Video Card Upgrade on a shoe-string

  Major Disaster 18:04 09 Jun 2005

I was thinking about updating my ancient graphics card (a NVidia GeForce MX 420, which only has 64Mb RAM, i think) to something semi-ok that would allow me to play games a bit easier, however i am on a budget (sub £50) and was wondering if any of you could reccomend a good replecement.
Of course it needs to be compatible with my current system (2.27 GHz Intel Pentium 4, 8 kilobyte primary memory cache 512 kilobyte secondary memory cache, and i think this is my motherboard, - Board: Intel Corporation D845EPT2 AAA83422-107 Serial Number: CN04P6154811127200HJ Bus Clock: 133 megahertz BIOS: Intel Corp. A02 05/22/2002) from the belarc advisor.
I have seen these, click here click here and click here What do you think? Any help is much appreciated

  citadel 18:42 09 Jun 2005

it will be better than the one you have now.

  gudgulf 20:21 09 Jun 2005

Don't be fooled by the onboard memory of these cards.The key to the best performance is the capabilities of the gpu core.Of the cards you link to the Ati9600 will give the best performance and will be a good match for your cpu.With the others you are paying for extra memory added to a slower card.

  Major Disaster 20:54 09 Jun 2005

Ohh rite, because i was only looking at the amount of memory. So you think that even though the radeon has less memory it would be the faster/better card? So basically the more you pay the better the card?

  Stuartli 21:12 09 Jun 2005

I had to buy a graphics card in a hurry the other day and ended up with an XFX GeForceFX 128MB with TV out for £43 from a local outlet.

I see the Novatech equivalent is about £10 less, so the 256MB version is presumably even better value...:-)

  dagwoood 21:36 09 Jun 2005

To expand on gudgulf's posting, having 256mb of on-board memory on lower spec graphics cards isn't needed, or beneficial.

With these cards the memory to CPU bus bandwidth is low(normally 64 bit)and so you end up with data waiting in memory, because as the bandwidth is narrow, it can't get out of memory fast enough for the GPU to process. The problem is further compounded by having a slow GPU that can't process the data fast enough.

I agree with gudulf, the Radeon 9600 is the better card. And yes, as with most things in life, the more you pay, the better the card(normally).

  Totally-braindead 22:27 09 Jun 2005

Have to agree with the others here, if you can get a 256mb version of a particular card at the 128mb price then fair enough but just because the card has more memory doesn't mean its faster. The 9600 is a good card.

  Major Disaster 07:43 10 Jun 2005

oh k thanks, so the radeon it is then! Any idea where i can get it a bit cheaper?

  Stuartli 09:17 10 Jun 2005

Just a warning...:-)

The reason I had to get a graphics card in a hurry the other day (to replace another bought in an equal hurry) was because the one it replaced was an ATI Radeon 7000 - despite trying every Catalyst driver for it right up to the current 5.5 version, it consistently displayed coloured dots and lines on the display after bootup.

Only a couple of reboots and consequent changing of pages would clear them over about 10 minutes.

However, in fairness, one of the offspring is very happy with his (much better spec) Radeon.

  TomJerry 10:23 10 Jun 2005

it is a great card at the price

  Major Disaster 17:45 10 Jun 2005

Even better with a card with double the ram (i still cant get my head around that one!)?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Samsung Galaxy A8 review: Hands-on

Majority of illustrators don’t earn enough to live from, new survey shows

iPhone X problems

Word gratuit : comment télécharger le logiciel de Microsoft ?