Does a graphics card have a direct effect on computer's performance? I currently have a AMD Athlon 3200XP 64bit processor, 1.25GB ram etc running the Windows Vista operating system.

However, the graphics card I have in the system at the moment is unfortunatly the Nvidia GeForce MX 440 128MB card. The reason I haven't upgraded this previously is because I'm not really a hardcore gamer, and the GC did a fine job on XP for what I needed it for.

What I'm wondering is whether or not that a graphics card being poor can slow your computer down, i wouldn't have thought it would have a great effect, but does anyone know otherwise?

Thanks :)

i don't beleve it dose at this moment in time. Nvidia is however working on hard/software that will let the pc use the GPU on the craphic card as another main prosessor.

An old GF4 MX card is perfect for just a bogstandard PC to potter about the net and doing some office work.

Yeah, I recently upgraded to Vista which is the only reason I'm going to get a new graphics card in the first place - for the Aero theme and to modernise that part of the computer. Saying that though, this computer's secondary to my main machine which I recently built.

It just puzzles me a little bit that this computer has more than reasonable spec for low - medium computer use, even with Vista - but at times seems to become rather slow, I was thinking that might be down to the graphics card overheating.

If your running Vista they you will benefit from a good card as it's a very graphical interface. Or turn all the fancy crap off.

Just read up on it a little and found out something that could make a graphics card effect performance.

I think the MX 440 relies alot of the CPU to process the graphical information, whereas the ATI Radeon 9550 seems to handle alot of this itself, which would speed the computer up.

For a budget of £40-50, what would be a good GFX card to get :)

Yeah, I recently upgraded to Vista which is the only reason I'm going to get a new graphics card in the first place - for the Aero theme and to modernise that part of the computer. Saying that though, this computer's secondary to my main machine which I recently built.

It just puzzles me a little bit that this computer has more than reasonable spec for low - medium computer use, even with Vista - but at times seems to become rather slow, I was thinking that might be down to the graphics card overheating.

It's vista mate, it eats PC's like crazy. I've read that people who think nothing of spending £600 on a graphic card found vista very slow on £3000 PC's.

My mom just bought a PC from PC world ( of all places) and it was supplied with Vista Basic and the thing is so slow for a brand new PC it's unreal. £440 she spent and it's slower then a £50 special with XP installed.

I know Vista needs minimum of 128mb of GPU ram or 256mb to get best results.

If i was in your shoes i'd keep the parts as is and put XP pro on.

Oh and does a PCI Express card fit into any modern PCI slot?

Sorry, graphics card is my weak point when it comes to computers.

Vista will also be smoother with 2Gb ram but your card is probbaly more of an issue.

a budget of £40-50, what would be a good GFX card to get :)

2nd hand geforce FX5950u or GF 6800/GT/Ultra, I have bought 3 FX5950u's of eBay for as little as £22 each and they all work very very well on Vista.

Thanks everyone - a great help as usual :D

Oh and does a PCI Express card fit into any modern PCI slot?

Sorry, graphics card is my weak point when it comes to computers.

no you need a PCI-X interface (it's like AGP but backwards) you can't drop a PCIX card into a white 32bit PCI slot.

no you need a PCI-X interface (it's like AGP but backwards) you can't drop a PCIX card into a white 32bit PCI slot.

I just remembered what the PCI-E slot looks like, sorry for the dumb question lol

I read, you have an Athlon 3200XP - you say 64bit, but the XP3200 is not 64bit, did you mean 3200 X2 ???

however, the gfx card you have isnt reccomended by vista and WILL seemingly slow your computer down because you are running vista on an OLD card... and especially if it is an XP and not an X2

I meant X2, my other PC runs a 64 bit card and I just got a little confused :P

no you need a PCI-X interface (it's like AGP but backwards)

No you don't.

PCI-Express is not the same as PCI-X.

You need a PCI-Express equipped motherboard to use a PCI-Express card.

To address the original question, your graphics card will have a bearing on how well the fancy Aero theme in Vista performs, which you could easily appreciate as an all-around slow-down.

My mom just bought a PC from PC world ( of all places) and it was supplied with Vista Basic and the thing is so slow for a brand new PC it's unreal. £440 she spent and it's slower then a £50 special with XP installed.

I know Vista needs minimum of 128mb of GPU ram or 256mb to get best results.


Why do PC World always sell PC's with the bare minimum of memory required ?
It's not like memory is expensive, my sister got a PC with XP on and 256Mb RAM, even Microsoft reccomend 1Gb. Adding more memory can make a huge change to PC performance as it removes the need to keep paging the memory.

Why do PC World always sell PC's with the bare minimum of memory required ?
It's not like memory is expensive, my sister got a PC with XP on and 256Mb RAM, even Microsoft reccomend 1Gb. Adding more memory can make a huge change to PC performance as it removes the need to keep paging the memory.

Yeh my mum got 512mb DDR2 (unknown bus speed), Vista needs 512mb min to run + the fact it's onboard GPU (ATI x200 PCIe somthing or other)with a min of 64mb you can select. So her machine is very slow.

Why do PC World always sell PC's with the bare minimum of memory required ?
It's not like memory is expensive, my sister got a PC with XP on and 256Mb RAM, even Microsoft reccomend 1Gb. Adding more memory can make a huge change to PC performance as it removes the need to keep paging the memory.

Not exactly....however much physical RAM you have Windows will continue to use the pagefile...unless of course you take the ill-advised step of dispensing with the pagefile altogether. I have 2GB RAM on this system and Windows still happily grabs a 1GB of disk space for the pagefile.

And memory is still expensive enough for PC World to shave the spec to increase their profits :)

its amazing, none of the computers mentioned are what i'd call slow, well, not until vista gets put on them.

if you got vista id go str8 for a Gforce8 thay start at around £30 and there dx10 so would last years iv got a Gforce4ti think 128gpu thingy agp 512memory (133) and plays games like down of war/winter/dark crusades, black hawk down and so on yes it strugels theses day and wornt play top new games but this pices of crap iv got was 1s top of the line the m8 of mine that built it was so jelous still makes me LOL to this day

http://www.microdirect.co.uk/productlister.aspx?n=2,12,57,739&n=3198

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?&groupid=701&catid=56&subid=912&sortby=priceAsc

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/home/

heh thanks for the advice guys. I decided to go for the ATi Radeon 9550 - it's working like a charm and does everything i need it to do :)

Hi,
Could anyone tell me how the Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 card stands nower days? I've had it for a few years just wondered if it's worth replacing (just doing so grudgingly as it cost me £80 back in the day lol!).

£80 is a budget card, so if it's a few years old as well then it's an old budget card.

Chances are that you need AGP (or even worse PCI) in which case you're going to be limited for options.

It's an AGP card, it was fresh out when I bought it 128mb cache I think. Could be wrong though. Sticking with the topic would it be any good with vista? although I'm not sure I like vista so will probably stick with xp lol.
I suppose what I really meant in my OP was would it be better than a new £70 motherboard's graphics?

I doubt it would be much cop with vista, not sure if it's on a par or worse than the modern on chip solutions.
If you can find an AGP card you could upgrade it for anywhere between £40 - £100, but it will still only be a budget card, although a lot faster than it is now.

id say if it still plays the games you like to play keep it if not get a new 1

and if you are getting vista id go str8 for a Gforce8 but as far i i know it only PCI-Xpress

i think you can only get up too a Gforce7 in AGP

i think you can only get up too a Gforce7 in AGP

True - I still have an AGP mobo, and recently updated to the BFG 7800GS which I thought was the fastest AGP card available. Sadly not - gainward do one that's sold as a 7800 but actually has the 7900 gpu on it. It's about £150, so not exactly cheap, but it should keep you going for a year/18 months or so (at least that's what I'm hoping for from mine).

True - I still have an AGP mobo, and recently updated to the BFG 7800GS which I thought was the fastest AGP card available. Sadly not - gainward do one that's sold as a 7800 but actually has the 7900 gpu on it. It's about £150, so not exactly cheap, but it should keep you going for a year/18 months or so (at least that's what I'm hoping for from mine).

1 year to 18 months SH@t im still on a Gforce4ti and that things years old

like a say b4 if it ant broke dont fix:loopy:

1 year to 18 months SH@t im still on a Gforce4ti and that things years old

like a say b4 if it ant broke dont fix:loopy:

Fair play. I like to play games though, and things like fear aren't too happy running on older kit. It depends what you want from your PC. This way I'll be able to play more recent games on mid settings for the next 18 months or so (hopefully) which is why I said what I did.

yep my card wornt play new games at all but plays the one i like dawn of war all3 joint ops ect.. i am thinking of a new card G6 i think not werth any more cash with this rig i got to go for a G7

i did forget to say i think i would have still gone for the BFG card as iv only heard good things about BFG.......................................