NAh.
 
Try to get a cheap Gf4 with DDR, like the 460 or something. Wont break the bank and will play games rather nicely

Looking ahead for stuff like real DX 8 support and having some longevity on the graphics card, I'd get either a GeForce 3 Ti200, as it has DX8 support unlike the GF4MX which are just higher clocked GF2's. Or, if you're willing to wait a little, the GF4 Ti4200's will be out soon, and will be in the same neighborhood of $150-200, or less and be faster than the GF3 Ti500.
I know you said you're not an FPS freak, but I'd suggest going for something with DX 8 support that is newer in features, not just has a jacked up clock speed.
 
I'm not against the GF2 MX, but frankly, you could get a bigger bang if you went with something beefier to really show off that P4.

the ti 4200 would be a rahter nice choice for under 200

When is the damn thing coming out? The waiting drives me nuts...

Seeing as you only have a 450Mhz CPU a GF3 or above would largely be wasted. A GF2 MX (or possibly even a GF2 Ultra, Ti or GF4MX when the prices come down) will be more than adequate. If you plan to upgrade the CPU at a later date then by all means consider a faster card but as it stands dropping a GF3 or 4 into that rig will have the same effect as dropping a Ferrari V12 into the chassis of a Pinto.

I would get either the GeForce 3 Ti200, GeForce4 Ti4200, both are better buys than the GeForce 4 MX line of cards. You might be OK with a GeForce 2 Ti card as well but its feature set is not as good as the GF3 or GF4. I've got a GF2MX right now and its ok but I really can't play games past 800x600x32 and at 800 I have to disable some options like Trilinear, Anisotropic filtering and high texture detail to get consistent frame rates, this is on a 750 Mhz processor, on a 1.6 Ghz you could pust it a bit more but the video card is too pokey and has slow RAM so you won't like it when the game action gets heavy. I am only a casual gamer as well but I am really waiting for the Ti4200 cards.

Yeah the MX versions are usually watered down. It's best to go Ti either GeForce 3 or 4 Ti will do you good for a year or so. I got lucky and got my card for $80

I guess it all depends on how much gaming you do and how much money you have to spend. I have an Athlon 750, and I recently bought a GeForce2MX-400 with 64 MB to replace my aging TNT2 Ultra, and it runs every game I play at 1024 x 768, 32-bit color, in highest detail with more than acceptable frame rates.
 
I am very satisfied with it. I went with the MX because of budget constraints. I do a fair amount of gaming, playing mostly Ghost Recon / Desert Seige, Jedi Knight II, and Global Operations, and they all run fine. I wish I would have been able to afford a GF3, but I am happy with what I bought.
 
However, I am also aware that it's a rather short-term solution, and I will probably upgrade to a GF3 or 4 in the near future, once I upgrade to an Athlon XP CPU. However the MX-400 will probably run on the Athlon XP for a while after I get it until I rake up enought cash for the new vis card.
 
So it comes down to personal preference and budget. Yes, the GF2 will play all todays games, and even some of the new ones in the near future without much difficulty, but it won't support some of the more advanced DX 8.1 features.
 
So if money is really tight, a 64 MB GF2 MX should hold you out for a while, or wait a little longer till you get enought money for a low-end GF3. If money isn't an object, then you should get at least a hight-end GF3, and perhaps a GF 4.
 
Just stay away from the GeForce4 MX-440. It's more like a GeForce2.5 than anything else.
 
Cheers!

Crunchmeister....that was my thought exactly....
i now upgraded to pentium 4 1.6a and i did by the geforce 2 mx :
 
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX400 GPU
• AGP BUS or PCI
• 64MB
• 200MHz Core Clock
• 166MHz Memory Clock
• 350MHz RAMDAC
• API Support for DirectX, OpenGL ICD for Windows
• VGA Connector and TV/S-video Out*
 
 
Features
• 256-bit 3D and 2D graphics accelerator
• NVIDIA Shading Rasterizer
• Integrated Second Generation Transform and Lighting Engines
• 4 Texels per clock
• 32-bit color with 32-bit z/stencil
• Cube environment mapping
• DirectX and S3 texture compression
• High Definition Video Processor (HDVP)
• AGP 4X
 
i'm quite happy with it and as you said ..it is rather temporary until i have enough money to upgrade it...
 
 
QUESTION :
 
jedi knight II defaults to 60 hz ..... any solution ??

Like you said, you're not a fanatic who needs 100+ frames per second to be content. Neither am I. If I can run my games in 1024 x 768 with reasonable high detail at about 40 FPS, then I'm more than satisfied. I got an Abit Siluro with TV out, and it's been great. The visual quality is superb.
 
Besides, very few games will start using the advanced features on the GF4 anytime in the near future (8 - 12 months). By then, the GF5 (or whatever NVidia has on tap) will be out, and the GF 4 will be affordable.
 
Glad someone else sees it my way.

 
 
BTW - I overclock my card to 210 core / 187 memory and it runs great.

Quote:

QUESTION :

jedi knight II defaults to 60 hz ..... any solution ??

Grab a hold of the Nvidia Refresh Rate Fix Utility, it'll fix up the default refresh rate problem. It only works with Nvidia Reference drivers so install those instead of the one that came with the card, but if you need card specific features that the reference drivers do not enable you are stuck with the manufacturer drivers, however in JK2, bring down the console SHIFT+DEL and type r_DisplayRefresh "75" and then vid_restart. Or create a shortuct to JK2sp.exe and add this to it +set r_DisplayRefresh "75"

...the manufacturer itself says on its web site that there is no difference between its drivers and nvidia's....!!
 
where can i get hold of the Nvidia Refresh Rate Fix Utility ??
The Main (and old) Problem :
 
Windows XP Professional
Desktop Screen relosution - 1024x768 32bit 85Hz
Direct3D games Default to 75 Hz
OpenGl Games Default to 60 Hz...
 
Help anyone ?....

While the drivers aren't different the Nvidia Refresh Rate Fix Utility will not see manufacturer drivers as true Nvidia drivers. I tried this fix with Hercule's detonators and Elsa detonators and it doesn't work.
 
Go here for the fix, just search for it in a search engine:
http://www.planetquake.com/ztn/nvreffix/
 
As for 75 in Direct3D you might have the DirectX diagnostic refresh rate override enabled.

no ..i checked the DirectX diagnostic refresh rate and it is on default.
 
as for the drivers....they are copy paste from nvidia.

I have a g-force 2 mx400 with 64mb ram. I have no problem running anything 1024x768 32bit. I just finished Return to Castle Wolfenstein and the gf2mx400 was silky smooth. I would highly recommed it. The new gf4mx is just about as cheap though.

Just an added note, I found that the 23.11, 21.81, 14.1, 12.41, and 7.52 Detonators worked best on my GeForce 2 MX.

Windows XP Professional MSDN CORP + 49 pre-sp1 fixes + ie6 sp1 beta build 2800.1005
 
 
Graphics Card: Visiontek Nvidia Geforce2 MX400 T.V/s-video out 64mb
Driver Version: Visiontek 28.32
 
 
i use Visiontek drivers all the time and i get 100fps in Max Payne v1.05
Geforce Utily at Fast settings
 
1024*768*32bit*60hz

NTGAMEMAN...I GOT MINE FROM VISIONTEK TOO !!!
 
but they say that their driver is an exact copy of nvidia's driver ...that's why i installed the driver from nvidia's site.

I got an ASUS V7100 Pro, that is a GF2MX-400, 32MB, TVout...
Somehow that memory speed u posted (200 core/166 mem) doesnt match what I see in the Nvidia clock settings (control panel). For me its 200 core/200 mem... I usually overclock it to 210core/220mem for a bit more speed.
 
Running W2K Pro with the 21.83 Detonators...no problems whatsoever

I like Gainward and Hercules so far, tho Herc pulled out of doing Nvidia cards. Visiontek is becoming quite popular tho.
 
For drivers, I've found the best for me have been the 10.80's or the 21.81's. I used the 10.80's exclusively until the 21.81's came out and stuck with those since.