Now wondering about a low-end DX9 card

[OrionAntares]

Which of these cards would be better for low-end gaming were T&L is a major factor?

A GeForce4 MX420 or a GeForce3 Ti200?

 

[amdguy]

GF3 Ti will rape the MX

 

[Actaeon]

GF4MX's are rebadged GF2s, with only DX7 support.

Get the Ti200 with DX8 support.

As much as I hate Tom's, I really like his VGA Charts. You can see here and compare the GF4MX 440 to the Ti200. You will notice the Ti200 stomps it on every test. The 440 is faster than the 420 you were looking at, so expect the the Ti200 to 420 gap to be even larger.

Ti200 hands down.

EDIT: Theres also a good chance you could hit Ti500 speeds with the Ti200, my GF3 hit a little bit faster clock speeds than the Ti500. So you can also use the Ti500 on the comparison as well if you plan on overclocking.

 

[Oyeve]

See above.

 

[OrionAntares]

The GF3 only has DX8 support? Then what would be a good low-end card with DX9 support?

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: OrionAntares
The GF3 only has DX8 support? Then what would be a good low-end card with DX9 support?

Good and low-end shouldn't be in the same sentence .

Basically with lower end cards DX9 is pretty useless. The lower end cards capable of running DX9 are really too slow to even use those features in the first place.

The lowest end DirectX 9 cards are..

ATI: Radeon 9500/9600
Nvidia: GeforceFX 5200

That said, I believe the 9500Pro and the 9600 Pro/XT might be okay for DX9 gaming, but as I stated earlier, they're pretty weak. The 5200 is really pitiful, and you should avoid that at all costs. I might be willing to wager that the Ti200 might be a better bet than that 5200. There is also the 5600/5700 series from Nvidia, and they're about on par with the 9600. Either way, they're all really too slow to run all the DX9 eyecandy anyway.

Why don't you let us know your price range and what you're wanting to do with the card (casual gaming I suppose), and we'll help you choose something out in terms of best features and performance?

EDIT: You can check out the newer version of his VGA Charts for more information on how those cards compare. Hes missing a the Ti200 and a few others though.

 

[OrionAntares]

I want to be able to run Star Wars Battlefronts at an ok level of graphic, something that won't detract from game play. I've been using integrated GeForce2 MX for my desktop for a while, I'm planning to do a major upgrade of my system in a year, but I want something to be able to play Battlefronts. My CPU is an Athlon 2400+ on an nForce board and 1GB RAM if that effects anything. As for price, I'm trying to get something around $50.

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: OrionAntares
I want to be able to run Star Wars Battlefronts at an ok level of graphic, something that won't detract from game play. I've been using integrated GeForce2 MX for my desktop for a while, I'm planning to do a major upgrade of my system in a year, but I want something to be able to play Battlefronts. My CPU is an Athlon 2400+ on an nForce board and 1GB RAM if that effects anything. As for price, I'm trying to get something around $50.

$50 doesn't give you alot of breathing room at all.

If you don't mind buying used, I suggest this Ti4200 for $55 shipped. off our FS/T forum. His Heatware looks pretty good as well.

Well, as far as new cards... I looked at Newegg.com, and honestly, I really can't suggest any card there for $60 and under. To me, it seems like a waste of money.

Get that Ti4200... best card you can get for around $50.

EDIT: The Ti4200 is also DX8, not DX9. If DX9 worries you that much... you're pretty much stuck with the 5200 series from Nvidia. The 9600s are around $90-$100. That said, I still suggest the Ti4200.

EDIT2: There is no warranty on that Ti4200... and while that plays an important part, it still wouldn't change my decision, considering your other options.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Note that the fx5200 is really too slow to use any DX9 features unless you want to watch a slide show at 640x480.