Does brand matter?

Would there be a big difference between a Hercules card and a no-name brand card (say, "Eagle" brand, with the same GPU)?
Also, I read that there wouldn't be a huge difference between MX chips with 32Mb & 64Mb since the it wasn't originally made to use 64Mb. Is this true? If so, is it the same with the MX400 chip?

12 answers Last reply
More about does brand matter
  1. Theoretically, there should not be a difference. However, since I work in the electronics manufacturing business I have learned that 2 different companies that produce the exact same board can have a world of difference in quality. It all depends on their manufacturing process, quality control, and how much testing and inspection the boards go through.

    Right now I am kind of asking the same questions. I want to buy a GeForce GTS 64 MB, but do not know if I should buy the cheaper, haven't heard of the company before card, or a more expensive name brand card (that I found on
    I will have to do some research and find out if the 2 companies have had a history of problems. Who knows, the no-name brand could actually be better.
  2. You get what you pay for. So I hear, but I think almost all the companies that make GeForce cards use the reference design, so there shouldn't be too big a difference, no? Maybe cheaper memory or something?
  3. Just installed a Innovision MX400 64meg card. Nice software package was included, cost $89. Memory is 6ns ram and it refuses to overclock without excessive artifacts. So yes the quality does varies. If you go the MX route try to find a board with 5ns ram. A regular MX with 5ns ram would cream my Innovision MX400 board. I would highly recommend the Radeon LE with DDR ram over any MX board unless you will be using Linux. Best bang for you buck is between the Radeon LE and the Kyro2. If your processor is between 550mhz-850mhz I would recommend highly the Radeon LE. Greater than 850mhz the Kyro2, less than 550mhz the MX.
  4. Yeah, it's all about the memory... a geforce gpu is a geforce gpu but it needs the memory clock, if your not cool about overclocking then it wouldn't really matter but if you are wanting to oc then get the 5ns mem card. I'm getting a leadtek se pro that has 5ns mem and the guy I bought it from said it can do 245mhz for the mem and playing UT all day without a problem but don't hold me to those numbers ;) We will see when I get it. If it is true then this MX would probably come close if not beat a geforce 32mb ddr.

    oh yeah, the 64mb MX card is pretty worthless because it only really comes into play when you are playing with large textures at a large res (ie 512+ sized textures at 1600x1200). You won't benifet from having the 64mb MX.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by m_kelder on 05/29/01 11:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  5. Yeap your MX 5ns ram will tear my MX400 a new one. :smile: . Now 64megs of ram does come into play if you do not use compressed textures. Like in Quake III, I benchmarked it with everything to the max, non compressed textures (sky looks pretty good hey?) demo 1 @ 1024x768x32 with max anisotropic filtering (which isn't much on a GF2 card) 49.7FPS. Try to do that with a 32 megger and you will be lucky to get 24FPS because of AGP texture use. Classic Athlon at 700mhz. Just a quality issue there. My low quality 6ns ram runs at 166mhz, it will run at 183mhz but with artifacts. At 190mzh ram speed forget it. Innovision had a number of very good reviews and I didn't expect this in my MX400. Two things impress me about this MX400, it tears up my Radeon on a 1.2gh T-Bird @ 1.46gh in 3dMark2001 High Polygon count and Sprite test and the MX400 is running on a classic Athlon at 700mhz!!!! Everything else the Radeon does somewhat, ahmmmm much much better.

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 05/30/01 00:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
  6. heh, even my tnt2 would beat radeons at sprite test but I've never seen a game use them have you? Even too slow on the ge2's. The high poly must be a better t&l for nvidia? Run with software/hardware test between the two.
  7. Some things are different, and some things are the same.
    If you buy an MX400 there probably wont be much difference in speed and performance, but you will experience differences in ability to overclock, quality of drivers (just use nvidea reference drivers), but most important in my oppinion is a big difference in the signal quality to the monitor. Hercules has excelent quality, as do Matrox and Asus. This makes a world of difference on image clarity.

  8. Ditto, my MX400 has 6ns ram and it acts exactly like that. Not a overclocker at all. Its 2d is allright up to 1024x768 beyond that it degrades rather quickly. For me about two hours viewing at 1280x960 is all I can stomach with the MX400 while on the Radeon I've done it for over 12 hours straight easily. Forget 1600x1200 viewing altogether. My MX400 2d is pretty much consistent with a friends GF2 from Dell, in fact mine looks a little better but not much. For big monitor high resolution quality you need to get a higher quality MX card, a Matrox or a Radeon. My Innovision Tornodo MX400 64meg has its good points too as in very low cost and a good software package, just know any limitatons that a card may have.
  9. Thanks m_kelder, that has to be the problem on my MX400. Well I got it working really good in W2K now by using the 12.20 drivers. I was surprised because I get higher benchmark scores in W2k then WinMe but then again I am using a more recent driver in W2k which is DX8 optimized. So now I have to decide which operating system to keep, WinMe or W2K?

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 05/30/01 06:42 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  10. I've been without win2k for a while now, I really really miss it...
  11. Well I am leaning towards W2k because Nvidia performance is on par not like cough...cough ATI in W2k.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Graphics