Radeon Le VS. Geforce2 MX???

[Woahtiger2]

Hey guys...i just wanted to know which video card is better. I dont know too much about the Geforce's...256,MX,SDR and so forth. If someone could tell me which card is for the best price and performance, would really appreciate it. Thanx

 

[arod324]

This is how Nvidia's line goes. from worst to best. Geforce 256 SDR,Geforce2 MX, then the Geforce 256 DDR. Some people will argue that the G2MX is better because it has a new core... etc, but I think the memory bandwidth with the DDR is much better. Personally, I would much rather have a Radeon DDR LE, which is what I have. The Radeon DDR LE will beat the MX by a lot in 32 bit color and hi-res situations. (it will also beat the DDR) You can find the Radeon DDR LE for about $82 @www.newegg.com shipped.

 

[duragezic]

I'd go for the Radeon LE just because you can most often overclock it to higher speeds and enable the Hyper-Z with a registry hack. Now you basically have a Radeon 32mb DDR retail.

 

[Taz4158]

The LE is a far better card than the crippled MX.

 

[arod324]

Well, technically the LE is crippled also, but fortunately this "crippling effect" can be easily removed through a reg hack and powerstrip.

 

[Shmorq]

Plus, the 2D of the Radeon is supposedly one of the best for resolution at 1280x1024 or higher.

 

[PeAK]

read

 

[Woahtiger2]

Wow....thanx for the insight guys. Really appreciate it. Now that i am enlightened, i will choos to purchase the Radeon LE....once again, thank you all for helping my decision making process.

 

[BFG10K]

The LE is faster because of DDR memory and Hyper-Z.

The LE is a far better card than the crippled MX.

Unless you count ATi's crippled T&L engine.

 

[Leon]

<< Unless you count ATi's crippled T&amp;L engine >>



And ATI &quot;crippled&quot; Win2K support

Leon

 

[arod324]

Well, I think that the in Win98/Me the Radeon should be the ONLY choice (for budget cards), but in 2K, the G2MX may be a better choice.

 

I have both. I have the GeForce2 MX on my dual PIII 700 Win2k box and the Radeon LE on my old Celeron 300a @ 464 running 98SE.

The GeForce has way better driver support, even under Win2k but the 2D image quality on the MX sucks compared to the LE. It may be my particular OEM card (Inno3D) but I hear that a lot of the MX cards have crappy 2D.

Both cards have really nice 3D image quality and speed. The Radeon can almost keep up with my GeForce2 even though it is on a slower machine. I get about 75fps on Q3A at 800x600x32 with full details. The Radeon gets like 60 with the same settings (keep in mind the Radeon machine is much slower).

I am not doing any reg hacks or overclocking either card.

If you are running Win9x go with the LE, you can get it for $80 now at newegg. If not get the MX. I think you can get an Inno3D for like $90 now.

[edit]Wrote GeForce3, meant 2!!![/edit]

 

[BFG10K]

The Radeon can almost keep up with the GeForce3

You have a GF3?
You Radeon LE can almost keep up with it?

I doubt that very much.

 

[bjc112]

when you say the radeon overclocks better... (what speed are you talking about.. becasue my leadtek Mx goes up to 215 213.. very stable and can play games all day... i think i would still get my MX if i had a choice.

 

<< You have a GF3?
You Radeon LE can almost keep up with it? >>



Oops, I meant Geforce2. I wish I had a Geforce3.

Come to think of it, I heard that right now a GF3 and GF2 ultra are going to give you around the same perfomance. GF3 will really shine when games take advantage of DX6 and the programmable GPU on the GF3.

 

[powervr2]

neither...
I WIll go for the new hercules card...
http://www.st.com/stonline/prodpres/graphic/kyro/product.htm

that is the most INTELLIGENT decision...

 

[bluemax]

You know... I don't know if this will ever be solved... I'm still debating myself!
Geforce1 for $100 Canadian or Radeon LE for $140...
If I can tolerate the lower 2D, the price is sure right, eh?

 

[nortexoid]

ooops...edit

it goes in this order...from slowest to fastest

1. geforce SDR/MX (they're virtually equivalent in real world benchmarks, though some people have better luck overclocking the MX)

2. Radeon LE (w/ hyperz enabled for D3D)

3. geforcd DDR

4,5,6 GTS, PRO, ULTRA

 

[bluemax]

I thought some people were even overclocking the LE to speeds higher than the DDR! Can anyone confirm this?

 

[powervr2]

please do not ignore kyro 2 !!!

 

[Hawk]

bluemax, a few lucky ones will always be able to do that, it's not a locked guarantee or anything.

 

[BadBrad]

Go here for a good read on the LE Vs MX.
X-Bit Labs

 

[hans007]

my LE o/c to 195/195 just fine. no fan even. some even got more than 200. its a great card for the money, and the new win2k drivers are a lot faster.

 

[gtd2000]

BadBrad,
I'm glad you posted that review to show that the LE is not necessarily better than an MX

However, the review is flawed as far as I am aware - because the MX has not been overclocked to show the &quot;full&quot; potential of the MX card.

These comparisions are only against an MX with standard clock settings

Mine will run at 210/230 - not that I do generally though!

 

[arod324]

I actually think that it is relatively fair that they are &quot;overclocking&quot; card. This is because the card has been underclocked, and they are bringing it back to waht is &quot;normal&quot; for a DDR card.
As for a comparison between the Radeon LE and MX, I just want to tell you guys about my friend's computer and my computer. We have virtually identical systems, yet with my Radeon at a modest 183/183 and his MX at also a modest 200/200, we score 3000 and 2200 respectively. It is only a benchmark, but I think that differences help show how the Radeon will perform in 32bit 1024X768.