Question/Argument

[evenmore1]

Firstly, my friend was upgrading his graphics card from an x200 integrated to a 6800GS. For some reason it wasn't working so he was complaining about it. I thought it was really funny so I said "ha ha!" Of course he retaliated by saying that even his integrated x200 graphics were better than my Nvidia mx-4000. Is this a valid statement? I thought that any sort of dedicated card is better than an integrated (except if there's a 5 year difference) graphics card. So who is right?

btw, he now has x300se....how is that in comparison?

 

[n7]

Actually his integrated Xpress 200 graphics is likely better than your MX-4000 :laugh:

 

[evenmore1]

Aw! Crap! I lose...

 

[evenmore1]

any other opinions?

 

[Extelleron]

Usually I'd say nothing's worse than integrated graphics......... but I'd also say nothing's worse than a GeForce MX.

 

[daveybrat]

His Radeon Xpress integrated should handily beat your mx4000 in games.

 

[Peter]

The MX4000 is the 3rd reincarnation of a budget (read: castrated) DirectX7 engine, six generations old. Still the same engine as the GF2MX.

The ATi X200 is the integrated version of a previous-generation DX9 chip, essentially the X300 engine using system RAM.