Least expensive Geforce (with dual output) to replace GF2 ..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra doesn't have
dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and computer monitor.) I
want to get another Geforce, but now that the number system is all screwy,
with "higher number" cards being slower than "lower number" cards, I'm
completely confused about how all the currently available cards stack up
against each other. I need dual output capabilities, but I DON'T want to go
backwards in speed. What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently
available (GF3's are no longer readily available) that will have dual
output and is at least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?

Thanks,

Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in
news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com:

> I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra
> doesn't have dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and
> computer monitor.) I want to get another Geforce, but now that the
> number system is all screwy, with "higher number" cards being slower
> than "lower number" cards, I'm completely confused about how all the
> currently available cards stack up against each other. I need dual
> output capabilities, but I DON'T want to go backwards in speed.
> What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently available (GF3's
> are no longer readily available) that will have dual output and is at
> least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?

I don't know what the "Cheapest" card is but I think you'd be happy with
any of the Ti4x00 line, 4200, 4400, 4600. They are cheaper now since the
FX line (5x00) came out but they are still great performers. I have an MSI
Ti4200 and it's been reliable, has a decent, quiet fan it, and the Nvidia
drivers have been OK for the most part, I'm using 53.03. These cards are
half price what they used to be less than a year ago so I think they are a
decent buy. Right now, my system is limited more by my CPU (dual P3-800)
than the video card.

Right now, for dual output, I've got one going to a Viewsonic PF815 22"
monitor, and the other goes to my television set. I'm using video clone
mode right now to watch vids but I've also used the spanned desktop and it
worked OK too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Get a 5900XT (or SE) $200 or under. Dual output with the DVI adapter.
www.newegg.com


"Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra doesn't
have
> dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and computer monitor.) I
> want to get another Geforce, but now that the number system is all screwy,
> with "higher number" cards being slower than "lower number" cards, I'm
> completely confused about how all the currently available cards stack up
> against each other. I need dual output capabilities, but I DON'T want to
go
> backwards in speed. What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently
> available (GF3's are no longer readily available) that will have dual
> output and is at least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Larry
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

For a more important system I'd agree, but this is a "secondary" system, so
it's just not worth spending $200 on it right now. I just need the lowest
price card that is not slower than the GF2Ultra, but that has dual output
(TV and computer monitor.) I see cards below $80, but I can't figure out
how they compare to the GF2Ultra in terms of speed.

Thanks again,

Larry

"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:keofc.635$qH1.478@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> Get a 5900XT (or SE) $200 or under. Dual output with the DVI adapter.
> www.newegg.com
>
>
> "Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra doesn't
> have
> > dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and computer monitor.)
I
> > want to get another Geforce, but now that the number system is all
screwy,
> > with "higher number" cards being slower than "lower number" cards, I'm
> > completely confused about how all the currently available cards stack up
> > against each other. I need dual output capabilities, but I DON'T want
to
> go
> > backwards in speed. What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently
> > available (GF3's are no longer readily available) that will have dual
> > output and is at least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html


"Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra doesn't
have
> dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and computer monitor.) I
> want to get another Geforce, but now that the number system is all screwy,
> with "higher number" cards being slower than "lower number" cards, I'm
> completely confused about how all the currently available cards stack up
> against each other. I need dual output capabilities, but I DON'T want to
go
> backwards in speed. What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently
> available (GF3's are no longer readily available) that will have dual
> output and is at least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Larry
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Thanks for the link, but since it doesn't include the GF2 Ultra, it doesn't
tell me what I need to know -- i.e. it doesn't say how the GF2 Ultra
compares. If someone knows where the GF2 Ultra would fit into these
charts -- or better yet if someone knows of this sort of comparison that
DOES include the GF2 Ultra -- I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Larry

"Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:W8pfc.552$Z64.265@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html
>
>
> "Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra doesn't
> have
> > dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and computer monitor.)
I
> > want to get another Geforce, but now that the number system is all
screwy,
> > with "higher number" cards being slower than "lower number" cards, I'm
> > completely confused about how all the currently available cards stack up
> > against each other. I need dual output capabilities, but I DON'T want
to
> go
> > backwards in speed. What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently
> > available (GF3's are no longer readily available) that will have dual
> > output and is at least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Unfortunately, the GF4 Ti4x00 cards are not that prevalent anymore, and the
ones that I can find are not as inexpensive as I had hoped. How do the GF4
MX440 cards compare in speed and features to the GF2 Ultra?

Thanks,

Larry

"Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
news:Xns94CBD65AED989grinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
> "Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in
> news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com:
>
> > I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra
> > doesn't have dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and
> > computer monitor.) I want to get another Geforce, but now that the
> > number system is all screwy, with "higher number" cards being slower
> > than "lower number" cards, I'm completely confused about how all the
> > currently available cards stack up against each other. I need dual
> > output capabilities, but I DON'T want to go backwards in speed.
> > What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently available (GF3's
> > are no longer readily available) that will have dual output and is at
> > least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?
>
> I don't know what the "Cheapest" card is but I think you'd be happy with
> any of the Ti4x00 line, 4200, 4400, 4600. They are cheaper now since the
> FX line (5x00) came out but they are still great performers. I have an
MSI
> Ti4200 and it's been reliable, has a decent, quiet fan it, and the Nvidia
> drivers have been OK for the most part, I'm using 53.03. These cards are
> half price what they used to be less than a year ago so I think they are a
> decent buy. Right now, my system is limited more by my CPU (dual P3-800)
> than the video card.
>
> Right now, for dual output, I've got one going to a Viewsonic PF815 22"
> monitor, and the other goes to my television set. I'm using video clone
> mode right now to watch vids but I've also used the spanned desktop and it
> worked OK too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I actually found this review that compared these very cards:

http://www.planetsavage.net/hardware/palitgf4/index.shtml

It looks like these cards are fairly close in speed. Unfortunately, it only
does a couple tests, so I'd still be interested in seeing other information
on this -- particularly with DX8 or DX9 tests.

Larry

"Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zHsfc.14214$GU.5385@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Unfortunately, the GF4 Ti4x00 cards are not that prevalent anymore, and
the
> ones that I can find are not as inexpensive as I had hoped. How do the
GF4
> MX440 cards compare in speed and features to the GF2 Ultra?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Larry
>
> "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
> news:Xns94CBD65AED989grinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
> > "Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in
> > news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com:
> >
> > > I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra
> > > doesn't have dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and
> > > computer monitor.) I want to get another Geforce, but now that the
> > > number system is all screwy, with "higher number" cards being slower
> > > than "lower number" cards, I'm completely confused about how all the
> > > currently available cards stack up against each other. I need dual
> > > output capabilities, but I DON'T want to go backwards in speed.
> > > What's the lowest priced Geforce that is currently available (GF3's
> > > are no longer readily available) that will have dual output and is at
> > > least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?
> >
> > I don't know what the "Cheapest" card is but I think you'd be happy with
> > any of the Ti4x00 line, 4200, 4400, 4600. They are cheaper now since
the
> > FX line (5x00) came out but they are still great performers. I have an
> MSI
> > Ti4200 and it's been reliable, has a decent, quiet fan it, and the
Nvidia
> > drivers have been OK for the most part, I'm using 53.03. These cards are
> > half price what they used to be less than a year ago so I think they are
a
> > decent buy. Right now, my system is limited more by my CPU (dual P3-800)
> > than the video card.
> >
> > Right now, for dual output, I've got one going to a Viewsonic PF815 22"
> > monitor, and the other goes to my television set. I'm using video clone
> > mode right now to watch vids but I've also used the spanned desktop and
it
> > worked OK too.
>
>

 

[teqguy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Larry L. wrote:

> Thanks for the link, but since it doesn't include the GF2 Ultra, it
> doesn't tell me what I need to know -- i.e. it doesn't say how the
> GF2 Ultra compares. If someone knows where the GF2 Ultra would fit
> into these charts -- or better yet if someone knows of this sort of
> comparison that DOES include the GF2 Ultra -- I'd really appreciate
> it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Larry
>
> "Irrat8ed" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:W8pfc.552$Z64.265@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html
> >
> >
> > "Larry L." <larryalREMOVE2REPLY@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:n9mfc.10817$_I3.3774@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > > I need a new Geforce card to replace a GF2 Ultra since my ultra
> > > doesn't
> > have
> > > dual output (i.e. I can't view output on both TV and computer
> > > monitor.)
> I
> > > want to get another Geforce, but now that the number system is all
> screwy,
> > > with "higher number" cards being slower than "lower number"
> > > cards, I'm completely confused about how all the currently
> > > available cards stack up against each other. I need dual output
> > > capabilities, but I DON'T want
> to
> > go
> > > backwards in speed. What's the lowest priced Geforce that is
> > > currently available (GF3's are no longer readily available) that
> > > will have dual output and is at least as fast as the GF2 Ultra?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> >
> >






As far as overclocking, my MSI-8888 440MX-8x was able to hit 490/790.

One good thing I liked about it was ViVo(video in/video out), something
you don't see much on the FX line.... gave me much better video capture
than any PCI card.


The memory bandwidth was in the range of the 460MX because of that
overclock, but still couldn't perform anywhere near the Ti4200 once it
was overclocked.



If you're looking for a budget dual monitor setup, I'd hate to say it
but right now ATI might be the way to go.
You can get a better performing card for less, possibly dip into the
budget 9xxx series for around $120.



Your other option is to get a cheap PCI card, hook up a TV to that, and
save up for the Nvidia 6xxx series... which is probably the best thing
to do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> Your other option is to get a cheap PCI card, hook up a TV to that, and
> save up for the Nvidia 6xxx series... which is probably the best thing
> to do.

The system in question has no available PCI slots, so that won't work. If
this was my primary system, I'd say the new Geforce would be a good idea,
but for a secondary system it's just not worth ANY extra cost. I see
MX440's selling for $50, which is why I'm curious to know how these compare
to the GF2 Ultra. Ti4200's are typically twice this much. My only speed
concern at this point is that the new card is not any slower than what's
already in the machine. As long as it's equal to or faster than a GF2
Ultra, I'm okay, and the less I can spend this at this point, the better.

Thanks again,

Larry

 

[teqguy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Larry L. wrote:

> > Your other option is to get a cheap PCI card, hook up a TV to that,
> > and save up for the Nvidia 6xxx series... which is probably the
> > best thing to do.
>
> The system in question has no available PCI slots, so that won't
> work. If this was my primary system, I'd say the new Geforce would
> be a good idea, but for a secondary system it's just not worth ANY
> extra cost. I see MX440's selling for $50, which is why I'm curious
> to know how these compare to the GF2 Ultra. Ti4200's are typically
> twice this much. My only speed concern at this point is that the new
> card is not any slower than what's already in the machine. As long
> as it's equal to or faster than a GF2 Ultra, I'm okay, and the less I
> can spend this at this point, the better.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Larry






Check out these:

http://www.pcclub.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=A9602729#


http://www.pcclub.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=A9602985#

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Will the AGP 8x cards work okay in the old AGP 1.0 (1x/2x) slots? I know
that the motherboard will work with both a GF3 Ti200 and a GF4 Ti4600, but
both these cards are AGP 4x max, and I'm unclear what the implications are
of using the newer 8x cards in older motherboards. I've read some posts
saying that if the card says "2x/4x/8x" it's okay, but if it only says
"4x/8x" it's a problem (with older motherboards). Is this true?

Thanks again,

Larry

"teqguy" <teqguy@techie.com> wrote in message
news:9WUfc.1651$L31.768@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Larry L. wrote:
>
> > > Your other option is to get a cheap PCI card, hook up a TV to that,
> > > and save up for the Nvidia 6xxx series... which is probably the
> > > best thing to do.
> >
> > The system in question has no available PCI slots, so that won't
> > work. If this was my primary system, I'd say the new Geforce would
> > be a good idea, but for a secondary system it's just not worth ANY
> > extra cost. I see MX440's selling for $50, which is why I'm curious
> > to know how these compare to the GF2 Ultra. Ti4200's are typically
> > twice this much. My only speed concern at this point is that the new
> > card is not any slower than what's already in the machine. As long
> > as it's equal to or faster than a GF2 Ultra, I'm okay, and the less I
> > can spend this at this point, the better.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Check out these:
>
> http://www.pcclub.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=A9602729#
>
>
> http://www.pcclub.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=A9602985#

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> I've read some posts saying that if the card says "2x/4x/8x" it's
> okay, but if it only says "4x/8x" it's a problem (with older
> motherboards). Is this true?

AGP 2x slots supply a different voltage to the card than AGP 4x and AGP 8x
slots do. If the card is not built to be compatible with the 2x slot (or
4x for that matter), bad things can happen.