ATI Radeon 32 MB DDR or nVidia Geforce 2 MX?????

[minch]

Hello all.
I am currently running on a celeron system that has been clocked at 558 Mhz. I am interested in buying a new video card but I am not sure if it'll be a drastic improvement over my tnt2 card. Does anyone know if the ATI or nVidia card would make a huge improvement on my setup? Which card is better? Thanks for the advice.

 

[j@cko]

if you are on tight budget, GeForce 2 MX.
but if you want performance, then Randeon.
but if you really want the perforamnce ULTRA is the way to go.

 

[LXi]

Radeon DDR.

 

[snow]

echo...echo...echo...

 

[glen]

See if you can get a v5500 cheap.

 

[minch]

thank you for advice.
it's my knowledge that these two cards cost about the same.

 

[minch]

bump...
is there anyone out there with the same kind of setup?... around 500-600 mhz w/ radeon? what's your experience with this? i am not sure if all those awesome benchmarks of the radeon applies to slower computers.

 

[oldfart]

The Radeon is a far better card than an MX.

 

[shabby]

... unless your using windows 2000

 

[Noriaki]

I had a Radeon with my Athlon 550 and it gave me over 65fps in 1024x768 Quake3 max quality settings. I had the 64MB DDR which is 183Mhz instead of 166 but still the Radeon is damn fast and looks pretty to.

But the driver support is horrid...if you use Win2000 becareful...and with Whistler just around the corner (a slight Win2000 upgrade but there is a personal version which is a HUGE upgrade over Win98/ME) I don't trust ATi's drivers until I see them...