• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Geforce FX 99 Bux

Dude, that's the "Pinto version" of the FX series
rolleye.gif
 
What NFS4 is trying to say is that there`s quite a few models in the FX range covering all prices and performance,going from cheapest to the most expensive in this order,FX 5200,FX 5200 Ultra,FX 5600,FX 5600 Ultra,FX 5800,FX 5800 Ultra.

Looks like you`re getting the FX 5200 mixed up with the FX 5800 😉.
🙂
 
It is likely it is the MX model of the bunch...Probably clocked lower and has lower grade memory and maybe have a few less pipelines for rendering....

All speculation...Go check Nvidia's website for the clear definition....
 
So basically it is like the mx models...remember the GF4 line of cards was DX8 compliant except the GF4MX card which was only DX7....I think these lower line cards are for the ppl who are not big gamers but need a bit more then the integrated chipsets.
 
Originally posted by: kevin000
That is strikingly familiar to my Voodoo 3 3000... 🙂
Click to expand...

Since when did Voodoo3's have a DVI port?

On a side note, it is a DX9 card with performance probably somewhere in the geforce3 area.
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Dude, that's the "Pinto version" of the FX series
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...


is that like the MX of the gf4 ti's? and does that mean its better than the gf 4 tis4200 or better than the gf 4 mx460 ddr?
 
Originally posted by: BmXStuD
Originally posted by: NFS4
Dude, that's the "Pinto version" of the FX series
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...


is that like the MX of the gf4 ti's? and does that mean its better than the gf 4 tis4200 or better than the gf 4 mx460 ddr?
Click to expand...

It loses to the MX 440 by ALOT. That's how "pinto" it is

 
Originally posted by: galperi1
Originally posted by: BmXStuD
Originally posted by: NFS4
Dude, that's the "Pinto version" of the FX series
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...


is that like the MX of the gf4 ti's? and does that mean its better than the gf 4 tis4200 or better than the gf 4 mx460 ddr?
Click to expand...

It loses to the MX 440 by ALOT. That's how "pinto" it is
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T! :| :| :| Benchmarks placed the 128-bit FX 5200 **WELL** above the MX-440 and in some cases right up there with the TI4200! Try reading a few reviews and come back later.
 
Originally posted by: bluemax
Originally posted by: galperi1
Originally posted by: BmXStuD
Originally posted by: NFS4
Dude, that's the "Pinto version" of the FX series
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...


is that like the MX of the gf4 ti's? and does that mean its better than the gf 4 tis4200 or better than the gf 4 mx460 ddr?
Click to expand...

It loses to the MX 440 by ALOT. That's how "pinto" it is
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T! :| :| :| Benchmarks placed the 128-bit FX 5200 **WELL** above the MX-440 and in some cases right up there with the TI4200! Try reading a few reviews and come back later.
Click to expand...

Wow someone has a sensitive side.

I wouldnt get the GF4MX series anymore due to lack of DX8 and DX9 functionality. Probably in future games, it'll cripple the GF4MX whereas the FX5200 could do reasonably well. If what you say it true, and it performs on a ti4200 calibur, it'd be a great deal for $99.
 
Originally posted by: bluemax
Originally posted by: galperi1
Originally posted by: BmXStuD
Originally posted by: NFS4
Dude, that's the "Pinto version" of the FX series
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...


is that like the MX of the gf4 ti's? and does that mean its better than the gf 4 tis4200 or better than the gf 4 mx460 ddr?
Click to expand...

It loses to the MX 440 by ALOT. That's how "pinto" it is
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T! :| :| :| Benchmarks placed the 128-bit FX 5200 **WELL** above the MX-440 and in some cases right up there with the TI4200! Try reading a few reviews and come back later.
Click to expand...

THG Review of 5200/5600 Ultra.

That card for $99 is not the higher clocked "ultra" version in the benchmark, so its gonna be a bit slower. Looking at the benches the card is hardly "up there with the TI4200". Its more like a fine tuned Radeon 9000.



Cheers!:beer:
 
I *did* say, "in some cases". And comparing it to a Radeon 8500/9000 is fair. I'd put the performance about equal... sometimes higher - depending on the program in question.

Beaten by an MX-440 indeed! Phseesh!
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: bluemax
I *did* say, "in some cases". And comparing it to a Radeon 8500/9000 is fair. I'd put the performance about equal... sometimes higher - depending on the program in question.

Beaten by an MX-440 indeed! Phseesh!
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...


the 85$ does in fact lose out to the MX 440 in most cases. Maybe not in 3dmark03 where it can run Game 4 at an astounding 6 FPS Oh ya, the card you linked only has a 64-bit memory controller. Talk about going backwards in technology.
 
*I* never linked anything, but you made a good point! The cards with 64-bit memory controller DO suck! Half the speed of the 5200 Non-Ultra is slower than an MX4-440. BUT he linked to the 128MB card which is supposed to be 128-bit. (Early reports suggest that 128-bit is *required* for 128MB cards which makes it the easiest way to make sure you get a card that performs quite decently.)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top