is there a difference between.....(video card question)

[SpeedEng]

is there a big difference between the mx200 and mx400?
and what about the 32 meg and 64 is bigger better?

[Cantacuzene]

32 meg ddr is better than 64 meg normal ram, but usually bigger is better.

[sbp]

Originally posted by SpeedEng
is there a big difference between the mx200 and mx400?
and what about the 32 meg and 64 is bigger better? The MX400 is the better performing card.

GeForce 2 MX 400 has faster core of 200 Mhz than GeForce 2 MX which has a core speed of 175Mhz. The faster core doesn't help since the MX400 is being limited by the memory.

Think of the MX200 as the TNT2 M64. Its performance is severely limited by its 64bit sdram memory bus.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1453&p=2

Having more memory is better.

Quite frankly both of the MX200 and MX400 cards are long in the tooth. Unless you just want a card to do basic stuff with, I'd look elsewhere. Certainly if you are a gamer you should.

[SpeedEng]

Originally posted by sbp
Quite frankly both of the MX200 and MX400 cards are long in the tooth. Unless you just want a card to do basic stuff with, I'd look elsewhere. Certainly if you are a gamer you should.

I was able to pick up a few bucks doing some side jobs and im itchin to use the cash. Ive had my computer for a while(about 3 years) would a new agp card be logical to get (or would it even help) I have a dual p3 700 with 512mb and the video card is a vanta 8mb card. I dont play too many games on the pc so should i get a new card or is it just not worth it?

Thanx

[zero2dash]

Originally posted by sbp
Quite frankly both of the MX200 and MX400 cards are long in the tooth. Unless you just want a card to do basic stuff with, I'd look elsewhere. Certainly if you are a gamer you should.

I'm a gamer and I'm damn pleased with my GeForce 2MX 400 card. :hmm:

I bought a GeForce 2MX 400 card off Pricewatch about 8 months ago for $60 from Ocie.com...I have a retail iNNo3D card, 4x AGP capable. Instead of wasting my money to pay $400 for what I consider "overpriced video cards" (ie GeForce 3 cards), I chose to go a medium route and get a card that had good performance for the price, but didn't break the bank. This card rocks, and I have gotten more than my money's worth. The fact remains that a) NO GEFORCE CARD HAS BEEN FULLY UTILIZED YET therefore people can spend $400 all they want on a card that is four generations ahead of GeForce 1 cards that STILL haven't been fully utilized, and I'll gladly take MY $60 card that runs every FPS *I* play (Quakes, Unreals, Half Life, etc) at 60FPS +, runs high resolutions perfectly, and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg. Those that own these $400 cards...enjoy your purchase. I'd rather spend half that and get a card that runs fine for me, and take my other $200 and purchase a couple DIMMS, a new CD Writer, a new monitor, etc. I value my hard-earned money.

SpeedEng, I can't recommend a GeForce 2MX 400 card enough. Unless you feel necessary to pay the highest amount of money for what's going to be more powerful than everything else...for an entire 5 minutes...then otherwise I'd say go with a card that (after doing research) does what YOU need it to do, and nothing else. I didn't get TV out on my card 'cause I don't need it. I just wanted to upgrade from a 32 meg TNT2 card to a card that could push 60+ frames in FPS and I found one that works perfect IMO. Until games come out every few months or hell, even every YEAR that actually take one card and make it it's bitch (ie force the card to run the game crappy because the card is too weak) - I'll be keeping my 2MX 400 card for another year or so because (again) I don't see any inference in this year (and more likely, beyond) that will REQUIRE a card higher than a GeForce 1 card. If you're not really a gamer...or you're not big on NUMBERS - then I'd say you can't go wrong on buying a GeForce 2MX 400 card. They're very inexpensive and you'll get your money's worth. If you decide to play games (of any sort) you'll have enough power for now to play those games quite smoothly.

My two cents at least.

Hell I almost bought a 17" LCD for $700 a few days ago and then I realized I didn't need one and it would be paying too much for a monitor. I've settled on an FD Trinitron 21" monitor for $350...half the price of that LCD with more than 3" larger viewable size, plus a brighter/cleaner picture and better color representation. Just goes to show you that the most expensive choice is not always the BEST choice.

[sbp]

Originally posted by SpeedEng


I was able to pick up a few bucks doing some side jobs and im itchin to use the cash. Ive had my computer for a while(about 3 years) would a new agp card be logical to get (or would it even help) I have a dual p3 700 with 512mb and the video card is a vanta 8mb card. I dont play too many games on the pc so should i get a new card or is it just not worth it?

Thanx If the computer is working fine, I would leave it as is.

[sbp]

Originally posted by zero2dash
zero2dash's rantFact is the GeForce 2 MX400 is getting outdated and there ain't no way around that. :dodgy:

No one is forced to buy a card for $400. Each person has their own value in mind. Some are willing to spend more to get the performance they want while for others cost is a major consideration. For example, the GeForce 3 Ti200 was $199 MSRP when it came out and the Radeon 8500 is going for $150 online currently. Overpriced cards to some perhaps, great performing cards for sure though.

"NO GEFORCE CARD HAS BEEN FULLY UTILIZED YET" The Voodoo 5 was never fully utilized and neither was the Radeon. Each card has features that will never will utilized. Using that type of thinking it would be time to go back to a TNT.

As for 60FPS+: turn on anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering in high resolution 32-bit color please.

You are happy with your videocard just as others are happy with their cards and that is what matters right? :)

[zero2dash]

Originally posted by sbp
Fact is the GeForce 2 MX400 is getting outdated and there ain't no way around that. :dodgy:

When was this brought up, and when did I dispute the fact? I didn't. ;)


Originally posted by sbp
No one is forced to buy a card for $400. Each person has their own value in mind. Some are willing to spend more to get the performance they want while for others cost is a major consideration. For example, the GeForce 3 Ti200 was $199 MSRP when it came out and the Radeon 8500 is going for $150 online currently. Overpriced cards to some perhaps, great performing cards for sure though.

Again, no disagreement on any of these facts from me. And I never said anyone was forced to buy anything.


Originally posted by sbp
"NO GEFORCE CARD HAS BEEN FULLY UTILIZED YET" The Voodoo 5 was never fully utilized and neither was the Radeon. Each card has features that will never will utilized. Using that type of thinking it would be time to go back to a TNT.

The point I'm making here (that maybe you're not understanding) is that I'm tired of people saying "ohmygod a new geforce is out, holy crap i'd better buy it otherwise quake won't run right!!!". Pathetic. There's a lot of mindless people who flock to new computer products like sheep these days, and those are the sorts of people I'm talking about. With that sort of mentality, most people in this economy would be belly-up and filing for welfare if that's the way we all thought. I'm not saying anyone on gotApex *or* this thread or anything are this way...I'm just pointing this out due to the fact that this is what my point was aimed at. BTW I don't have problems with going "back" to video cards or other computer products for that matter as long as they cost less and do the job efficiently. I don't understand why people these days (again, I'm not pointing fingers I'm just making a statement) aren't happy with 60fps these days. Oh no...they've gotta spend $150, $200, $300 whatever to get 90fps or 100fps or 150fps. 60fps is fine enough for me, so (again) I'm more than happy with a weaker product. It does the job that I need it to do.


Originally posted by sbp
As for 60FPS+: turn on anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering in high resolution 32-bit color please.

-Half-Life can be run with anything turned on using a dual Voodoo 2 setup and it'll run 60fps. Any newer cards than that and it's not even a question of "if" it can be done. If a pair of older-than-dirt Voodoo 2's can do it, anything can.

-Quake 1 and 2 run 60+ on weaker cards also; Quake 3 Arena/Team Arena of course is different because they have newer 3d engines and the like. I run Q3A on High Quality at decent settings that *I* prefer and I get 90fps usual, dropping at most to 60fps when the screen is full of gibs, plasma shots, etc. As for what you have mentioned to "turn on", I have anisotropic filtering turned on, 32 bit color, high res textures, high other stuff (can't remember all the specifics but if it's an option I have it turned on, trust me). I *could* turn FSAA on but I don't care to due to the fact that the game moves fast enough and you don't really notice that stuff in the first place if you're actually playing the game and you're *into* it because you've got other things on your mind (like not getting a rocket shot up your butt). Hell if I was a visual freak like many console owners these days, I'd turn on 4x FSAA and make it look pretty. BUT I'm for substance not eye candy. :P

-The Unreals well I don't really play 1 anymore (no reason to) and UT I've had problems with update files so I don't even have it installed anymore. Bleh. Although the Unreal4Ever mod is the shiznit.

I've also ran Max Payne, Freespace2, Elite Force, Bang!, Deus Ex, and Serious Sam with great results on my card.


Originally posted by sbp
You are happy with your videocard just as others are happy with their cards and that is what matters right? :)

Yep. :thumb: