dayve said:
Do GeForce 4 MX 440s suck altogether? Because they are cheap.
I looked for SiS Xabres but could only find where to buy a 400 and not a 600 and I suppose the 400 is one of the early ones you were on about...
Anyway a piece of carboard would be better than what I have now..
No, the whole Xabre line has the quality issues fixed. But the 400 will probably be noticeably slower than a 600 would be. If you could find a Xabre 600, though, that would be
fantastic.
GeForce4 MX line lacks shaders of any kind - they're basically GeForce2 Revival with marginally better anti-aliasing.
EDIT: GeForce4 MX is literally GeForce2MX with marginally better AA, higher clock speed, and um... that's all. Very little is changed in the core. I'd hardly call that an 'upgrade' at all...
Actually, I would now recommend FX5200 over the readon 9000 after the new detonator FX drivers. It seems to me that now FX5200 will be able to out preform readon 9000 in additon to full support over DX9. (FX5200 is really cheap too) However, the FX5600 is too expensive to justify its cost, get the readon 9600 pro instead.
Please tell me you're talking about the FX 5200 Ultra. =)
And the problem with the 5200 Ultra vs. the Radeon 9200 Pro... is that while the 9200 Pro can handle DX8 rather well, the 5200 Ultra just dies in DX9, making the extra features useless.