What I am curious about is this. My company purchased several new computers,
all XP Pro. with GeForce FX5200 video cards. This are, to my understanding,
high end cards use for gaming systems. My boss is under the impression that
this with assist in the processing on the whole computer. We had to have our
computers built with older AMD Athlon CPU because we still run some DOS based
programs and these programs run slower on newer chips.

So, does his theory hold true? To my knowledge, I don't believe it works
this way.

Thanks.

Zach wrote:

> What I am curious about is this. My company purchased several new computers,
> all XP Pro. with GeForce FX5200 video cards. This are, to my understanding,
> high end cards use for gaming systems. My boss is under the impression that
> this with assist in the processing on the whole computer. We had to have our
> computers built with older AMD Athlon CPU because we still run some DOS based
> programs and these programs run slower on newer chips.
>
> So, does his theory hold true? To my knowledge, I don't believe it works
> this way.
>
> Thanks.
>


Sure...in their day, the GeForce FX5200 video cards might
have been described as high-end. Today, they are just the
run-of-the-mill, average video cards, somewhat dated. And
fast video cards might improve systems running with slow
CPU's but the better alternative would have been to add
more RAM as well as updating with faster CPU's.

And as for old DOS applications, keep them running in well-
preserved and maintained DOS machines or upgrade to Windows
versions of same.

The FX5200s were never high-end gaming video cards!


"Ghostrider" <-00-@fitron.142> wrote in message
news:erK8EN$3FHA.2816@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> Zach wrote:
>
>> What I am curious about is this. My company purchased several new
>> computers, all XP Pro. with GeForce FX5200 video cards. This are, to my
>> understanding, high end cards use for gaming systems. My boss is under
>> the impression that this with assist in the processing on the whole
>> computer. We had to have our computers built with older AMD Athlon CPU
>> because we still run some DOS based programs and these programs run
>> slower on newer chips. So, does his theory hold true? To my knowledge,
>> I don't believe it works this way.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>
> Sure...in their day, the GeForce FX5200 video cards might
> have been described as high-end. Today, they are just the
> run-of-the-mill, average video cards, somewhat dated. And
> fast video cards might improve systems running with slow
> CPU's but the better alternative would have been to add
> more RAM as well as updating with faster CPU's.
>
> And as for old DOS applications, keep them running in well-
> preserved and maintained DOS machines or upgrade to Windows
> versions of same.

But that's the problem. These programs, or the macros that run on these
programs, take longer to process on newer, faster, CPU's. Or at least that
is what they think here from their testing.

I have seen them run one program, a lotus 3.4 macro, that took sever minutes
to run on the older AMD chip. On a new computer with a newer chip, the same
program took over 11 minutes.

Any ideas of what I can do about this?

Thanks again.


"Ghostrider" wrote:

>
> Zach wrote:
>
> > What I am curious about is this. My company purchased several new computers,
> > all XP Pro. with GeForce FX5200 video cards. This are, to my understanding,
> > high end cards use for gaming systems. My boss is under the impression that
> > this with assist in the processing on the whole computer. We had to have our
> > computers built with older AMD Athlon CPU because we still run some DOS based
> > programs and these programs run slower on newer chips.
> >
> > So, does his theory hold true? To my knowledge, I don't believe it works
> > this way.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>
> Sure...in their day, the GeForce FX5200 video cards might
> have been described as high-end. Today, they are just the
> run-of-the-mill, average video cards, somewhat dated. And
> fast video cards might improve systems running with slow
> CPU's but the better alternative would have been to add
> more RAM as well as updating with faster CPU's.
>
> And as for old DOS applications, keep them running in well-
> preserved and maintained DOS machines or upgrade to Windows
> versions of same.
>

Yves Leclerc wrote:

> The FX5200s were never high-end gaming video cards!
>
>

You're too kind. I will not be that sarcastic anymore.
<:-))

Well, if you look at my post, I did say to my knowledge. Also, why even
write anything if you are not going to offer any advice or suggestions. Or
do you just enjoy correcting people all the time.

"Yves Leclerc" wrote:

> The FX5200s were never high-end gaming video cards!
>
>
> "Ghostrider" <-00-@fitron.142> wrote in message
> news:erK8EN$3FHA.2816@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> > Zach wrote:
> >
> >> What I am curious about is this. My company purchased several new
> >> computers, all XP Pro. with GeForce FX5200 video cards. This are, to my
> >> understanding, high end cards use for gaming systems. My boss is under
> >> the impression that this with assist in the processing on the whole
> >> computer. We had to have our computers built with older AMD Athlon CPU
> >> because we still run some DOS based programs and these programs run
> >> slower on newer chips. So, does his theory hold true? To my knowledge,
> >> I don't believe it works this way.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sure...in their day, the GeForce FX5200 video cards might
> > have been described as high-end. Today, they are just the
> > run-of-the-mill, average video cards, somewhat dated. And
> > fast video cards might improve systems running with slow
> > CPU's but the better alternative would have been to add
> > more RAM as well as updating with faster CPU's.
> >
> > And as for old DOS applications, keep them running in well-
> > preserved and maintained DOS machines or upgrade to Windows
> > versions of same.
>
>
>

=?Utf-8?B?WmFjaA==?= wrote:
>
> What I am curious about is this. My company purchased several new computers,
> all XP Pro. with GeForce FX5200 video cards. This are, to my understanding,
> high end cards use for gaming systems. My boss is under the impression that
> this with assist in the processing on the whole computer. We had to have our

If you use lots of colors and need high resolutions w/lots of colors
then they should improve performance, even if not for a game system.

> computers built with older AMD Athlon CPU because we still run some DOS based
> programs and these programs run slower on newer chips.
>
> So, does his theory hold true? To my knowledge, I don't believe it works
> this way.
>
> Thanks.

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

"Zach" <zach@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:10C8BB13-DA77-4493-89D6-10D6B47BF7EB@microsoft.com...
> But that's the problem. These programs, or the macros that run on these
> programs, take longer to process on newer, faster, CPU's. Or at least
> that
> is what they think here from their testing.
>
> I have seen them run one program, a lotus 3.4 macro, that took sever
> minutes
> to run on the older AMD chip. On a new computer with a newer chip, the
> same
> program took over 11 minutes.
>
> Any ideas of what I can do about this?
>

I can't think of anything that could be programmed in a Lotus macro that
couldn't be re-written to run in a newer spreadsheet. Instead of wasting a
lot of time and money trying to get hardware to run outdated software spend
the money to get the software ported to something newer. What is going to
happen when the AMD chips you are using are no longer available? Next time
you need to upgrade you'll have to do what you are doing now all over again.
You are upgrading the wrong part of the overall package.

Kerry

Gaming cards only increase the speed that textures and lighting effects are
rendered for 3-D objects in games and some modeling applications (when the
objects are viewed live).

Entry level graphic chipsets have been able to display high resolutions and
high colors for Windows and it's applications for some time now, so the CPU
is no longer taxed for such work as it may have been in the past (as in
during Windows 3.1).