[$threadinfo[title]]

[decription]

In honor of my new graphic card a large upgrade from my old rage 128 16 MB I'll show it off even though it isn't much!

[decription]

Mario Kart Looking nice

[decription]

More Zelda

[decription]

Some nice transparencies and lighting never possible on the old card

[decription]

Finally some nice goldeneye

[Knuckles]

mmmmmhhhh, tou made a mistake in your video card name :P

there's isn't any GF4 MX 4200 :P

it should be instead:

a GF4 TI 4200

or

a GF4 MX 420

Just correct it because there's a huge difference between the 2 cards. MX are crap and TI are the best.

[Plisco]

Scyther MX's are not crap, just not as good as TI:plain:

[Tagrineth]

Originally posted by Plisco
Scyther MX's are not crap, just not as good as TI:plain:

GeForce 4 MX = GeForce2 MX with marginally improved anti-aliasing = CRAP.

[Plisco]

I dont think my GeForce 2 MX is crap

[Tagrineth]

Originally posted by Plisco
I dont think my GeForce 2 MX is crap

My old Kyro II kicks its ass and it's crap too. :flowers:

[Plisco]

Originally posted by Tagrineth


My old Kyro II kicks its ass and it's crap too. :flowers:

Meh my card does what it needs to do.:)

[mesman00]

i wouldn't say mx 420 is crap either

[Trotterwatch]

The MX does the job it needs to do, as long as you are content to not play games at MAX settings and at resolutions above 1024x768 then by and large the MX will handle it perfectly.

For N64 emulation it is perfect - well at least until/when/if pixel shader support is ever added.

Glad you like the new card anyway Decription, I remember upgrading my GFs old computer from an ATI Rage 128 to an old GF2mx of mine. The difference was amazing - she was so happy she could play Mario64 perfectly using corn (before there were various graphical defects, ie non transparent water).

[decription]

Thanks trotta, at least someone isn't snooby about cards. It ironic, i actually also updated from a Rage 128. Amazing the difference, besides its a steal considering it was $30.

[marioshroom]

only what i want is a card for playing tenebrae!!! too bad this is for $300 or more!!! :(

Tenebrae (http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net/)

[nephalim]

Stop insulting the Rage 128 dammit! :angry:

[Tagrineth]

Originally posted by marioshroom
only what i want is a card for playing tenebrae!!! too bad this is for $300 or more!!! :(

Tenebrae (http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net/)

Tenebrae sucks. It's horrifyingly bad.

[CanSee]

GeForce MX whatever versions are solid cards, but they definetly SUCK compared to the clean cards. And yes, GeForce 4 MXs are basicly the same crap as GeForce 2 cards. And you can't say a GF 4 MX is the same like a real GF 4 ! No way ! But anyway, Radeon rules, better antialaising :D and so on...

ATI Radeon 9800 Pro with 256 MB DDR2 RAM ;D

Anyone money spare to buy it for me ? ;) hihi

(Even if I had it, I'd need a whole new PC to run it...)

Radeons + glNintendo plugin are the best combi for N64 emu :D

[nephalim]

God damn it the only major downside to a notebook....my specs allow perfectly decent N64 emulation except for the damn GFX card...i'm still trying to find out if I can upgrade and how...I know my mobo supports the Geforce 2go, but i'm nearly certain that's all it supports (other than the Ati Mobility M4, which is nothing more than a super-overclocked Ati 128.) It's an 815e intel chipset, PIII 900mhz, agp 4x.

It's a real pain because they don't sell laptop cards wholesale, they *didn't* used to sell them from Dell (although it's possible they do now I am told, through tech support possibly,) and it's nearly impossible to find compatibility information. I'd pay $300 to upgrade the GFX card in this machine.

Cmon', quit insulting the ati 128...at least not unless I upgrade :plain:

It's so annoying, the ati 128 *is* a decent card, as is my mobility m4, but it doesn't work properly with directx or opengl, all thanks to the crappiest drivers ever written, so it's all good for nothing. :doh:

[fearpi]

so, tagrineth... you hate the geforce2, you hate the geforce4, and you hate tenebrae. is there anything by chance that you like?

[icepir8]

thong panties wasn't it?

[Johann]

Originally posted by Tagrineth
My old Kyro II kicks its ass and it's crap too. :flowers:

I have a GeForce 2 MX 32Mb and a Kyro II 64Mb. The GeForce 2 kicks Kyro II's ass a hundred times.

[marioshroom]

Originally posted by icepir8
thong panties wasn't it?

yes also am i one for the liking of that.

sometimes is my gf mad when she sees me to wear them!

LOL

[Tagrineth]

I have a GeForce 2 MX 32Mb and a Kyro II 64Mb. The GeForce 2 kicks Kyro II's ass a hundred times.
In what?

Only the most horrifyingly CPU-bound games (Unreal Tournament 2003 comes to mind) are faster on the GeForce2MX.

[dmac2003]

I'll just stay with my TNT 2 Pro 32 MB lol It has no trouble at all emulating N64 Video.

[ScottJC]

but what if you wanted to play UT2003 with everything at max, bet your TNT can't do that :P

[dmac2003]

Hey it could be worse. Here is my old pc specs:
----------------------------------------------
E-Machine (BAAAAAAD!!!)
Celeron 500 MHz
Windows 98 SE
32 MB ram (later upgraded to 64)
Very bad Video (ATI 4 MB)
Crystal Soundfusion (very bad synth)
and I don't want to go any further
bring back nightmares lol.

[ScottJC]

you know there IS an edit button you know.... theres no need to post 3 posts at once when you could just post one.

anyway, glad you figured out what ut2003 was ;P

[Lex]

dmac2003 is on a spamming rampage

[nephalim]

I am now running (but who knows for how long) a Radeon 9000 (non-pro? what's the difference?) under the hood. Take your best shot at the 128 :)

The worst thing about the MX420/440 isn't it's speed, it's it's compatibility. It does not offer DX8 support, and unlike the Radeon 9000 where they took a higher end card and took out a pipeline, making only a marginal difference at a high price, the MX420 is basically an overclocked Geforce 2. You could do much better for the price range.

[Tagrineth]

The Radeon 9000 is 8500 with one less TMU per pipeline, but still 4 pipelines.

[Hyper19s]

I cant belileve people still talk s*** about the mx
cards its not nice and these guys should STOP!!

used to be an mx card user gf2mx200

[Tagrineth]

People have always talked shit about the MX, because the entire line IS shit.

It's better than nothing, but otherwise you can't get much worse.

[Clements]

So shit that I get perfect graphics with all my PC games, N64 games etc. at full speed 4XAA, 2XAF... And you can get worse. People turn up at emutalk with integrated Intel chipsets which are generally poor. People with an MX experience no such problems. They are budget cards for the mainstream, and are not meant for power users such as yourself.

[Trotterwatch]

Yep, they are perfectly fine for the non power user. When I first got my PC I had a GF2 MX 400, and could do everything that I desired which was:

Play games at 1024x768 (some at 800x600)
with some PC games (older titles) I could enable AA without probs, emulators could run AA fine (most)
Games such as Q3 etc ran at insane speeds at high detail, and generally most PC games ran fine.

Now fast forward a bit, yes the MX line could be a little slow at max settings/hi-res/any level of AA on newer PC titles, but that doesn't automatically make them bad cards. The lack of pixel shaders is a bit of a shame but again it doesn't make them bad cards because of it.

[dmac2003]

Is TNT 2 bad?

[Lex]

Is TNT 2 bad?
It is now, but when it was "new" the card was the best.

[dmac2003]

Well, atleast I know A LOT of people who have worse...

[Tagrineth]

The only time GeForce MX cards weren't shit was when they first appeared, and were actually a viable budget alternative. Now the 2MX's are too slow to be useful (in new games, of course), and the 4MX's are missing too many features to be useful.

And Clements and Trotterwatch: Not all N64 plugins can do everything perfectly on an MX *cough*Jabo's 1.5*cough*.

[Lex]

Well, atleast I know A LOT of people who have worse...
That doesn't make it any better, does it?

[ScottJC]

Hmm, can you get graphics like this with an MX?, even at high my MX couldn't do this

(course it lost a bit of quality because its a jpg, but these settings are UT2003 maxed out)

[Tagrineth]

Hehehe, the GeForce4MX's have no pixel or vertex shader support (before anyone replies saying yes it supports vertex shader - it's SOFTWARE.).

UT2003 uses some basic pixel shaders on the ground, for precision and speed above all else. They don't actually change the texture or add any effects, just improve precision and speed. So yes, it will look better on any PS-supporting card... especially Radeons - the 8500/9000/9100/9200 lines support a very high dynamic range when using pixel shaders 1.4 (which GeForce4Ti doesn't even support).

[Trotterwatch]

And Clements and Trotterwatch: Not all N64 plugins can do everything perfectly on an MX *cough*Jabo's 1.5*cough*.

When did I state otherwise Tagrineth?

[Tagrineth]

Whoops, sorry Trotterwatch, I misread your post. :flowers:

[Trotterwatch]

:) Apology accepted :)