Geforce 4 video card.

[Alex88]

Hi,

I'm interested in buying a GF4MX420-V64.

I have a K7VMA motherboard made by ECS. I know that the motherboard I have has a 4xAGP slot that can be used/accessed rather than the onboard graphics that I'm "running" with now. I'll have to change something in the bios I think.

Just wondering if this card will work with this board. I got worried when I went to the NVIDIA site and it said it was a notebook sales place. I've found that customer support at ECS is never as quick as this site.

(PC Guide, Rules!) Kissing up a little bit? You bet!

Thanks in advance,

Alex Johnson

[evalroy]

Alex88,

Welcome the PC Guide. I do not see any reason why this card would not work with this board. I am curious as to what OS you are using. This may be a bigger factor in whether the card will work. Some OS like NT and 2000 are somewhat picky about the cards they support. NVIDIA tends to have better driver support than other cards so I would guess that the card should work just fine.

Good luck,
ER

[Alex88]

Thanks for the reply. I was beginning to get worried.

I have Windows 98 SE. That's all that I like, XP and 2000 are just a pain.

I was a bit concerned when I read this article.

http://www17.tomshardware.com/mainbo.../kt333-03.html

So check that out, is it that much of a problem in your mind?

[alex666]

Alex88, welcome to the PC Guide.

[ranchdog]

As the article at THG stated
the size (dimensions) of the
GF4 will prevent it from being
used on some Mboards.

Browse here and someone has
probably got the answer.

http://www.amdforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=24

Take it to the Bank....
the GF4 will draw some juice.


Pops.

[evalroy]

Alex88,

Looks like the card will fit the board okay, the AGP slot is offset from the IDE connectors and other motherboard components. I am not sure but I do not think that the MX version of the GeForce 4 will have as great a power requirement as the Titanium version noted by Tom's Hardware. I did some digging on you card at Tom's and you may find it useful, check this link -

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi...force4-06.html

Why the GeForce4MX? What do you plan to use the card for? Games, general use? Just curious.

Good luck
ER

[saphalline]

Originally posted by Alex88
I'm interested in buying a GF4MX420-V64.

Just some buying advice here, but I recommend moving up to a GF4 MX 440 instead. Core speeds aside, the 420 has 166MHz of regular ol' SDRAM, and the 440 has 200MHz of DDR RAM which is like 400MHz of regular ol' SDRAM. That's more than twice the RAM bandwidth! The price isn't much more, either, about $8-10 more for a 440 vs a 420.

I think it's worth it, personally, and it would make the most sense if you have your heart set on a GF4 MX type card (or anything in that price range).

Of course, if you also swing towards ATI, the Radeon 9000/Pro is some serious competition in the sub-$100 vid card market. Full DX8 support (vertex shading), Z-buffer improvements, and occlusion culling just pummel the GF4 MX series - and for only $25 more, too! Kinda like some of the cheaper GF3 Ti 200's (the ones that squeak under the $100 limit).

Nice to set a price limit, tho, 'cause there's always something better for just a little bit more...

[Alex88]

Thanks again guys

I'm going to get it for $53. Heh,

Evalroy, if you have ever played the online game Counter-Strike, you know that nine frames per second makes it so you don't even see the guy before you are dead. So mainly the G4 is for gaming, but some is also for general use.

saphalline, I kind of expected someone would recommend a better card. Doesn't the human eye detect no changes after 40 fps? Wouldn't that make it so a radeon 9000 be equal to in visible fps with the G4?

[saphalline]

Well... sorta kinda. Depends on what games you play. Yeah, my current vid card is a GF2 Ti, so about equal to a GF4 MX 440. No complaints for games like UT, Empire Earth, NOLF, The Sims, etc. They all stay well above 40 fps.

Then I have borderline games like Medal of Honor, C&C Renegade, Max Payne, etc. These games usually stay above 30 fps, but only in resolutions of about 1024 x 768. And when things get busy, they slow to a crawl! Max Payne, big room, lots of fire - can we say "slide show"?

Then I have the demanding games like Dungeon Siege and UT 2003. Now we're talking 800 x 600 in 16-bit color, and my system still struggles to stay above 25 fps. Dungeon Siege is just one of those games with more polygons in one scene than an entire level of NOLF! UT 2003 on the other hand has more polys in one pillar than an entire level of NOLF!! These games are just screaming at me to upgrade, then overclock!

Of course, if you lean more towards the "no complaints" type of games, or you use lower resolutions, you can get buy with a 420. Heck, it's your money, not mine, so technically you can buy whatever you want.

In the end, it's all about the fun...

[videobruce]

Originally posted by Alex88
I have Windows 98 SE. That's all that I like, XP and 2000 are just a pain.

98SE is outdated for driver support and compatability especially for something as important as a video card!

I have been running 2k for over a year and only saw a blue screen twice! It use to be twice a week with 98SE/ME! Rarely do I have to re-boot. Programs that I had problems with in 98/ME run fine here!

It is very stable and with sp3 you are up to date as good as XP and without the spyware/product activation!