GeForce2 MX 400 vs. Radeon 9250

[Patrick Wolf]

Right now I have a GeForce2 MX 400 32MB AGP 4x. It can actually play CS:S & HL2: DM everything on low, and gets choppy often. I want to know how much better a Radeon 9250 would be?

 

[sniperruff]

i believe a 9250 is slightly better than a 8500. with that said, my GF3 Ti500 is on par with the 8500, and it's 4 years old

so no, not much better.

 

[Sunbird]

Much better if its the 128bit (NOTE: I said bit, not only MB is important) version, and considering it has 4 times the memory as well, it will handle newer games better, and since its a ATI, it handles the HL2 engined games quite nicely. Sure, its not gonna be winning any speed awards, but still a cheap effective upgrade.

 

[suicidalpigeon]

wasn't there a ti4200 for like 40 bucks at geeks.com?

 

[Cerb]

What Sunbird said. Oh, and:
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=R9100-64-TD&cat=VCD

For the 9200s:
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=OCT-ATI9250-256&cat=VCD
Note the way the RAM is arrayed. With most manufacturers using reference designs, that is a good sign it's 128-bit (not the best price, though--256MB is laughable for such a card).