Which should be the choice - Geforce2MX400 or Geforce256 DDR? Both costing the same!!

[vikash]

Which should be the ideal choice between the Geforce2MX400 and the Older Geforce256 DDR on a Duron 900, Asus KT133 M/B 256MB Ram, monitor only 14". Gaming will be done at 800x600x16 bit resolution. Both cost the same here at $140 each.

Vikash
Assam (INDIA)

 

[jeffrey]

Geforce2 MX400

 

[Swanny]

GF 2 MX400. It's a better card all around.

BTW, save up some money and get a bigger monitor!:Q

 

[Shudder]

The MX card will use less power..

And at 8x6, and ESPECIALLY at 16 bit colour, memory bandwith shouldn't be that big a deal, so the MX would again be fine.

 

[Rand]

The MX uses less power, and is faster at low resolutions like 640x480, and sometimes faster at 800x600, anything higher and the GF DDR becomes increasingly faster then the MX400.
IMHO, if your mobo can handle the power consumptin of the GF DDR it's a better choice then the MX400.

 

[ss284]

GF ddr. I would spend the extra 20 bucks and get a GF2 GTS for 90 bucks though.

but anything above 800-600 32 bit color, the GF ddr will be faster. the orignial MX was the same speed as the geforce 256 SDR. The mx400 is slightly faster, at most 10%. the GF ddr owns.

-Steve

 

[InFecTed]

If you play at 1024x768x32bits get the GeForce DDR, it will be faster than any MX.

edit: sorry, didn't see you play only at 800x600, anyway I still recommend the GF DDR. Get yourself some decent 17" monitor man, your killing your eyes on that 14".

 

[Teasy]

<< Which should be the ideal choice between the Geforce2MX400 and the Older Geforce256 DDR on a Duron 900, Asus KT133 M/B 256MB Ram, monitor only 14&quot;. Gaming will be done at 800x600x16 bit resolution. Both cost the same here at $140 each. >>



Get the Geforce DDR, then turn up the res and for god sake stop playing in 16bit because its horrible ugly with most boards (including both the Geforce DDR and Geforce 2 MX) Seriously though AFAICS the MX although newer doesn't have any advantage over the Geforce DDR at any decent resolution. Its HW T&amp;L is supposed to be second generation but I'd say the MX HW T&amp;L unit's only advantage over the original Geforce HW T&amp;L unit is it runs at 175mhz rather then 125mhz. But the difference that 50mhz will make to a HW T&amp;L unit is negligable especially considering you have a good CPU. In the end the most important difference between the Geforce 2 MX and the Geforce DDR is that the DDR has 4.8gb memory bandwidth and the MX has only 2.8gb memory bandwidth (forget the fillrate numbers for both cards because past 640x480x16 on two traditional cards like these those numbers are useless). So the DDR will be faster at 1024x768x16 and also 800x600x32. With FSAA at even 640x480x32 (which should be totally bandwidth limited) the Geforce DDR should be around 57% faster then the Geforce 2 MX because of the 57% faster memory.

I hope that helped in some way

 

[hotrodder]

benchmarks

 

[Teasy]

This is OT but I noticed something strange in that review:

3dmark2001 bench

No board beating 1750 points in 3dmark2001 at 1024x768x32 with a Pentium III 1ghz. The GTS is getting 1655 points?? Wierd.

 

[hotrodder]

That whole 2001 benchmark looks fishy to me now.
I just got 2914 on 3dmark 2001 in 16bit 10x7 with my amd classic athlon 800
and a geforce 2.

 

[BFG10K]

Are you guys kidding? The DDR will cream the MX in almost every conceivable situation. The GF DDR has much more memory bandwidth than an MX; heck, it's almost as powerful as a GF2 GTS.