The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Processor
AMD Athlon XP 2400 (2.0GHz)
Case
ATX 400W Alum Midi Tower (AMD/P4)
Motherboard
Asus A7V333 RAID Motherboard
RAM
512MB 333MHz DDR RAM
Hard Drive 1
Seagate 80GB Hard Drive 7,200RPM
CDRom 1
DVD-ROM Drive 16x Speed
CDRom 2
CD Re-Writer 48/12/40 BURN PROOF
Floppy Drive
1.44MB Floppy Disk Drive
Graphic Card
128MB DDR GeForce4 Ti4400 AGP
PCI Card 1
Creative SndBlaster Audigy 2 Player
Operating System
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Monitor
17 inch monitor VL700/17 FST .27 70kHz MPR2
£1,088.54 inc VAT
I've decided a 400W one would make it more stable... and a monitor so i have 2 17 inchers.... and use the CRT one with the new one and the rather not so flat one for this one im using ATM.
AMD Athlon XP 2400 (2.0GHz)
Case
ATX 400W Alum Midi Tower (AMD/P4)
Motherboard
Asus A7V333 RAID Motherboard
RAM
512MB 333MHz DDR RAM
Hard Drive 1
Seagate 80GB Hard Drive 7,200RPM
CDRom 1
DVD-ROM Drive 16x Speed
CDRom 2
CD Re-Writer 48/12/40 BURN PROOF
Floppy Drive
1.44MB Floppy Disk Drive
Graphic Card
128MB DDR GeForce4 Ti4400 AGP
PCI Card 1
Creative SndBlaster Audigy 2 Player
Operating System
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Monitor
17 inch monitor VL700/17 FST .27 70kHz MPR2
£1,088.54 inc VAT
I've decided a 400W one would make it more stable... and a monitor so i have 2 17 inchers.... and use the CRT one with the new one and the rather not so flat one for this one im using ATM.
Page:
Memorandum wrote:
> cipro wrote:
>
> The sound and graphics are in built, and so are crap, but I will
> transfer my GeForce MX 420 and Sound Blaster Audigy 2 from my old
> computer, so I should be left with quite a system.
>
> If you consider an MX420 graphics card contributing to your computer
> being "quite a system" you are seriously mistaken, it
> doesn't even use DDR (and the ones that do are 64 bit DDR so make no
> difference compared to 128 bit SDR)and secondly, doesn't support
> DirectX 8.
>
> A GeForce 3 is better than any GeForce 4 MX.
My GeForce MX 420 is merely temporary, as the Base Unit I'm buying doesn't come with a decent 3D card, just some crappy on built thing, and I wasn't planning on buying a bigger and better card as that would add to the cost, and cost is something I'm trying to keep as low as possible.
I'll upgrade to a better graphics card a few months after I buy my new computer, but for the time being, the MX 420 will have to do.
> cipro wrote:
>
> The sound and graphics are in built, and so are crap, but I will
> transfer my GeForce MX 420 and Sound Blaster Audigy 2 from my old
> computer, so I should be left with quite a system.
>
> If you consider an MX420 graphics card contributing to your computer
> being "quite a system" you are seriously mistaken, it
> doesn't even use DDR (and the ones that do are 64 bit DDR so make no
> difference compared to 128 bit SDR)and secondly, doesn't support
> DirectX 8.
>
> A GeForce 3 is better than any GeForce 4 MX.
My GeForce MX 420 is merely temporary, as the Base Unit I'm buying doesn't come with a decent 3D card, just some crappy on built thing, and I wasn't planning on buying a bigger and better card as that would add to the cost, and cost is something I'm trying to keep as low as possible.
I'll upgrade to a better graphics card a few months after I buy my new computer, but for the time being, the MX 420 will have to do.
Better than onboard ones anyway.....
cipro wrote:
> The sound and graphics are in built, and so are crap, but I will
> transfer my GeForce MX 420 and Sound Blaster Audigy 2 from my old
> computer, so I should be left with quite a system.
If you consider an MX420 graphics card contributing to your computer being "quite a system" you are seriously mistaken, it doesn't even use DDR (and the ones that do are 64 bit DDR so make no difference compared to 128 bit SDR)and secondly, doesn't support DirectX 8.
A GeForce 3 is better than any GeForce 4 MX.
> The sound and graphics are in built, and so are crap, but I will
> transfer my GeForce MX 420 and Sound Blaster Audigy 2 from my old
> computer, so I should be left with quite a system.
If you consider an MX420 graphics card contributing to your computer being "quite a system" you are seriously mistaken, it doesn't even use DDR (and the ones that do are 64 bit DDR so make no difference compared to 128 bit SDR)and secondly, doesn't support DirectX 8.
A GeForce 3 is better than any GeForce 4 MX.
Echelon_vs_Lightforce wrote:
> Fine card. Can't wait to see what nvidia do with the new GeForce FX.
First reports starting to appear, I heard something about 25000+ on 3d mark 2001, and have read one review thus far - shamelessly stolen from a maximumpc test of an Alienware beta system which included one of these cards, the results are below:
GeForce FX:
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 209fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 140fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 41fps
Radeon 9700 Pro:
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 147fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 119fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 45fps
You're welcome to believe as much or as little of these as you like, I'm quite aware that nVidia may well have ust chosen the benchmarks which best show off it's card (for example, why not 1280x968 4xAA, as many monitors can't take 1600x1200), so please don't flame me here with "That's rubbish, you suck, early benchmark, etc.", just reporting what I know.
Also be interesting to see how ATI react - some improvements to the r9700?
Full article at http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2003-01-03.html
> Fine card. Can't wait to see what nvidia do with the new GeForce FX.
First reports starting to appear, I heard something about 25000+ on 3d mark 2001, and have read one review thus far - shamelessly stolen from a maximumpc test of an Alienware beta system which included one of these cards, the results are below:
GeForce FX:
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 209fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 140fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 41fps
Radeon 9700 Pro:
Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 147fps
UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 119fps
3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 45fps
You're welcome to believe as much or as little of these as you like, I'm quite aware that nVidia may well have ust chosen the benchmarks which best show off it's card (for example, why not 1280x968 4xAA, as many monitors can't take 1600x1200), so please don't flame me here with "That's rubbish, you suck, early benchmark, etc.", just reporting what I know.
Also be interesting to see how ATI react - some improvements to the r9700?
Full article at http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2003-01-03.html
machine1 wrote:
> §n][pe® wrote:
> Graphic Card
> 128MB DDR GeForce4 Ti4400 AGP
>
> You should have gone with the Ti4600 especially with the processor and
> memory your getting as you'll see alot better results than with the
> Ti4400.
Should have gone with a Radeon 9700pro! fastest consumer gcard out there until the card nVidia hits the market.
And damn, the Radeon is fast, even high res/32bit colour and 8 tap AA doesn't phase this thing. And even more amazing, the Radeon drivers are not complete crAp, in fact, they are quite good. ATI must have finally hired some decent tech heads.
Fine card. Can't wait to see what nvidia do with the new GeForce FX.
> §n][pe® wrote:
> Graphic Card
> 128MB DDR GeForce4 Ti4400 AGP
>
> You should have gone with the Ti4600 especially with the processor and
> memory your getting as you'll see alot better results than with the
> Ti4400.
Should have gone with a Radeon 9700pro! fastest consumer gcard out there until the card nVidia hits the market.
And damn, the Radeon is fast, even high res/32bit colour and 8 tap AA doesn't phase this thing. And even more amazing, the Radeon drivers are not complete crAp, in fact, they are quite good. ATI must have finally hired some decent tech heads.
Fine card. Can't wait to see what nvidia do with the new GeForce FX.
Not really....
§n][pe® wrote:
> Graphic Card
> 128MB DDR GeForce4 Ti4400 AGP
You should have gone with the Ti4600 especially with the processor and memory your getting as you'll see alot better results than with the Ti4400.
> Graphic Card
> 128MB DDR GeForce4 Ti4400 AGP
You should have gone with the Ti4600 especially with the processor and memory your getting as you'll see alot better results than with the Ti4400.
Errr...my gfx card is better than yours.
lol... oh well ill be keeping my 17" monitor only had it fora year and its pretty good, i have a old 15" that still works so anyone who wants this one i can jsut give it to them and ill gladly use the new one for myself....
If that where my new PC, I'd smile at the specs, then cry at the price. My new comp is just a base unit, I'll be keeping my old printer, scanner and 17 inch monitor, as really don't need to replace them at this moment in time.
It comes with a:
2.2GHz Intel Celeron Processor
256 Mb DDRRAM (I'll stick in some more spare RAM to get it up to 512MB)
60 Gb Hard Drive
DVD/CDRW Drive
XP Home Operating system
The sound and graphics are in built, and so are crap, but I will transfer my GeForce MX 420 and Sound Blaster Audigy 2 from my old computer, so I should be left with quite a system.
All that for £580.
It comes with a:
2.2GHz Intel Celeron Processor
256 Mb DDRRAM (I'll stick in some more spare RAM to get it up to 512MB)
60 Gb Hard Drive
DVD/CDRW Drive
XP Home Operating system
The sound and graphics are in built, and so are crap, but I will transfer my GeForce MX 420 and Sound Blaster Audigy 2 from my old computer, so I should be left with quite a system.
All that for £580.
Page: