ATI 9200 SE performance dissapointed!!!

i replaced my 3 year old nvidia TNT 64 with a 9200 SE
and was disappointed with the performance.

it's about the same.

i tried fs2002 and the framerates are about the same.

"Tashkant" wrote
i replaced my 3 year old nvidia TNT 64 with a 9200 SE
and was disappointed with the performance.

it's about the same.

i tried fs2002 and the framerates are about the same.

Did you replace your three year old computer as well?

Jon

the 'se' cards are a cutdown version i believe so that may well be why, as
well as an older system in general


"Tashkant" wrote in message
...
i replaced my 3 year old nvidia TNT 64 with a 9200 SE
and was disappointed with the performance.

it's about the same.

i tried fs2002 and the framerates are about the same.

I hope you also replaced your motherboard, processor, and RAM. Otherwise,
you won't see a difference.


"Tashkant" wrote in message
...
i replaced my 3 year old nvidia TNT 64 with a 9200 SE
and was disappointed with the performance.

it's about the same.

i tried fs2002 and the framerates are about the same.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:08:57 GMT, "Tashkant"
wrote:

i replaced my 3 year old nvidia TNT 64 with a 9200 SE
and was disappointed with the performance.

it's about the same.

i tried fs2002 and the framerates are about the same.

While the 9200Se is a LOW end card, what do you expect for about
$50~75? Its performance should be on par with a GF2-Pro - which used
to cost $200 when it was NEW. About 40% faster than the GF2-mx400.

It should be about 4 times faster than your old TNT 64.... which isn't
saying much. (Hey, I had a 4mb Voodoo1 card - which still RUNS in a
friends computer)

But... if your computer itself is old & slow, then no video card can
help. If you have a 333Mhz Celeron - then that would be a problem...

What is the rest of your hardware? CPU / RAM / Mobo / OS...


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!