GeForce 2 MX 100/200 problem(?)

[wave]

I've got a AMD Athlon 1,4GHz Processor with 512MB DDR ram(pc2100). I've also got an GeForce 2 MX 100/200 (running at 4x AGP)with 64MB's of RAM. And I only get around 1600 3DMarks in 3DMark2001SE. I've seen several tests @ tomshardware.com, and they get around 2500 with a slightly better system. Why is my GeForce so damn Slow?

 

[cleeve]

Did you see the tests for a geforce2 MX or MX 400 maybe?

I believe the Geforce2 MX 200 has far slower memory, I think due to a crippled memory bus. Or maybe even SDR ram, I can't remember for sure.

Way slower anyway.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439

 

[jmecor]

the mx400 slightly has faster clock speed than the mx200.

"I Don't Got It,
Cause You Didn't Get It" - Anonymous

 

[10GHZ]

in all cases, you should upgrade it. budget GF4 Mx or 9000pros are cheap these days

 

[phial]

slightly?

mx200s ran on a 64bit memory bus, with slower clocked ram

mx400s came with 128bit SDR at 166mhz.

made for (what was back then) a huge difference in performance

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>

 

[Crashman]

The MX200 has a 64-bit memory bus and 6ns SDR memory. That makes it's memory bus as slow as the TNT2M64, and HALF the speed of the original TNT2. In fact, when I overclocked both my MX200 and TNT2 to the max, the TNT2 performed better. And the TNT2 was 2 or 3 years older!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[pIII_Man]

the gforce 4 mx has very simular performance to the geforce 2mx i would not recomend takeing the MX upgrade path get a ti or an fx.

 

[phial]

beat you to it

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>