Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GeForce (1st gen) or GeForce2 MX?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 12, 2001 2:07:59 PM

OK techies, question ... I have a somewhat dated GF card (1st gen, Elsa Erazor X), and have access to replace it with a slightly less dated Asus V7100 GF2 MX card for zero cost to me.

Would this show any real performance increase, or should I just hold off until I can afford a GF3 of some flavor? (Which will be a while unfortunately) I haven't been able to find any benchmarks comparing GF performance w/ GF2 MX performance, so I figure you guys might have some input here. Thanks!
December 12, 2001 5:48:54 PM

The original GeForce2 MX runs about the same as the original GeForce SDR.

The GeForce DDR (2nd gen) is a bit faster.

You'll probably be able to overclock the MX. The original GeForce SDR isn't going to overclock for [-peep-].

If it's zero cost to you, then yes it's worth the trouble of putting it in.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2001 1:40:42 PM

I have a similar problem so I'll post it here rather than create a new post.
I borrowed a MSI Geoforce2 MX/32mb as my Voodoo Banshee just couldn't play Everquest with the new expansion. I have to return the MSI card soon.
I'm happy with the preformance of the MSI card. Should I get an ASUS Geoforce2 MX200/32mb, MX400/64mb or save for a bit and get a Geoforce3. Is there that much of a difference between the different cards for the huge jump in price to the G3?

Thanks
Related resources
December 13, 2001 1:50:14 PM

Guys in my humble opinion, no-one should be buying a GeForce2 MX any longer. It is *sufficient* for today but simply isn't going to cut it much longer. With the prices the way they are on GeForce2 Pro's and Ti's there isn't a reason to use an MX.

If your budget is a big deal then save a bit and get a cheap GeForce3 Ti200. It should last you for a while yet. They had them at best buy for $99 bucks a bit ago. Not sure if that price is still available there, but it should be somewhere.

Just my $0.02
December 13, 2001 3:00:03 PM

Avoid the MX200. They're worse than the origional TNT2s.

Chesnuts roasting on an open CPU
Bill Gates nipping at your wallet
December 13, 2001 3:02:51 PM

A Geforce 2 MX is a step up from a Geforce plain, in the fact that it does have some of the added funtions of a Geforce 2, as well as it being a newer card, which Nvidia seems to make better drivers for (I can't get the detonator drivers to work at all for my old TNT card, in ANY os, and I've heard of similar problems with the TNT2 with some people.)

Chesnuts roasting on an open CPU
Bill Gates nipping at your wallet
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2001 3:49:04 AM

An MX400 with only 32MB SDRAM will STOMP on an MX200 with 64MB, simply because the memeory has twice the bandwidth. A 64MB MX400 will do a little better than a 32MB MX400. The MX200 just plain sucks, I posted scores on Madonion to show the TNT2 beeting it.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
December 14, 2001 10:17:59 AM

The only two good things with MX is that you can mod it into a Quadro MX(that's useless to play games) and OC it very much. Of course you need a good one. It's a crappy card, but you still can play games for a quiet while.

Once I used my i386/34+i387 and 4 MB Ram for CAD...
December 14, 2001 4:22:35 PM

Quote:
A 64MB MX400 will do a little better than a 32MB MX400.


My Hercules 64MB MX400 walks all over my friends' Elsa&Asus 32MB MX400s. Probably between 10-25% better, depending on the game. Usually at 1024x768x32.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2001 3:23:56 PM

Thanks for the info!

I purchased an Asus mx400 Pro 64mb. What would be a safe overclocking speed.

Thanks in advance


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Kanuck on 12/15/01 12:48 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 15, 2001 4:12:15 PM

If anyone really gives you an answer on this they are lying.

If there was a set safe number they would just be clocked like that. The speed is set based on the desired yield, or number of cards that can run on that speed.

It's going to be complete luck...just clock it up slowly testing for errors. Run it hard with some looping demos or something. When you get errors back down a bit and set it.

If you blow your [-peep-] up, don't look at me. :) 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 16, 2001 1:24:31 AM

I understand about the over clocking and burning it out. Quick question - should I overclock the memory or the core.

Thanks
ps: I have a GA-7ZDX m/b /Duron 1100 cpu/512 generic ram/Asus pro 64mb/ Nec FE-700 monitor.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 16, 2001 1:47:56 AM

Memory.
December 16, 2001 9:35:20 AM

Both, lol.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 17, 2001 8:23:33 AM

You should overclock both. You'll probably find that the core will overclock very well but the memory will overclock just a bit. The memory, however, will give you the most gains in performance for every Mhz you can get out of it.
!