PDA

View Full Version : G4MX vs FX5200


Remy Dubois
July 27th 03, 02:46 PM
Hi all,

Any advise for buying a G4MX440 vs FX5200 (non ultra) ?

Another question, my MB has got AGP 2x actually (i will change the MB later)
so can I install a 8x/4x card on my AGP 2x ? Will it work ?

Thank you for your help

Remy

Bobby
July 27th 03, 03:47 PM
I recently "upgraded" from a G4MX440 to the FX5200. I was disappointed in
the difference. I think that the FX is a bit faster - but not much. Main
advantage is that it's more up-to-date and directly supports DirectX 9 which
will be useful when some games come along written for that standard.

So my advice is, upgrade to the FX5200 is it's not costing you much -
otherwise wait until you have some more money and get an Ultra or one of the
other (more expensive) cards in the FX series.

Bobby

"Remy Dubois" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all,
>
> Any advise for buying a G4MX440 vs FX5200 (non ultra) ?
>
> Another question, my MB has got AGP 2x actually (i will change the MB
later)
> so can I install a 8x/4x card on my AGP 2x ? Will it work ?
>
> Thank you for your help
>
> Remy
>
>

Aussie
July 27th 03, 03:55 PM
If u wanna see pretty icons yeah , go ahead buy 5200 , but if u wanna play
real games 5800/5900 or 96/97 or 9800 series cards are better bet..Remember
one thing , not one DirectX 9 game out yet

July 27th 03, 04:18 PM
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:46:12 +0200, "Remy Dubois"
> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Any advise for buying a G4MX440 vs FX5200 (non ultra) ?
>
>Another question, my MB has got AGP 2x actually (i will change the MB later)
>so can I install a 8x/4x card on my AGP 2x ? Will it work ?
>
>Thank you for your help
>
>Remy
>

The GF4 MX was outdated when it came out.

It bears no resemblance to the Ti series.

klunk
July 27th 03, 07:27 PM
> advise for buying a G4MX440 vs FX5200 (non ultra) ?
>
> Another question, my MB has got AGP 2x actually (i will change the MB
later)
> so can I install a 8x/4x card on my AGP 2x ? Will it work ?
>


An 8x card will generally work on a 2x or 4x MB.

I found the FX5200 to be finicky with motherboards.
The card I have is an ASUS 9520 128MB.
I put it in an ABIT KT7A (4xAGP) system and could
never get it working flawlessly. Went back to the
old GF4-440MX which works fine.

I put the FX5200 in an old ABIT BH6 with a 700 celeron
(2xAGP) and it works just fine. It's faster than the
GF2 GTS that was in it, but not a whole lot.

Like others have said, the DX9 feature of the FX5200
is pretty useless now, and probably will be when
DX9 games come out because it is underpowered.

Bobby
July 27th 03, 10:45 PM
The latest (beta) driver cured my FX5200 issues.

"klunk" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > advise for buying a G4MX440 vs FX5200 (non ultra) ?
> >
> > Another question, my MB has got AGP 2x actually (i will change the MB
> later)
> > so can I install a 8x/4x card on my AGP 2x ? Will it work ?
> >
>
>
> An 8x card will generally work on a 2x or 4x MB.
>
> I found the FX5200 to be finicky with motherboards.
> The card I have is an ASUS 9520 128MB.
> I put it in an ABIT KT7A (4xAGP) system and could
> never get it working flawlessly. Went back to the
> old GF4-440MX which works fine.
>
> I put the FX5200 in an old ABIT BH6 with a 700 celeron
> (2xAGP) and it works just fine. It's faster than the
> GF2 GTS that was in it, but not a whole lot.
>
> Like others have said, the DX9 feature of the FX5200
> is pretty useless now, and probably will be when
> DX9 games come out because it is underpowered.
>
>

July 27th 03, 10:57 PM
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:55:30 +1000, "Aussie" >
wrote:

>, not one DirectX 9 game out yet
>


What about Flight Simulator 2004 ?

Martin Eriksson
July 28th 03, 08:42 AM
> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:46:12 +0200, "Remy Dubois"
> > wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Any advise for buying a G4MX440 vs FX5200 (non ultra) ?
> >
> >Another question, my MB has got AGP 2x actually (i will change the MB
later)
> >so can I install a 8x/4x card on my AGP 2x ? Will it work ?
> >
> >Thank you for your help
> >
> >Remy
> >
>
> The GF4 MX was outdated when it came out.
>
> It bears no resemblance to the Ti series.

Of course not (but we're not talking about the GF4 Ti series here), but in
that sence the FX5200 was also outdated when it came out; it's too slow for
DX9 effects even if it has them.

/M

July 28th 03, 10:54 AM
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:42:47 +0200, "Martin Eriksson"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:46:12 +0200, "Remy Dubois"
>> > wrote:
>>

>> The GF4 MX was outdated when it came out.
>>
>> It bears no resemblance to the Ti series.
>
>Of course not (but we're not talking about the GF4 Ti series here),

I see quite a few ads where it's advertised as a GEFORCE 4, with the
mx in fine print, if at all.

Nvidia knew all along this would happen.

lyon_wonder
July 28th 03, 10:25 PM
A FX5200 is better than an MX just as long as you be careful and get
the version with 128bit memory bandwidth and not the crippled 5200
with only 64bit bandwidth.

>Any advise for buying a G4MX440 vs FX5200 (non ultra) ?