Geforce 4 MX 440 vs Radeon 8500 vs Geforce FX 5200

[venk]

It's finally time to upgrade my againg Geforce 2 GTS with a new video card. I'm not a big fan of the top of the line cards right now, so I thought I would make a $50-$70 "bridge" upgrade that should last me until the holiday season when I will be upgrading my entire system. I have narrowed it down to these three cards and I'm trying to figure out which one to pick or if I should just wait to buy a card.

According to THG, the MX actually outperforms both the 8500 and the FX, which comes as somewhat of a suprise to me. I always though the MX line performed on par with cards from two previous generations. Also, what is the differance between the MX 440 - 8x (as listed in the linked article) and the MX 440SE (which I keep finding online for approx. $50). Is it just AGP - 8x support? I don't need it since my current motheboard doesn't support 8x, but what kind of performance hit should I expect? Right now it looks like I can get the MX for $50, the Radeon for about $60, and the FX for about $70.

My Current System

AMD T-Bird 1.2 Ghz
Asus a7v133a (kt133a)
256 MB
Geforce 2 GTS-V 32 MB

 

[DahDee]

The "SE" is misleading on the MX, as it's apparently clocked slower than the regular MX. I'm guessing that of the 3 cards you mentioned most would recommend the 8500. I'd also guess, however, that most will also recommend you instead head over to the Newegg site and buy one of their $69 refurb Ti4200 cards. I'm ticked that I missed out on the $99 Albatron 4680. Grrrrr.

Edit: Here's a refurb Gainward Ti 4200 128 MB for $79 at Newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=Go&description=N82E16814128126R

 

[McArra]

I'd buy the 8500. It has pixel/vertex shaders (Mx doesn't) and performs quite well for the buck.

Edit: the 4200Ti is the best option, but take one with 128Mb.

 

[DaveSimmons]

used gf3 for $50-60 or spend a little more and get a gf4 ti4200

 

[selfbuilt]

You'll noticed, BTW, that the GF4MX outperformed only in Quake3 at THG's latest roundup. For UT2003, the 8500 performed between 25-50% faster than the GF4MX (as it should). The 8500 is a faster card in virtually all tests (Q3 being the exception), and has features missing on the GF4MX line (which is basically the same as your GF2).

As for the SE, I would definitely avoid. A lot of them come with much slower memory (especially SDR - avoid at all costs). Memory bandwith can vary from 6.3GB/s to as low as 1.3GB/s all the 440 series cards. Of course, 8500s have their range issues as well (core and mem clock speeds from original 275/275 down to 183/166!). And, of course, the FX5200 has its problems as well (e.g. avoid the 64-bit bus architecture).

All things being equal, I would say the 8500/9100 is a better bang for your buck than the FX5200, and the GF4MX really isn't a good buy, even though it is cheaper. Also avoid the new ATI 9200 or 9000 series (slower than the 8500/9100). If you can find a Ti4200 somewhere for a reasonable price, it would be your best bet.

 

[Pete]

Do not use THG as a reference for what card to buy. And never use a "roundup" that only uses three benchmarks as the final word on which card to buy.

I'd suggest the 8500, as long as it's clocked at 250/250MHz. Any slower, and I'd just start looking for a $50 used GF3 64MB or a ~$100 GF4 4200 128MB. Forget the GF4MX and the FX5200.

What don't you like about the 9800P and 5900? They're both great cards, and you probably won't see a big jump in performance until Spring (when the NV40 and Loki will debut).

 

[gtd2000]

Well I did the upgrade from Leadtek GTS to Radeon 8500LE (250/200) and was very impressed indeed.

A couple of weeks later I upgraded my motherboard and got a GF4 Ti4200 for $70 at Circuit City!

I was more impressed with the 8500 to be honest

 

[modedepe]

Geforce4 mx 440 and fx 5200 are both ones to avoid. Out of the three you listed the 8500 would definitley be the best choice, but I agree with some of the other posts that a ti4200 would be the best choice.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

if u thinkin of changing an GF2 GTS for a MX 440 dont, theyre basically the same chip!!!!
the MX440 has the old GF2 chip with a little few tweaks, not worth it

go for the 5200, its got DX 9
and 128bit colour.

the 8500 was competition to the GF3 so if u got that u wouldnt be upgrading far

 

[chilled]

Overclock that GTS......that'll make it perform very close to a MX440. My 32MB Leadtek GTS (OEM) does 235/405 with stock cooling + £2 ramsinks.

If your desperate I would get the 5200, but only because it'll be easier to sell to the DX9 newbies in a few months. If u do want some noticeable performance then get 8500 tho.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
if u thinkin of changing an GF2 GTS for a MX 440 dont, theyre basically the same chip!!!!
the MX440 has the old GF2 chip with a little few tweaks, not worth it

go for the 5200, its got DX 9
and 128bit colour.

the 8500 was competition to the GF3 so if u got that u wouldnt be upgrading far

The 8500 will be a faster card than the 5200, as it is faster than the GF3 and the GF3 is faster than the 5200. And the 5200 is "DX9 and 128bit color" in the loosest sense--don't expect to be running too many DX9 games on that card.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: Pete

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
if u thinkin of changing an GF2 GTS for a MX 440 dont, theyre basically the same chip!!!!
the MX440 has the old GF2 chip with a little few tweaks, not worth it

go for the 5200, its got DX 9
and 128bit colour.

the 8500 was competition to the GF3 so if u got that u wouldnt be upgrading far

The 8500 will be a faster card than the 5200, as it is faster than the GF3 and the GF3 is faster than the 5200. And the 5200 is "DX9 and 128bit color" in the loosest sense--don't expect to be running too many DX9 games on that card.

 

[gtd2000]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
if u thinkin of changing an GF2 GTS for a MX 440 dont, theyre basically the same chip!!!!
the MX440 has the old GF2 chip with a little few tweaks, not worth it

go for the 5200, its got DX 9
and 128bit colour.

the 8500 was competition to the GF3 so if u got that u wouldnt be upgrading far

In my experience the Radeon 8500 may actually (in real life - as opposed to benchmarks!) closer to the GF4 Ti4200

The Radeon was far better in Soldier of Fortune 2 than my GF4 Ti4200 @ 300/600 (thats 4600 speeds)

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
if u thinkin of changing an GF2 GTS for a MX 440 dont, theyre basically the same chip!!!!
the MX440 has the old GF2 chip with a little few tweaks, not worth it

go for the 5200, its got DX 9
and 128bit colour.

the 8500 was competition to the GF3 so if u got that u wouldnt be upgrading far

The fx5200 is crap. You tell the guy to avoid the mx440 but then tell him to get a card that performs at basically the same level??? Sure it's got dx9, but how much is dx9 gonna be worth on that mx440? Nothing at all. 8500 is FAR supperior to that fx5200, and is a much better choice.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

8500, all the way. I don't see how it's even a choice. Don't trust THG.

- M4H