PDA

View Full Version : FX cards


Bobby
July 5th 03, 10:08 AM
Can anyone tell me about the general features of NVIDIA's new range of FX
cards? Are they any better than the previous versions (such as the MX
range)?

Cheers.

Bobby

Thomas Andersson
July 5th 03, 11:09 AM
Bobby wrote:

> Can anyone tell me about the general features of NVIDIA's new range
> of FX cards? Are they any better than the previous versions (such as
> the MX range)?

Hmm, not quite getting your questions, FX is a new generation like GF4 and
GF3 etc was, MX is not a generation but rather the name of the lowest cards
of each generation between GF2 and GF4, seems the name have been dropped now
though.
Comparing the "FX series" vs the "MX series" is a invalid comparison (Guess
you can say the FX 5200 cards are the MX cards of Geforce FX).

Best Wishes
Thomas

Danny
July 5th 03, 12:38 PM
"Bobby" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone tell me about the general features of NVIDIA's new range of FX
> cards?

They're good, better than their Titanium line of cards (4200, 4400), but ATi
are the new kings as things stand. But for most people's gaming needs an FX
is more than sufficient imo.

> Are they any better than the previous versions (such > as the MX
> range)?
>

MX were trash. Well, sort of - they were slightly dodgy in that they
appeared to be marketted towards people who had no clue.
FX are infinitely better than MX - after all, look at the price differences.

> Cheers.
>
> Bobby
>
>

johndevoy
July 5th 03, 06:04 PM
The FX5900 is about the same as the top ATI card, they each do well in
certain benchmarks.

Danny
July 6th 03, 12:23 PM
"johndevoy" > wrote in message
...
> The FX5900 is about the same as the top ATI card, they each do well in
> certain benchmarks.
>
>
>
I agree it's not miles behind, but there's no question the top ATi (9800) is
ahead of the top FX (5900).
Very few benchmarks have the FX happily on top. Some have them about equal,
and a lot have the 9800 significantly ahead.
Here:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=3x5900u&page=1

johndevoy
July 8th 03, 11:38 PM
I'm using the fx on an nforce2/athlon system, which strangely only gives
12000 3dmark2001 score.
I'm pretty sure its cpu limited with an Xp2100.

mike
July 11th 03, 10:53 AM
which fx are you using?

Ron Merts
July 12th 03, 11:14 AM
Two Systems are P4 3.0C (3Ghz, 800Mhz FSB, 1Gb Memory, 1 is XP Pro other is
XP Home) on Intel D865PERLK mobo with eVGA FX 5900 128Mb cards. Love them,
run fast, graphics are always smooth and fast! Third system is AMD Athlon
XP 2500+ (333Mhz FSB) on MSI KTV4-N Motherboard with 512Mb of DDR333 memory
and GeForce FX 5200 Ultra; also runs fast, smooth graphics and my son loves
UT2003 and Neverwinter Nights on it. Runs much better than when we had a
Ti4200 on the system.

Ron
"mike" > wrote in message
...
> which fx are you using?
>
>

mike
August 15th 03, 08:09 AM
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 03:01:32 GMT, Bli > wrote:

>"Ron Merts" > wrote in
:
>
>> Two Systems are P4 3.0C (3Ghz, 800Mhz FSB, 1Gb Memory, 1 is XP Pro
>> other is XP Home) on Intel D865PERLK mobo with eVGA FX 5900 128Mb
>> cards. Love them, run fast, graphics are always smooth and fast!
>> Third system is AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (333Mhz FSB) on MSI KTV4-N
>> Motherboard with 512Mb of DDR333 memory and GeForce FX 5200 Ultra;
>> also runs fast, smooth graphics and my son loves UT2003 and
>> Neverwinter Nights on it. Runs much better than when we had a Ti4200
>> on the system.
>>
>> Ron
>> "mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> which fx are you using?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Better a Ti4200 ??? Hmmm.... im looking for buy a new vid card. I have
>Athlon 2100+ and im hesitate with a Ti4200 (new for 200$) or a FX5600 (used
>for 200$)...any suggest? thx

Radeon 9600 Pro is faster than either of those for around $150 USD.