Geforce 256 DDR or Geforce2 MX (32 meg)

[Brooch]

Greetings...!

Well let the debate ensue..

We all kow the Geforce2 MX is better than the MX 200 but slightly less than the MX 400, but the Geforce256 DDR has better memory structure and is 128 bit with DDR ..!



************************************

-Brooch

Hanging ideas wherever I can<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Brooch on 08/21/02 05:41 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[wolflike]

Gefoece256 is better than Geforce2MX

 

[phsstpok]

...not to mention Geforce256's 4 TMUs to Geforce2 MX's 2 TMUs.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[tombance]

On the other hand geforce 2 mx can probably overclock better due to reduced heat output in the first place and reduced energy consumption. And any memory overclocks will yield a great improvement. However if you dont plan to overclock at all then yes the geforce256 DDR is faster.

If all else fails, Go further

 

[tombance]

On the other hand geforce 2 mx can probably overclock better due to reduced heat output in the first place and reduced energy consumption. And any memory overclocks will yield a great improvement. However if you dont plan to overclock at all then yes the geforce256 DDR is faster.

If all else fails, Go further

 

[phsstpok]

However if you dont plan to overclock at all then yes the geforce256 DDR is faster.

Oh, I don't know about that. Geforce256's were very good overclockers. They were memory bandwidth starved so best results were from overclocking the memory vs the core. In fact by not overclocking the core to the max you could keep temps down and squeeze a little more out of the memory.

The original Geforce2 MX was no match for a Geforce256 DDR. The MX-400 did much better and may be a hair faster overclocked.

The power requirements of the Geforce256 presented huge problems to many motherboards of the day. The DDR version consumed something like 40 watts.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

The original Geforce2 MX was no match for a Geforce256 DDR. The MX-400 did much better and may be a hair faster overclocked.

Look at Tom's VGA chart. Both GF2 MX and MX400 offer very much similar performance. You will not notice the difference anyway, even if you have a very expert eye. In some cases, the score of MX and MX400 are 100% equal.

 

[nja469]

256 ddr, don't waste your $$ on the puny Gf2 mx's.. horrid little cards.

"Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one"

 

[phsstpok]

Interesting, that's not what THG was indicating when the MX-400 was released. See this early review.

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q2/010625/gainward_mx-03.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q2/010625/gainward_mx-03.html</A>

Here's an even earlier comparison between Geforce2 MX, Geforce256, Geforce2 GTS. Notice how the Geforce256 DDR card performs as detail levels or color levels go up.

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q2/000629/index.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q2/000629/index.html</A>

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[rubikian]

In game, GF 256 is better while in 3Dmark2001SE, GF2 MX400 is better. Checkout tomshardware vga chart: http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/index.html.

 

[Crashman]

That's because for all intents and purposes, the MX and MX400 were the same card. The MX200 was released as a substitute for the faster TNT2. Yes, the 128-bit RAM TNT2 was faster than the 64-bit RAM MX200.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>