Which is a better video card?
Answer:
OK, dally a second here...
First of all, the 9250 competed near Nvidia's GeForce 3 cards. This was released at a time when the Radeon begin to pick up more steam. The 9250 was more of a budget card, but the mx 4000 be even worse. It was released almost 2 years in advance. The term "mx" be to "GT" like Celeron is to Pentium.
No doubt that the 9250 is the better card of the two. However resembling someone else said, don't waste any money on any. There are a lot of virtuous modern cards available for well beneath $100. Check this article guide for suggestions in respectively price range:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/06/t...
Nvidia blows ATI out of the dampen, trust me on that...
Both are fine, each beside unique features!
for cards that weak, the Nvidia,
but..
why would you want to buy a card that old? you can spend similar to 50.00 more and get something surrounded by the Nvidia 6000 family w/ more memory..
no 9250 contained by this instance personally i resembling nvidia,*
I wouldn't trust him on that lol. I mean ya, nvidia have better stuff than radeon has, but a radeon card now is better than an nvidia from 2 years ago lol. You would have to do research on both cards, and not newly go by memory amount. I don't hold answer lol, I don't feel close to looking them up or anything, just unfolding you not to trust that guy.
They are both ok, but get what fits you motherboard.
the nvidia if you do not play Counter Strike or any Half Life product
using the Source engine
if you don't know what i'm discussion about afterwards get the nvidia
i come up with that nvidia has better graphics
Related Questions: