Intel Graphics Cards

[jordie8472]

I didn't get a PCI Radeon. I got a GeForce 440 PCI card. They said it would work.

[Abaddon]

Dude, the FX5200 is basically a GF4 MX. Plus most Radeons support full functionality of Directx 9 unlike nvidia... and Radeons have far superior directx 9.0 performance too. The Geforce 4 mx 440 PCI isn't going to get great performance, but it should suffice in SWG. Personally I wouldn't waste anymore than 50 dollars on a PCI card anyway...

[DarQJeChTi]

Blah Blah Blah Blah, sorry to say this but hell let the man get the Geforce 4 MX 440 PCI. I guarantee it'll work and you might have to tweak the graphics options a little. Also, 768 MB or greater is the way to do it =) I played SWG on my friends PC and he has a Geforce 4 mx 440 pci and 768 mb ram. With a little tweaking you could put all the enviroment textures up, but dont put the shadows up, those really lag.

 

Well goodluck, hope to see you in the game soon. May the force be with you -Im too in to this Starwars stuff, is that bad?

[SplnterCellJedi]

Originally posted by Abaddon

Dude, the FX5200 is basically a GF4 MX. Plus most Radeons support full functionality of Directx 9 unlike nvidia... and Radeons have far superior directx 9.0 performance too. The Geforce 4 mx 440 PCI isn't going to get great performance, but it should suffice in SWG. Personally I wouldn't waste anymore than 50 dollars on a PCI card anyway...

 

well ok since u think everything about all the graphic cards on the market go get the specs and compare and see how similiar the Geforce FX 5200 and the MX 440 is then come back and post them to we can see how good they match. do not get the MX its alot slower then any FX and especially the TI go with either one of those any kind of TI or FX and it should run alot better then if u got a MX those have been out for a while and they dont support Direct 9 like all the FX's do

[Abaddon]

The MX series and FX 5200 are both classified as "Value-Series" by nvidia.

 

Here is some techincal data (which is confusing because nvidia doesn't have a standard, so one card fill rate is measured differently.

 

FX 5200

Memory Bandwidth: 10.4GB/sec (same as Ti 4600 @ 8x AGP)

Fill rate: 1.3 billion texel/sec

Vertices per second: 81 million/sec

 

MX 460 (4x AGP)

Memory Bandwidth: 8.8GB/sec

Fill rate: 1.2 billion texel/sec

Triangles per second: 38 million/sec

 

For comparsion

 

Ti 4200 (4x AGP)

Memory Bandwidth: up to 8GB/sec (I have no idea why its less)

Fill rate: 4 billion AA samples/sec

Vertices per second: 113 million/sec

 

Besides the crappy memory performance of the ti 4200 it kicks the ass of the FX 5200 and the ti 4800 (ti 4200 with 8X AGP) lengthens the gap even more)

 

the FX 5200 is only .1 billion texels/sec more than the MX 460 (4x AGP), however it does have more the double the vertices per second. This score is definitely less than the ti4200.

 

I take my comment that its basically a MX, but its definitely not a gaming card. It does have a lot of features that the MX does not. As far as benchmarking the card behaves oddly. Sometimes the cards beats the ti4200 by 35% and sometimes it loses by almost 60% and something they are about equal. Personally, now, I would rate the the FX 5200 just above the GF3 Ti 200

 

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/print_article.asp?current_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=1208

 

This site is ok about benchmarking the fx 5200, however it does a lot of tests the MX series cannot handle, because they don't have the right features.

 

Again the FX 5200 is classified as a VALUE card and its about 55 USD. My card the ti 4600 (4x AGP) has no contest with this card unless your talking about pure directx 9 performance (ex. 3DMark03 benchmarking).

 

*NOTE* The previous benchmarking was done with AGP versions of the GPU/VPUs

 

BTW: SWG seems to rely more more SYSTEM RAM and CPU performance than it does with GPU/VPU performance although having a better graphics card will help.