That nvidia is probably a TNT. Not sure if it's better than what you have. You haven't included enough information on that one.

Okay, the current card is a buiult in 4mb with another 4mb added to make it 8mb, I was wondering if this stock graphics card (it came out of a windows 2k tower) would be better then my current card is an ati rage pro intergrated.

dosquest wrote:

Okay, the current card is a buiult in 4mb with another 4mb added to make it 8mb, I was wondering if this stock graphics card (it came out of a windows 2k tower) would be better then my current card is an ati rage pro intergrated.

Sounds like an ATi Rage of some sort. I have a few machines with those built in. The TNT is probably going to be better. If it's an OEM board, which it sounds like, it could also be a Vanta which is a slower TNT with a narrower memory bus. You'll have to do your own benchmarking to determine which is faster unless someone else has done the comparison themselves. I don't have any TNT boards to test against my onboard ATi's.

TNT M64 is roughly similar in performance to TNT (except the Vanta, which was a lower clocked M64). You can kinda compare then to GF2MX vs GF1

Do you have any way of testing the card to verify its identity? From a blind guess from the memory configuration I'm gonna have to go with it being a TNT as well (or possibly also a TNT2 M64 or Vanta). Either way, it's going to be much better in terms of potential compatibility issues with hardware and software, as opposed to the ATI card.

Tetrium wrote:

You can kinda compare then to GF2MX vs GF1

*SDR

Pippy P. Poopypants wrote:

Do you have any way of testing the card to verify its identity? From a blind guess from the memory configuration I'm gonna have to go with it being a TNT as well (or possibly also a TNT2 M64 or Vanta). Either way, it's going to be much better in terms of potential compatibility issues with hardware and software, as opposed to the ATI card.

Google tells me it's a TNT