How does Geforce 1 compare with 2,3,4?

[xander5000]

i'm building a new rig (kr7a, xp 1900, gxp 20gig [free from ibm] and with some other goodies).
the only thing i haven't replaced is my video card since i ran out of $$$$$$.
i have an elsa erazor x (geforce1).
how does it compare to what's out now?
especially, is there a difference in 2d performance because i work with alot of business apps and hardly game much anymore.
thankx

 

[Mylle]

if you are only using it for business apps, dont even bother exchanging it.

the DDR ran version of the gf1 is about as fast as a gf2 mx

mylle

 

[Generalen]

As long as you don't try to play games at 1600x1200 resolution, your Geforce 1 will be sufficent.

 

[AluminumStudios]

I've never cared for the visual quality of Nvidia's older products. In terms of 2d clarity, scaling and filtering (features used when playing back video) I think they are pretty poor and never liked them.

If you are concrned with 2d clarity then Matrox or ATI are the ones to look at. Matrox has been sucking lately with no 3d power and increasingly crappy drivers (I have a Marvel G400) so that puts ATI at the top of my list when I go for a new card.

 

[VBboy]

LOL.

Yeah... Well... why don't you just put a Trident VGA in there? It's kind of pointless to build your kind of PC and get a crappy videocard. Because for office apps there is almost no difference between 1 and 1.6 Ghz. I would be surprised if you got above 30 fps in any new game (Quake3 is NOT a new game) at 800x600.

Buy something on Ebay =)

 

[BuckNaked]

The Elsa cards had much better 2D than most of the other GF1 cards... I still have the Elsa X2 (DDR) in another machine....

Dave

 

[nightowl]

For 2D applications your Erazor X will be fine. Elsa's cards are a notch above the rest in terms of quality as most of their cards are made for the workplace not the gamer. My Erazor X2 is still in use at home and the pitcure quality is fine.