Originally posted by: mwmorph
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: mwmorph
get a geforce2 ultra. i've got one in my machine and it's served me well even now. 64mb memory at 460mhz. core at 250. will be around $35-40 and a lot faster than the stripped down mx geforce2s. I play hl2 in dx7 mode 4xaa 8xaf 12x10 highest fine at around 45-49fps average.
Is this for real? Or DX7 is 10x less intensive on the graphics card than DX8/9? My radeon 8500 can barely do 1024x768 without AA/AF in HL2. Remember just cuz you set AA/AF in the driver panel doesnt mean anything. I dont think cards that old supported 4AA/8AF at such high resolutions (my 8500 surely doesnt even have that option for those resolution). So even if you enable 4AA/8AF, the driver will disable them in the game once the resolution exceeds the graphics card's capability (at least that was the case back in teh days with old cards).
radeon 8500 wasnt exactly a speed demon in it's day i remember it was signifigantly slower than the geforce3...
read this.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=9
hl2 takes a big image quality hit but it runs so much faster without using pixel shaders. the mx440 is as fast as my geforce2 ultra.
I haven't tried DX7 mode, but from those screens it looks horrible. After playing at high settings I don't know how I ever played before on a low end card (DX8), it's like day and night. Considering that you could get a 128-bit radeon 9550 for like $75 new (link), which will cream any DX8 and DX7 card, I see no reason to get anything lower, unless you're mostly playing Quake3. Is $75 really too much to pay for a gfx card? If it is, you can get this 128-bit radeon 9250 fo $48, but that's already obsolete technology, and the gf4 mx is like a dinosaur compared to both of these.