP probably running 66MHZ FSB with PC66 speed SDRAM, possibly
75/83/100. Probably around 1997-era board, and I would NOT look forward to
trying to run UT2K3 on that, much as I used to love my TX chipset baby AT
boards.


"Harrie" > wrote in message
e...
>
> > I strongly suspect that it's not the PCI bus that is limiting you, but
> > rather your CPU and main memory bus. UT2003 is very CPU intensive afaik.
> >
> > Otherwise PCI cards aren't much slower than AGP actually, since most
stuff
> > being rendered reside in the gfx card memory.
>
>
> As far as I understood, this is not what Mr. Wilkinson's question was
about.
> The new card he might buy is PCI as well, he said that he does not have
the
> intention of upgrading to a new mobo with AGP. But Your remark about the
CPU
> is very good indeed, for he has not mentioned what kind of CPU he uses and
> how much memory of what sort.
> There will always be a bottleneck in any computer, but I suspect that a
> computer which only has PCI will already be that old that not only the
> videocard or the bus are too slow, but that indeed all the parts of the
> computer together have become a bit too old for this new game.
> A GF4 MX will off course bring You some benefit, but I doubt that You will
> have all the quality that the engine might have to offer.
> Figures might be found on http://freespace.virgin.net/neeyik.uk/3dspecs/ ,
> http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/ . I also have a .gif file
> with 3DMark results which I could mail to You, I found it somewhere on
Tom's
> hardware guide but can't find it anymore. Tell me if You want it and if
Your
> email address is valid, and I'll send it (tomorrowevening)(about the same
> time as now but a bit later)(located in Belgium at the moment).
>
> Greetings,
> René
>
>
>

yeeyoh
July 3rd 03, 06:23 AM
Hi, I was reading this and I thought I'd comment. A. I just bought a G4
MX440 64 mb PCI and B. I play UT2003.
I found on my sysyem the card (g4 mx440) made a big enough difference to
for me to be able to play the game quite comfortably.
I went from a hercules profet 4000xt 64mb PCI. and basically the
difference was huge.
I think too though, the speed of Your CPU and the amount of ram is going
to make a huge difference. If your tower can handle it, i'd go for
something a little bit faster than the MX440. Mines 250watts and I found
that any card above that wanted a 350watt tower.
Basically my FPS are up and my Frags are up.



"Harrie" > wrote in message
. be...
> > A far better option for PCI would be a Radeon 9000 PCI, or Geforce FX
5200
> > PCI. Being DirectX 8 and DirectX 9 cards respectively.
>
> Didn't know that they excisted in PCI as well, in fact computershops
around
> here don't sell any of those so I didn't think of them... But You are
> definitely right, they would be a much better choice.
>
> Greetings,
> René
>
>

Lord Blue
July 3rd 03, 09:23 PM
Not so, I have a computer here without an AGP slot, from HP, it has 3 PCI in
a MiniTower case, It has an AGP bus on the board, but it is only linked to
the onboard graphics chip, the horrible one from intel before the 'extreme
graphics' chip, the one for the 810 series of motherboards. This system is
from 2001.
"Brad" > wrote in message
...
> Board w/o AGP probably running 66MHZ FSB with PC66 speed SDRAM, possibly
> 75/83/100. Probably around 1997-era board, and I would NOT look forward
to
> trying to run UT2K3 on that, much as I used to love my TX chipset baby AT
> boards.
>
>
> "Harrie" > wrote in message
> e...
> >
> > > I strongly suspect that it's not the PCI bus that is limiting you, but
> > > rather your CPU and main memory bus. UT2003 is very CPU intensive
afaik.
> > >
> > > Otherwise PCI cards aren't much slower than AGP actually, since most
> stuff
> > > being rendered reside in the gfx card memory.
> >
> >
> > As far as I understood, this is not what Mr. Wilkinson's question was
> about.
> > The new card he might buy is PCI as well, he said that he does not have
> the
> > intention of upgrading to a new mobo with AGP. But Your remark about the
> CPU
> > is very good indeed, for he has not mentioned what kind of CPU he uses
and
> > how much memory of what sort.
> > There will always be a bottleneck in any computer, but I suspect that a
> > computer which only has PCI will already be that old that not only the
> > videocard or the bus are too slow, but that indeed all the parts of the
> > computer together have become a bit too old for this new game.
> > A GF4 MX will off course bring You some benefit, but I doubt that You
will
> > have all the quality that the engine might have to offer.
> > Figures might be found on http://freespace.virgin.net/neeyik.uk/3dspecs/
,
> > http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/ . I also have a .gif
file
> > with 3DMark results which I could mail to You, I found it somewhere on
> Tom's
> > hardware guide but can't find it anymore. Tell me if You want it and if
> Your
> > email address is valid, and I'll send it (tomorrowevening)(about the
same
> > time as now but a bit later)(located in Belgium at the moment).
> >
> > Greetings,
> > René
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Strontium
July 4th 03, 06:51 AM
-
Chris Wilkinson stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

> Hi there,
>
> Harrie wrote:
>> As far as I understood, this is not what Mr. Wilkinson's question
>> was about. The new card he might buy is PCI as well, he said that he
>> does not have the intention of upgrading to a new mobo with AGP. But
>> Your remark about the CPU is very good indeed, for he has not
>> mentioned what kind of CPU he uses and how much memory of what sort.
>
> An 1100MHz AMD Duron (Socket A), 256MB of PC133 SDRAM. My system is
> new in regards that it was only released recently, but not in terms
> of technology. It was a budget offering with linux installed, and not
> Windows, but at a very strong price point (read cheap!)...
>
> I grabbed UT2003 last nite, and yes my GF2 struggles badly (single
> figure frame rates during heavy action), but the struggle is due to
> UT2003 not using vertex arrays unless you have AGP, even though a
> system with only PCI can also use vertex arrays...
>
> Looking at it, an upgrade to a PCI GF4 MX440 is not going to make
> UT2003 co-operate any more nicely, since it ignores features that are
> available
> even under PCI, simply cos it isn't AGP. I can get a MicroATX mobo
> with
> AGP 8x and 2xPCI for $139 NZD, a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 for $220 NZD, and an
> AthlonXP 2200+ or similar for cheap dollars, so thats where I will end
> up going...just need to save a bit longer to afford this stuff! :-(

It's an expensive hobby :( Glad I got a job, that's all I can say. Keeps
me in PCB's.

>
>> Figures might be found on
>> http://freespace.virgin.net/neeyik.uk/3dspecs/ ,
>> http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/ . I also have a .gif
>> file with 3DMark results which I could mail to You, I found it
>> somewhere on Tom's hardware guide but can't find it anymore. Tell me
>> if You want it and if Your email address is valid
>
> Thank you. Don't worry about sending the Gif (I'll check those
> wesbites).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris Wilkinson, New Zealand.

--
Strontium

"I thought I'd lost you, somewhere. But you were, never, really
ever there at all. And, I want to get free..."

Chris Wilkinson
July 5th 03, 02:01 AM
Hi there,

Strontium wrote:
> -
> It's an expensive hobby :( Glad I got a job, that's all I can say. Keeps
> me in PCB's.

....and cost of living somehow is proportional to income! I'm working a
quite OK job, but still there never is enough green in the bank at the
end of the week for my liking <sigh!>

Cheers dude...

Chris Wilkinson, New Zealand.

Strontium
July 5th 03, 05:52 AM
Seems the more I make, the more bills I accumulate. I think it's God's
way of telling me that I'm never going to be rich :) Either that, or I'm
terrible at managing my fincances. Which, is a very good possibility.

-
Chris Wilkinson stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

> Hi there,
>
> Strontium wrote:
>> -
>> It's an expensive hobby :( Glad I got a job, that's all I can say.
>> Keeps me in PCB's.
>
> ...and cost of living somehow is proportional to income! I'm working a
> quite OK job, but still there never is enough green in the bank at the
> end of the week for my liking <sigh!>
>
> Cheers dude...
>
> Chris Wilkinson, New Zealand.

--
Strontium

"I thought I'd lost you, somewhere. But you were, never, really
ever there at all. And, I want to get free..."