G
Guest
Guest
Yet another pointless review.. What is the point in comparing 4 nearly identical MX boards ? Geez, they produce nearly identical benchmark results... what a surprise.. But what about overclocking these cards, wouldnt that be of more interest to the THG reader ? And why not compare them with a TNT2 so many of us who still own such a card can decide wether it is worth upgrading ? What about CPU scaling ? What about picture quality ?
And how about a MX DDR board.. ?:
"NVIDIA enabled the MX to work with DDR memory as well. Unfortunately, I have not come across any card with the *faster* memory so far. "
Hello ?? The MX DDR boards use 64bit interface compared to a 128 bit bus for the SDR. So it's NOT faster. In fact it is slower, since the DDR memory is ususally clocked lower, and (much) harder to overclock. I have a Creative Annihilator that uses the MX chip teamed up with DDR, and its *not* that fast. In fact, I've had it for over 1,5 months.. so tell me how THG could not get hold of one ?
And how about a MX DDR board.. ?:
"NVIDIA enabled the MX to work with DDR memory as well. Unfortunately, I have not come across any card with the *faster* memory so far. "
Hello ?? The MX DDR boards use 64bit interface compared to a 128 bit bus for the SDR. So it's NOT faster. In fact it is slower, since the DDR memory is ususally clocked lower, and (much) harder to overclock. I have a Creative Annihilator that uses the MX chip teamed up with DDR, and its *not* that fast. In fact, I've had it for over 1,5 months.. so tell me how THG could not get hold of one ?