Hey guys, jus a quick question, bought a new PC few days ago which has an onboard ATI Radeon Xpress 200 Series chipset but I also have a GeForce MX4000 128mb card which I bought last year. Any ideas which is the better of the 2?
The ATI Radeon Xpress 200 wins hands down.
is your MX4000 PCI or AGP? because i don’t think any ATI Radeon Xpress 200 chipsets even take AGP cards…
The ATI is onboard but the MX4000 is AGP.
ATI is the winner.
The MX4000 is practically an overclocked Geforce2 MX400 which is now 6 (?) generations behind current. They tidied a few things up for directx8, but the performance hit is pretty bad.
Thanx 4 ur help guys!
The Xpress 200 is a full DirectX9 graphics core, while an MX4000 is only a DirectX7 core, though actually closer to a full Geforce 2 or a Geforce 4MX
I believe it supports one relatively minor DX8 feature in hardware, compared to the 4MX.
The Xpress 200 wins hands, knees, feet and everything else down, though the MX4000 could give it a run for it’s money in pure DX7 tests - it also appears that the Xpress 200 is a PCI Express chipset, so an AGP card would not be an option!
that’s what i thought
The graphics I have is an onboard chipset, the MX4000 is the AGP card so it wouldn’t be a problem but that’s besides the point anyway coz it aint as good! lol
i believe the point was that xpress200 chipsets don’t even have an AGP slot so it’s moot…
i want to know abt experiences u have with ur 3d graphics cards…
i want to buy a new card (old card is gforce2 400mmx on agp)
but i cant spend more then 140$…so i need help who is best for me
i have p41.6 pentium
intel board 850
ram 256mb (but i ll upgrade it to 512 soon)
windows xp sp2
17" old compaq mointer
i want to a card of atleast 128 mb… i dunt have a gud experience with gforce … wt abt vodoo cards ? vodoo3 doest support my board…
so i want to know abt ur experiences …
Um … voodoo 3 are sooooooooooooooooo old! If you find one anywhere except in museum, I’d be surprised.
In that price range and AGP only to suit the older board, excluding the gforces, the only real competitors are the ati Radeon’s.
Is this US dollars? Maybe a 128/256MB R9600Pro/XT. If not US, maybe a R9250/R9550 or similar.
Funny you should mention that as on Wednesday I took a Voodoo 3 2000 PCI card out of my PC and replaced it with the one in my sig. Still trying to find a game that I can buy to test it with.
So you work in the “ancient history” section or just passing through on your way to “modern times”?
More of a transfer of departments. Still need something to test the new card with but other that that I’m very happy!
P.S. My old card is now (still in working condition) in a box next to me. Maybe it will be of use one day?
EDIT: LOL, just looked at it and realised that it never had a fan and only a plastic(?) heat sink. Man how things evolve!
Good ole Aluminium (that’s Al - you - mini - um for the yanks that insist on calling it al-oom-in-um)! The cheap and nasty plastic of the metallic world.
At about as useful for heat transfer/dissipation as eyebrows for fish
What’s wrong with Al for heatsinks?
Sure, it’s thermal properties are not as good as the same volume of copper, but it’s considerably lighter and cheaper.
The first heatsinked graphics card I had, was an S3 Savage 4 - with a small passive heatsink - before then I favoured Cirrus, from the 5428 VLB, to the card I had for a long time, the 5446 PCI - the “Visualmedia accelerator”.
Another time, trawling through computer fair junkboxes, I pulled out a later Cirrus card, a 5480 or something, but it turned out to be bad - for Â£3, I wasn’t going to bother, but mentioned it next time, and though I never expected it, the chap said they were all supposed to be WORKING system pulls, and to pick another.
The card I pulled out next, turned out to be a Matrox Millenium 2 - used to be an expensive card, but now relegated to the junk bin.
Voodoo 3 are a level up on that, with a few more graphics tewaks (and Glide, of course) … reminds me, I must get a Glide-wrapper that runs on XP, and see if I can still run the 3D version of CTHUGHA.
i agree, there’s nothing wrong with AlOOminUm (:p) for heatsinks…for the exact reasons Matth stated above…
ALUMINIUM VERSUS ALUMINUM
Why two spellings?
Following up a Topical Words piece on the international spelling of what British English writes as sulphur, many American subscribers wrote in to ask about another element with two spellings: aluminium.
The metal was named by the English chemist Sir Humphry Davy (who, you may recall, â€œabominated gravy, and lived in the odium of having discovered sodiumâ€), even though he was unable to isolate it: that took another two decadesâ€™ work by others. He derived the name from the mineral called alumina, which itself had only been named in English by the chemist Joseph Black in 1790. Black took it from the French, who had based it on alum, a white mineral that had been used since ancient times for dyeing and tanning, among other things. Chemically, this is potassium aluminium sulphate (a name which gives me two further opportunities to parade my British spellings of chemical names).
Sir Humphry made a bit of a mess of naming this new element, at first spelling it alumium (this was in 1807) then changing it to aluminum, and finally settling on aluminium in 1812. His classically educated scientific colleagues preferred aluminium right from the start, because it had more of a classical ring, and chimed harmoniously with many other elements whose names ended in â€“ium, like potassium, sodium, and magnesium, all of which had been named by Davy.
The spelling in â€“um continued in occasional use in Britain for a while, though that in â€“ium soon predominated. In the USAâ€”perhaps oddly in view of its later historyâ€”the standard spelling was aluminium right from the start. This is the only form given in Noah Websterâ€™s Dictionary of 1828, and seems to have been standard among US chemists throughout most of the nineteenth century; it was the preferred version in The Century Dictionary of 1889 and is the only spelling given in the Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913. However, there is evidence that the spelling without the final i was used in various trades and professions in the US from the 1830s onwards and that by the 1870s it had become the more common one in American writing generally.
Actually, neither version was often encountered early on: up to about 1855 it had only ever been made in pinhead quantities because it was so hard to extract from its ores; a new French process that involved liquid sodium improved on that to the extent that Emperor Napoleon III had some aluminium cutlery made for state banquets, but it still cost much more than gold. When the statue of Eros in Piccadilly Circus in London was cast from aluminium in 1893 it was still an exotic and expensive choice. This changed only when a way of extracting the metal using cheap hydroelectricity was developed.
The official change in the US to the â€“um spelling happened quite late: the American Chemical Society only adopted it in 1925. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) officially standardised on aluminium in 1990, though this has done nothing, of course, to change the way people in the US spell it for day to day purposes.
Itâ€™s a word that demonstrates the often tangled and subtle nature of word history, and how a simple statement about differences in spelling can cover a complicated story.
Just been thinking that it would be cool to have dual monitors for a while, but I dunno if I’ll get round to it.