nice testing and cards you have there, specially the ultra Geforces 😎
yes I think the memory configuration on the 5200 only allows 256MB using the 128bit bus, if they wanted 64bits bus they had to use less memory chips, making it a 128 or 64MB card.

the MX4000 looks slow compared to the 2 Ultra mostly because of memory bandwidth (and PCI bus), I remember the older MX460 could beat any geforce 2 (including ultra) on 3dm01, specially with the overclocks

it would have been interesting to see the Nature results (well for the 5200 and higher anyway)

it was also interesting for me to compare with my 8400GS PCI
http://i59.tinypic.com/33ushsk.jpg
give the CPU difference, the 8400 PCI is a good bit faster than the 5200 even on DX7 games, I would be curious to see the GT4 result

Very nicely done!

.

obobskivich wrote:

I've heard good things about MX 440 and 460, but don't have one on-hand to test (I had an MX 440-8x but I have no idea where it went)

Funny, i've always heard horrible things about them, and having quite a few of them around it's easy to understand why. People at the time were shocked they they bought their geforce 4 variant and discovered they just bought a Direct X 7 card. But when it comes to Direct X 7 it's a hell of a good card.
As for the Geforce 6800 Ultra i always held in my memory as quite a leap when they were released, and you can see it in your Nature benchmark results when compared to your FX 5800 Ultra.
It would be quite interesting also to have there the benchmarks of a Geforce 3 ti500, Geforce ti 4200 and a Geforce 8400 GS PCI