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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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...
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.