Well don't put too much emphasis on 3Dmark but as a rough guide it is pretty good. Since CPUs and gfx cards are nearly always o/c'ed in the submitted 3Dmark results I take it you are o/c'ing your GF4TI4200 as running it at default makes very little sense. So looking at 3Dmark ORB we see XP2000+ with 4200 nets on average 11000-12000 so it seems something is holding you back a little. The drivers you use for your gfx card are obvious but mobo (esp BIOS) and sound along with all your other hw can also make a diff. Ideally you don't want your gfx card to share the IRQ, an Aperture Size of 128MB is generally best (but doesn't make much diff), fast writes and side band should generally be enabled too. Got to rush, check back later ... Oh, well 4200 cards are clocked well below their true potential so that people will continue buying 4400 and 4600 cards LOL! 4200-64 default clocks are 250 core and 500 RAM (250/500) and will nearly all have 3.6ns DDR RAM which is technicly certain to hit 555mhz and often hits 600mhz! The core tends to be identical to 4400/4600 so 300mhz is not at all uncommon. The diffs between manus is VERY insignificant for GF4TI, things like image quality, perf, o/c'ability, features are all very standard with the only exception being the odd manu who will cheap out on the RAM which in 4200-64's case would mean 4.0ns limiting the RAM o/c to about 550mhz. So in short you should expect to get 275/550 but 300/600 is by no means out of the question BUT as with any o/c'ing there are NO guarantees, you will have to raise the clocks slowly and test thoroughly at each setting until you get instability or visual defects, at which point it's best to drop it back a couple of notches. The perf diff between 250/500 and 275/550 is significant let alone 300/600! JFYI 4400=275/550 4600=300/650.
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Thanks for the tip
Thats why i have always said windows 2000 is the Best MS OS in history, Ulimate Gaming OS, not a ram hog like windows xp, very stable, Windows 2000 does have compat. mode just like windows xp, windows 2000 can run dos games because i have done it before, etc. Windows 2000 is THE best MS OS. No ifs, buts or ands about it. None. Zero. No excuses either.
I have to decide whether I have the room (and whether the wife will let me ) DarkKnight that's what putting a card that's 2 years old in with a modern CPU will get you. Do yourself a HUGE favour and either spend $100 for a 128MB Rad8500/GF3 or $120-150 for a GF4TI4200! You'll be blown away by the perf diff in games, currently a Duron1ghz with a GF3/Rad8500 will kill your PC for gaming. DevilsAdvocate your current PC can handle all current games inc UT2003 exceptionally well, why spend the huge amount of money for the P4? A very good point Deeko. Although there are people who hate and love 3Dmark those of us in the middle take it for what it is. A good guide to 3D perf and very useful for checking your perf is about where it should be AND excellent to see what diff CPUs and gfx cards would do to your perf. Of course it is just one of many 'tools' people should use, but it is hardly the devil ... more like a smelly but friendly drunk guy LOL! You all are right... this system should be fine to run UT2003. 
Facebook
Twitter