3DLabs Oxygen GMX 2000 96MB vs GeForce4 MX 440 for 2D AutoCAD

[Goi]

Hi guys...
I'm helping my dad upgrade his current computer, which he uses for normal web browsing, etc, and also AutoCAD. He doesn't do anything 3D, just mainly 2D(floorplans, blueprints, etc). He unwittingly bought an ancient 3DLabs Oxygen GMX 2000 with 96MB RAM on ebay, thinking its really good since he recognizes the Oxygen brand, but this card is like ancient, and discontinued. It also doesn't have official Win2K drivers, which he'll probably be using. Will this card actually be better than the GeForce4 MX440 that I was planning on? His existing system has a Matrox G400 16MB, but I think its 2D speed has already been surpassed by the GF4.

 

[Adul]

actually the g400 should be fine, the 2d speed should be close, but the quality is still on the side of matrox. Actuallly I had a g200 running a 21" monitor at 1600*1200 and the speed was more then enough. So I thimnk you should stick with the current card. no need to ditch the matrox yet.

 

[Daovonnaex]

Unless your father uses a DVI output (which he probably doesn't), the GeForce 4 MX 440 would not yield a good 2D quality. The speed of any card from after 1997 should be more than adequate. As such, your primary concern should be quality. Therefore, I would continue to use the Matrox G400, as it has simply outstanding 2D quality.

 

[CableDude]

Stick with your G400. Maybe you should think about getting 16Mb of RAM for it though.

 

[Goi]

Actually I read an article/review that showed that 2D speeds still continue to improve, especially at high resolutions, where memory bandwidth is a problem. While the 2D engine of the G400 may be about as quick as current video cards, its memory subsystem is lacking in this regard, compared to the higher clocked DDR memory of current cards like the ATI Radeon/nvidia GeForce4. This might not be such an important factor in lower resolutions, but then again I'm not sure how graphic intensive 2D AutoCAD is...

What should he do with that ancient GMX2000 then? Did he get seriously conned?

Also, why wouldn't the GeForce 4 MX440 yield a good 2D quality. I was under the impression that while the original GeForce's and even the GeForce 2 GTS's have less than ideal 2D image quality, GeForce 3's and GeForce 4's have much stricter quality control by nvidia.

 

[Daovonnaex]

2D speeds may continue to improve, but 2D graphics do not, so 2D speeds do not need to improve. The G400 is fine.

 

[Adul]

the geforce 4 yes, but this is an MX. I wouldnt waste any more money since you aleady have a fine graphics card. Just run it on the matrox card first and see how it fits his needs.

 

[Leon]

Here is a review that gives you an idea of 2D performance