New Graphic Card
- Thread starter decription
- Start date
marioshroom
Quake2Max Player
icepir8 said:
yes also am i one for the liking of that.
sometimes is my gf mad when she sees me to wear them!
LOL
dmac2003
Hardcore Tails fan
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.
----------------------------------------------
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.
nephalim
Psychic Vampire
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.
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.
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
New member
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.
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.
Tagrineth
Dragony thingy
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*.
And Clements and Trotterwatch: Not all N64 plugins can do everything perfectly on an MX *cough*Jabo's 1.5*cough*.