Question about GeForce video cards

[roygoh]

I bought the Disney Cars game for PC, and realised that it could not run on my PC (P4 2.6GHz HT) because it requires minimum GeForce2 video processor or Ati7500 with 32MB RAM but my system uses the onboard Intel 82865G video processor.

I am planning to buy a video card so that I can run the game, but not sure if the following are equal or higher than that required by the game (both listed on local classified ads as unused in box):

1. ASUS V9400 Geforce MX4000 64MB AGP 4X/8X (with VGA, DVI and TV Composite outputs) - US$10
2. NVidia GeForce MX440 128MB video card (VGA + S-Video outputs) - US$25

I checked nVidia's website, and seems like these are GeForce4. So can I assume that these are better than GeForce 2 required by the game? Seems like GeForce already at generation 7 already. I am not a hard core gamer, so it is not important for me to get the latest and greatest.

Which one should I go for?

Besides playing the game, would these cards have better performance than the Intel built-in graphics processor? My main concern is Photoshop CS2 performance (colour, speed etc). I am using a Dell Ultrasharp 19" LCD.

Appreciate any advice on this.

Thanks!
- Roy

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

I bought the Disney Cars game for PC, and realised that it could not run on my PC (P4 2.6GHz HT) because it requires minimum GeForce2 video processor or Ati7500 with 32MB RAM but my system uses the onboard Intel 82865G video processor.

I am planning to buy a video card so that I can run the game, but not sure if the following are equal or higher than that required by the game (both listed on local classified ads as unused in box):

1. ASUS V9400 Geforce MX4000 64MB AGP 4X/8X (with VGA, DVI and TV Composite outputs) - US$10
2. NVidia GeForce MX440 128MB video card (VGA + S-Video outputs) - US$25

I checked nVidia's website, and seems like these are GeForce4. So can I assume that these are better than GeForce 2 required by the game? Seems like GeForce already at generation 7 already. I am not a hard core gamer, so it is not important for me to get the latest and greatest.

Which one should I go for?

Besides playing the game, would these cards have better performance than the Intel built-in graphics processor? My main concern is Photoshop CS2 performance (colour, speed etc). I am using a Dell Ultrasharp 19" LCD.

Appreciate any advice on this.

Thanks!
- Roy

hmm should be able to run the game, but besides all that, might also need to see your system resources, u might not be able to run at its best thou... like highest graphics capability or may lag.

For CS2, if u run multiple pics, actually its not the graphics card that takes the load, its the ram & hdd instead... for graphics card, mostly is for resolution and color, alot says that nvidia have comparable 2D capability as ATI and Matrox, but i still prefer ATI.

 

[zcf]

Do take note that the 2 cards you listing are in the lower end of the GeForce 4 series, some may not even reach the speed of regular/higher end older generation GeForce 2 series.

Another thing to note is when the game state the minimum requirement, it's usually the "minimum" requirement, which mean it can run, but very slowly, and can use low resolution/quality setting and the frame rate may be slow until jerky movement shown.

Dedicated card will definitely better than onboard Intel built-in graphics processor, in term of processing speed for gaming. It also free up the system memory which the onboard processor is using/sharing.

 

[jbma]

Get a reasonable graphic card with at least 128 MB on board. It is so cheap nowadays. Like what zcf mentioned the minimum requirements are not optimum and will cause slowness.

 

[ExplorerZ]

yup, better to get something better. maybe spent S$100 odd on a graphic card like X300+/-
at least you wun have to change again IF you happen to get addicted to high end games like need for speed: most wanted:devil: :sweatsm:

 

[Ashleyy]

If your motherboard support 8x AGP, get the GeForce FX5500 256mb ram instead.

Otherwise, take the 128mb MX 440 if you really only die die must take between these 2 cards.

Although the bulk of PS is using system RAM; higher graphic RAM also helps to improve rendering speed and supports higher monitor display resolution.

 

[roygoh]

Thanks for all the replies!

I will reconsider my options.

Cheers!

- Roy

 

[PhantomGTR]

get the nVidia GeForce 6200 if you are on a budget, it comes in both AGP & PCI-E. It costs less than $100.

 

[Bluestrike]

well since you are over there.. consider the ATI radeon 9250 series card. Get those with DVI and hook up to your Dell monitor, well i hope yours is the DVI model. I feel that the ATI are better in term of colour reproduction then the geforce MX series.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

seirously, don't bother with lower end cards like the ati9250 or GF440mx, GF5200/5500 FX. it's a waste of time for you to consider buying them.

i suggest u get the radeon 9600XT AGP at around $170 or the Radeon x700 256mb at around $220.

 

[roygoh]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

Is Radeon 9600XT equivalnet in terms of processing power to GeForce 6200?

 

[zcf]

Tomshardware is a good place to provide a rough guide on graphic card speed.
newer card
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html
older cards
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/05/vga_charts_vii/page4.html#3d_mark_2005
even older cards
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page5.html#3dmark_2003
among the oldest cards :sweat:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/12/18/vga_charts_ii/page5.html