A dissenting view:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1797" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1797</a>
Hardcore gamers don't like the card, because it's nVidia's lowest-end
DirectX9 product. However, its performance seems to be generally at least
slightly better than a GF4 MX440, and it can be significantly better.
If the advertised version is one that doesn't have the full 256 bit memory
data path, avoid it.
Whether you'd get improvements for Civilization III or Links 2003, I can't
say. It looks like you could use a bit of antialiasing that's not practical
with the GF4 MX.
$20 net is pretty cheap, though. (I dislike rebates, but I usually receive
them.) If you're comfortable with swapping graphics cards, it might be worth
the trouble. (Hint: if you go for it, remove the drivers for the GF4 MX
first, using the add/remove software control panel. Rather than rebooting
the machine, power it down. Swap the cards. Start up the machine, and boot
into Windows. Install the latest nVidia drivers.)
(My own graphics card at this time is a 6800GT.)
HTH.
Bob Knowlden
Address may be scrambled. replace nkbob with bobkn.
"Phil Pease" <ppease5.TakeThisOut@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:8p2nd.48155$V41.42706@attbi_s52...
>I currently have GeForce4 MX Integrated GPU (uses 64MB memory).
>
> The games I play are Civ III and Links 2003 mostly. They look fine to me.
>
> I do have an AGP slot in my HP computer (AMD 2800+ cpu).
>
> I saw an advertisement for an XFX GeForce FX 5200 128MB card for just $20
> (actually $60 less $40 rebate if buy before 11/30).
>
> My question is would this be an improvement or a waste of money?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
