Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:25 amGot it on the games PC.
is it a good card?
1GB ram 2.00 GHZ Intel Celeron
Is that good?
is it a good card?
1GB ram 2.00 GHZ Intel Celeron
Is that good?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:25 amPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:38 amIt would have been on ok card in it's day, but now it's well outdated.
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 11:45 amChris Donaldson wrote: It would have been on OK card in it's day, but now it's well outdated.
it was an average card in its day, so it's well and truly outdated
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 12:16 pmYip, don't get it, or a celeron processor. Pentium or Athlon are the current in-thing.
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 4:58 pmnVidea MX440 (64mb) was like thier entry level 3D card, not bad in its day, but a little outclassed these days. Its final version was the MX4000 (128mb). Got one of those in one of my kids machines (AMD Athlon XP1800, 256 DDR333 Ram, 128mb MX4000 Vid Card), and he runs FS9 quite happily on that. Tends to chug a bit with real huge detailed sceneries, and real heavy AI around the busier International airports, but it runs the RealNZ sceneries ok, and other detailed sceneries from Aerosoft and Fly Tampa etc.
I really think you should be looking for something a little more modern than an a 64mb MX440, if you intend to use it for FS.
Lawrie.
I really think you should be looking for something a little more modern than an a 64mb MX440, if you intend to use it for FS.
Lawrie.
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:14 pmI have a G Force 2 64mb if you really want to waste your money 
Seriously if I am reading this right you want to put this card into a machine that has 1GB of Ram and runs on a 2.0 GHZ Intel Celeron Pentium 4 processor? I am gussing you meant a P4 considering you run FS2002 on it already.
The MX440 64mb would have been a top notch card 5 years ago but things have moved on quite considerably since. I would suggest the minimum you consider is 128mb card something like the A6600GT If you want to move on to FS9. As for running that rig with FSX well thats really open to debate but personally I would save my money for a bit longer until the bugs of Vista and FSX are ironed out and upgrade the machine.
No matter what you do within 3 months what ever you have will be out of date even if its the latest release. I saddens me to see the amount of Ejunk I have in my garage with PCs that have become obsolete and the parts are not worth salvaging even though the machines work.
Seriously if I am reading this right you want to put this card into a machine that has 1GB of Ram and runs on a 2.0 GHZ Intel Celeron Pentium 4 processor? I am gussing you meant a P4 considering you run FS2002 on it already.
The MX440 64mb would have been a top notch card 5 years ago but things have moved on quite considerably since. I would suggest the minimum you consider is 128mb card something like the A6600GT If you want to move on to FS9. As for running that rig with FSX well thats really open to debate but personally I would save my money for a bit longer until the bugs of Vista and FSX are ironed out and upgrade the machine.
No matter what you do within 3 months what ever you have will be out of date even if its the latest release. I saddens me to see the amount of Ejunk I have in my garage with PCs that have become obsolete and the parts are not worth salvaging even though the machines work.
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:45 pmI don't want to put it in. I just happen to have that card in a second hand computer that my brother uses for computer games
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:58 pmKelburn wrote:
1GB ram 2.00 GHZ Intel Celeron
Jeez that must explain my FPS problem. my Graphics are awesome for me, (see the screenshots forum to see my pics) but with ANY Ai at all my fps go down the loo. sometimes even in mutiplayer i have to do a restart to get over 12-15 FPS. btw I have a 1.6ghz pentium 4 (i think) that's all i know.
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 1:57 amCeleron will always give you troubles with fs9 or above ,its just that processor ,no matter what card you stick in it youll have capability probs ,good luck and dont upgrade that system to much be better buying better pc ,if lack of cash save it instead of upgrading
my 2 cents worth and sorry to be the man that said the bad words
my 2 cents worth and sorry to be the man that said the bad words
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 3:42 pmI have a 2.2GHz Celaron Processer, and its rubbish. I never hit more than 20FPS and get loads of blurries when flying fast aircraft. I've tried upgrading my video card lots of times, but at the end of the day, my processer couldn't handle high end graphic hardware.
A Celaron and Pentium in one?
and runs on a 2.0 GHZ Intel Celeron Pentium 4 processor?
A Celaron and Pentium in one?Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:00 pmTrolly wrote:and runs on a 2.0 GHZ Intel Celeron Pentium 4 processor?
I think he means a Celeron Processor which is based on the Pentium 4 (i.e. a Williamette or Northwood core).
But in any event as you say, Celerons are not built for gaming, they're built to be value for money.
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:29 pmCelerons are not built for gaming
True that! NFC Technology (where I bought my PC from) gave me the custom built rig that I'm still using, that included the crud 2.2GHz processor after I asked them for a "gaming system" three years ago. Instead I got one that is more efficient doing word processing. They could have at least given me a Pent 4.
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:50 amCelerons are not built for gaming
not exactly true... the 'OLD' celerons, like the 300A, were top notch for gaming... coz you could overclock them around 100%... with air cooling!!!
my 300A could outdo faster, more expensive P3's
the newer ones (ie. the gigahertz types) are poo.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:57 amTrolly wrote: I have a 2.2GHz Celaron Processer, and its rubbish. I never hit more than 20FPS and get loads of blurries when flying fast aircraft. I've tried upgrading my video card lots of times, but at the end of the day, my processer couldn't handle high end graphic hardware.and runs on a 2.0 GHZ Intel Celeron Pentium 4 processor?
Checked to see your reaction