...which is overkill since your eye can never see more than 30 FPS. So whether it gets 30,60,90 or 590 it doesn't matter. As long as it does not slip below the 30 FPS threshold - that's where your eye begins to pick up jerking or hesitating in the graphics.
I run an AMD Athlon 1.333 GHz with a GeForce 3 and 384 MB of non-DDR memory and have no probs at all. The only games that have even taxed the system a bit are Splinter Cell - my card did not like rendering the light maps on the walls and such, and Flight Sim 2004 - which is because the 3D engine pretty much sucks. I have non-DDR memory because DDR came out shortly after building my rig....ahhh I coulda screamed - but that's life.
My point is you can do a hell of a lot with a little. Run your system lean and mean with minimal background crapola running and you should be fine with any newer card. But beware that any NVidia card with MX in the designation is going to be slower than the non-MX version. MX is the bargain card with lower memory bandwith and slower clock speed, but any NVidia card on a relatively new system will kick major butt.
That's also incorect. The eye can see MUCH more than 30 FPS, but 30 FPS at minimum is ideal for gaming, much less and it will become noticeably jerky.
Take for example your Windows desktop. Run it at 60 FPS. OK, not too bad, but many windows and items will have a noticeable "flicker" to them. Increase the refresh rate, to at least 72 or so. The flicker will be decreased by alot. For SOME people this flicker does not completely go away until after 100 FPS... yes, some people can see at greater than 100 "FPS" (or course that's not the way the human eye actually works).
The human eye at 30 FPS is just a myth...
Here's just ONE link to a little more about this: clicky
Oh, and P.S. Your GeForce 3 is FASTER than a Fx5200... no, I am not joking.
I'm trying to spend less than 150, but I would be willing to go for around 200.