Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: i needa new vid card...




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    318

    Default

    i finally got a GREAT 21" monitor that can do 1600x1400 @75hz, and my voodoo3 2000 just can't handle that

    so, i need a new vid card and i'm thinking along the lines of a geforce2 MX400 due to budget (think cheap, dirt cheap!! USED would be ok too)

    the only options i'm really looking for are 64mb DDR (4 or 6ns?) s-video out and a port for my dvd decoder card to plug into so i can watch dvd on my tv

    sure, some will have dvd support on it, but then i have a wasted dvd decoder card, and besides, i only have a 450mhz cpu so the decoder comes in quite handy - takes the strain off the vid card/cpu

    dual monitor would be nice, but not totally needed

    http://www.leadtek.com/gf2mxshmax/gf2mxshmax.htm is the right idea, but i dunno if that's the right one

    i don't really have any preference who the vendor is

    uses:
    gaming, of course!

    and graphics too

    run @ 1600x1400? yes, if possible, otherwise a 1280x1024 will do just fine (no less than 75hz though @ any resolution)

    ideas for a card of this type or something totally different?

    :wave:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Heh. My Radeon 8500 could do that, but the only thing that's limiting me is my monitor. Do you want to have it be playable at that res? The only thing cheap enough would be a Kyro II and the drivers still need some work I understand. The S-Video out would be feesable, but the DVD decoding and DDR won't be found on a MX, the Kyro, yeah, but I'm not sure they're so great. ATI is the only one that has a separate decoder on it. The GF's have some decoding, but not nearly as much as ATI's.

    I would set my sights on something a bit costlier, because you just aren't gonna find what all you want at the price level you're asking. At high res, the MX isn't gonna be nearly as smooth as something costing you more.

    Save up, and buy something much better.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    193

    Default

    MX400 wouldn't be much better than a Voodoo 3 at high res. A GF256 with DDR would be better for high res work. Or something like a Hercules 4500 based on the Kyro II chipset would suit you well too. They're fairly cheap nowadays, and high res is their forte.
    Onyx

    TweakTown
    OCAU - Overclockers Australia
    CPF - CandlePower Forums

    Antec 1080AMG with 430W TruePower

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,016

    Default

    For 3d gaming on a budget - kyro II...... definately

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Not unless they have released some new drivers for it. And last I heard, there was a HUGE performance hit from using WinXP. :(
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    318

    Default

    thanks for the input :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Onyx
    MX400 wouldn't be much better than a Voodoo 3 at high res. A GF256 with DDR would be better for high res work. Or something like a Hercules 4500 based on the Kyro II chipset would suit you well too. They're fairly cheap nowadays, and high res is their forte.
    i thought a gf256 was a lesser card than a mx400?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darthtanion
    Not unless they have released some new drivers for it. And last I heard, there was a HUGE performance hit from using WinXP. :(
    good thing i'm not runing XP!
    i run win2k/98se

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan_Lander
    Heh. My Radeon 8500 could do that, but the only thing that's limiting me is my monitor. Do you want to have it be playable at that res?
    of course! :D

    [B]
    The only thing cheap enough would be a Kyro II and the drivers still need some work I understand. The S-Video out would be feesable, but the DVD decoding and DDR won't be found on a MX,
    well, the link i posted is an MX400 with that plug - check the top left of the card on the pic on that page

    [B]
    the Kyro, yeah, but I'm not sure they're so great. ATI is the only one that has a separate decoder on it. The GF's have some decoding, but not nearly as much as ATI's.

    I would set my sights on something a bit costlier, because you just aren't gonna find what all you want at the price level you're asking. At high res, the MX isn't gonna be nearly as smooth as something costing you more.

    Save up, and buy something much better.

    suggestions for an ATI card then? how much more costly? i really don't wanna go over about 80$ including shipping if i get it online, either used or new

    i already have a few bids for some cards, but i doubt i'll win them, since they are starting to get out of my price range

    Visiontek NVIDIA 64MB Geforce2 MX400, WinFast GeForce256, and a Leadtek WinFast Geforce2 Ultra

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ct_
    thanks for the input :)

    i thought a gf256 was a lesser card than a mx400?
    The higher up you go in resolution, the more the GF256 (with DDR) has an advantage over the MX400. Remember the MX's were designed as a budget solution right from the start. I've read reviews and they seem to be synonymous - 2D image qual deteriorates significantly after 1024x768 on the MX.

    If fancy features and DVD playback are important, consider Matrox too. They got dual head, arguably the best IQ on the market, and aren't half bad for games (considering it's not a home market solution).
    Onyx

    TweakTown
    OCAU - Overclockers Australia
    CPF - CandlePower Forums

    Antec 1080AMG with 430W TruePower

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onyx


    The higher up you go in resolution, the more the GF256 (with DDR) has an advantage over the MX400. Remember the MX's were designed as a budget solution right from the start.
    nope, i didn't know that

    [B]
    I've read reviews and they seem to be synonymous - 2D image qual deteriorates significantly after 1024x768 on the MX.

    If fancy features and DVD playback are important, consider Matrox too. They got dual head, arguably the best IQ on the market, and aren't half bad for games (considering it's not a home market solution).
    not so much "fancy features", but yes, DVD is a factor - preferably a card with a specific port to accept the cable from a DVD card (looks like a printer port on a mobo, about the same size)

    as far as i have been able to see, the gf256 is only a 32mb card
    i'm not so sure that's gonna be enough...

    suggestions for a specific matrox card then?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Why not look at the GF2 GTS or GF2 Ti as both have 64MB's of memory plus both are relatively cheap now and about the same price. ;)
    <center></center>

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,297

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •