Steve Scrimpshire Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 (edited) Ok. A friend of mine is looking for a video card. He is a hardcore gamer. I seem to recall that some of the FX<<whatever>> cards are misleading in their numbering scheme, like FX4600 is better than FX5200 (that exact one is probably not true, but similar, I mean). Can some of you nice people post framerates of the MX440SE cards and/or FX-type cards (preferably 64MB or 128MB DDR)? Please give me glxgears numbers with default window size and no cheating by hiding the window behind other windows. :P I know glxgears is not the same framerate as what one would get gaming, but I know the framerate of my card with glxgears, so I have a comparison. Thanks. Please also state the manufacturer of your card. I would also appreciate info on ATI cards and how well/easily they work with Linux. Edited March 13, 2004 by Steve Scrimpshire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fissy Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 i think you should ignore ATI's offerings straight off. I have one of the fastest graphics cards available, but yet it is still beaten in glxgears by nvidia grapics cards 2 years older than it. ATI cards are a nightmare to install, then once you've got them in, they're still crap. so nvidia: geforce1/2 - ancient history geforce3, really old, hard to find i'd have thought, probably not particularly good value. TI cards are better. Geforce4: The MX Range - these cards are to my knowledge just rehashed geforce2 cardsfor the budget market at the release of the new geforce4 TI cards. The fact that they have a 4 after them is a marketing gimic. I wouldn't get one today, they can probably cope for the time being, but not particularly future proof. (IMO) The TI range - the real geforce4s - fast and good value at the moment i think. From what i hear, these are nice to install too - don't trust me on that - i don't own one. Geforce5 (FX) 5200 range The FX range's budget offering - actually slower than a geforce4 mx reportedly - that might just be windows though, due to the wonders of directx 5600/5700, ultra/non-ultra. The sweet spot imo. Not cheap cards, but half the price of their big bro's in many cases for 90% of the speed. 5800/5900, ultra/non-ultra. The mutts nuts. very expensive, but the best there is. In my opinion? a geforce4 TI, i heard that the FX's were harder to install, and their main advance is direct x 9 compatibility - not all that great for a linux user. Beware - i haven't owned all these cards as you might guess! - hence no glxgears. (apart from my radeon - ~2000). I think my summary of the pecking order is fairly accurate though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeeDubb Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 I would normaly have a lot to say, but fissy already said it all. I agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afrosheen Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Most bang for the buck: Geforce4 ti4200 or greater. Best card, period: GeforceFX 5950 ultra. Forget about the MX cards, they're junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Scrimpshire Posted March 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Ok, what about a comparison of GeForce4 Ti and GeForceFX? I'm assuming any GeForce FX is better than GeForce4 Ti? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fissy Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 the FX 5600 - 5900 are. i was told harder to install, and a lot more expensive. hunt around, theres probably a few fan sites about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nggalai Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Ok, what about a comparison of GeForce4 Ti and GeForceFX? I'm assuming any GeForce FX is better than GeForce4 Ti? Depends on what you do. The GFFX boards are more "feature loaded" than the Ti boards. Say, a GF4Ti 4200 will support up to Pixel- / Vertex Shaders 1.3; GFFX goes up to 2.0 and beyond. That's not too relevant for Linux blokes (those nomenclatures only work for DirectX), but: GFFX will be able to expose more OpenGL2.0 features than a Ti, and already now supports more OGL1.5 features. Of course an FX5900 will be faster than any GF4Ti board, 4600 included. But, for most games, a Ti4200 will eat an FX5200 for breakfast. Say it like this: FX5200 is what the MX range of boards for GF2/4 used to be. But: If you're a coder and want to use fancy effects, the FX5200 might still be the better option. Generally, though, I advice to wait another couple of weeks before getting a new board. Cebit's up, GDC soon, and both NVIDIA and ATI will launch new video boards in the very near future. Meaning: You'll get what's the top of the crop now for much less, or REALLY go full high-end for what you'd pay right now. And the new boards are impressive, let me tell you. NDAs will lift in a couple of days, so expect to be pleasently surprised. I know I went full :o at one of the competitors' offerings ... 93, -Sascha.rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.