Geforce2 GTS vs MX 64Mb

G

Guest

Guest
Hi,

Curious about 2 choices I have when upgrading my PC:
1) Creative Geforce2 GTS 32Mb DDR
2) Some Geforce2 MX400 64Mb SDRAM TVOUT

How would the performance differ? Should the 64Mb of RAM make up for a weaker processing power? I typically play simulators like FS2000, F1RC and Grand Prix Legends at 1024x768.

On another subject, I saw an MX with a video in with a capture rate of 30fps... Any idea at what res? Is it good enough to capture from a Hi8 Video Camera?

Thanks a lot!
 

hornet

Distinguished
May 30, 2001
12
0
18,510
Hey! I'm in the exact same situation, someone said something about a Hercules 4500, don't know if this is any help
 

mpjesse

Splendid
No.. more memory won't make a difference. All more memory does is allow for high resolutions with deeper color depth (like 32 bit color at 1280x1024).

As far as performance- the GF2 GTS and Pro perform about 20-30 percent better than the MX. I'd get the GF2 Pro (w/ 64megs) and overclock it to GF2 Ultra speeds. The GF2 Pro is capable of performing at almost the speed of the GF2 Ultra. You can get the GF2 Pro for as low as $140.

-MP Jesse

PS, notice to all ATI people- the dude is asking about GF2 cards- not ATI stuff. So, don't throw a post in saying "GeForce 2 SUCKS!!! GET A RADEON. Please =)

"Signatures Still Suck"
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
No I won't say that but get a Radeon2 instead :smile: . Where can you get a GF2 Pro card 64meg for $140? Yes if you can afford a GF2 pro over a MX then do it. Seems like the Pros are now only slightly more expensive then the regular GF2s. I have a MX400 which I am happy with but I wouldn't be happy with it if it was my only card.
 

mpjesse

Splendid
LOL... ok noko. Go to www.pricewatch.com and check out the GeForce 2 Pro section in "graphics cards"... it's there. As for performance- the best thing about the Pro is it's overclockablility... I have a GF2 Pro running at 240mhz (core) and 400mhz (memory).. that's damn close to a GF2 Ultra.

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"
 

Sihs

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
365
0
18,780
I think the 140$ pro is a 32 megger 5.5ns. Good enough though.
The other day I went to a retail shop, they had mx400 64MB for 190$, gts 32MB for 140$ and a 1 gig amd for 185$. I asked the idiot there why the mx was more expensive, he said, they're both identical, only this one has more RAM.
They should shoot people working at computer shops who act like hotshots (if not @$$e$) but know less than my kid brother.

Sh!t Happens.
 

SerArthurDayne

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2001
344
0
18,780
The GTS destroys the MX hands down. The 64MB version of the MX doesn't mask the fact that the card is crippled in terms of memory bandwidth.

My GTS is OC'd to 220/390 completely stable. Get a GTS or Pro and you'll be much happier than if ya got a MX
 

mpjesse

Splendid
No.. it's a 64 meg GF2 Pro. Honest to god- check it out for yourself.

<A HREF="http://www.pricewatch.com" target="_new">http://www.pricewatch.com</A>

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
He is right, I am impress. What happen to those prices when I was shopping around for a Nvidia card. Now I ended up with a mx400 64meg for $89 when I might have bought a GTSPro 64megger for $140. Well next year should be a good year to buy a high performance graphics card as in a Radeon 2 Max or GF?. That is a very good price which the Kyro2 will compete against the GF2 pro as well as the Radeons.
 

baron

Distinguished
May 22, 2001
93
0
18,630
Will the GF2 Ultra price be falling anytime soon? Or is it a good time to buy one? See, I am building my first computer... then I will build one for my sister in 6-8 months and sell the ultra to her for a 100. (I am going to build a computer for her, not charging her labor cost. So I do not think a used ultra that I will take great care of will make her mad). Then I will upgrade my video card. I love games, my sister just wants one for her kids.

IMacs for the blind
 

mpjesse

Splendid
I'm not trying to ditch the Radeon 2 MAXX or anything- but didn't ATI already do the same thing with the Rage 128 MAXX? It was a complete failure- it performed no better than a Rage 128. I think ATI is making a poor descision... using SLI with video cards just isn't a good idea- no one can make it work well. ATI needs to a adopt a strategy more like nVidia's- developing NEW chips with enhanced features.... not half-assing it by putting 2 chips on one card and expecting miracles. Again... i'm not bad mouthing-I just think ATI needs to re-think it's strategy. They did do one thing right- stopped making video cards and selling their chips to OEM's. That was killing them.

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"
 

mpjesse

Splendid
No no dude... i didn't think you were questioning my honesty. I understand that you thought I made a mistake... but I didn't. How do they say.... It's all good dawg. Hehe..

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"
 

noko

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2001
2,414
1
19,785
Maxx didn't have a dedicated bridge circuit so it relied on the cpu to control each graphics chip, which unless you had a powerful cpu it wouldn't perform much better then a pro. With a fast CPU it was around 60% faster in most game benchmarks. The Radeon Max uses a dedicated bridge circuit alleviating the cpu usage and also making it W2K compatiable. No idea if ATI will produce such a card but the technology and the card as indicated by ATI has been tested as far as I know. Which means ATI could take the performance crown away from Nvidia as in FPS if need be, but the cost I would think would be pretty high. If it was release it would probably be in the $500 card range, which would just sell to the small top gamer niche market. Indicating to me just a promotional stunt which could back fire on them. Nvidia I don't think would like taking a back seat to performance in FPS. The money is in OEM's, system builders then followed by Retail, high end graphic boards don't make much money for a company but it sure makes the company look good. Look how fast Nvidia released the Ultra after the Radeon was lauched, it was a very good tool for promotional sakes. Now it looks like the GF2 Ultras will be selling for under $200 shortly when initially they where in the mid $400 range.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 06/01/01 02:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

Sihs

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
365
0
18,780
I honestly don't know if they're falling. Prices are always falling (Elsa gladiac ultra has fallen from 250-243$ in like two months. That's very little). Usually, when something new, better comes along prices fall down. I don't see anything new coming from ati so probably prices will stay the same. But who knows?

Sh!t Happens.
 

Sihs

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
365
0
18,780
Dawg? I thought it was written dog! (you can't see a chat bubble when someone says that right?)
Dawg... hehehe.

Sh!t Happens.