ATI Radeon 32MB DDR or Geforce MX 32MB?

[agaraffa]

I just purchased a ATI Radeon 32MB DDR for $199 with a $50 rebate. Is this a good card for $149? Or should I have gone with a Geforce MX 32MB? I have yet to open the box so returning it is still an option. Any opinions would be much appreciated.


Thanks,

agaraffa

 

[Zab]

I am waiting for one to come in the mail as well.

 

[Taz4158]

Definitely better than an MX. You can't go wrong with that price.

 

[StickHead]

Or you can get a MX for $30-$40 less and better performance.

 

[Taz4158]

That's a joke right? You think the MX outperforms the Radeon 32 meg DDR?

 

[hans007]

the radeons 2d sharpness is way better and the dvd playback is as well

 

[Taz4158]

As is the speed compared to the lowly MX.

 

[H.A.R.M]

STICKHEAD is right guys, the MX is faster than the Radeon 32DDR. Here is what I got for the 3DMarks after some pretty serious tweaking on both cards.

Prophet MX 32SDR 5000 3DMarks $140
Radeon 32DDR 4400 3DMarks $150

Yes, I think that the Radeon offers better graphics and yes, the drivers are still pretty new (in respect to the MX cards) but ATI isn't know to have the fastest cards on the block nor will they until I personaly think that the consumer (you and I) start to do some serious butt chewing up north in ATI land. I'm ripping on ATI because I have either pesonaly purchased or spec'ed ATI video cards in a heck of a lot of workstations and I think it is time that ATI delivers a FAST video card and offer great graphics quality. ATI will need to accomplish this task in order to keep or even compete in the gamming market....

 

[StickHead]

Not to mention the Inno3D, eVGA, and other little known company MX cards can be had for under $100.

 

[dfloyd]

Umm faster? At 1024 x 768 x 32bit color? It may be faster at 16 bit color, radeons 16 bit color is very slow as compared to most others, but its 32bit color at high res is where the Radeon is supposed to shine.

 

[Taz4158]

For benchmarks that show the Radeon much faster go here:
BENCHMARKS

 

[StickHead]

Sharkey Extreme huh? I won't even go their but I wouldn't trust those guys father than I could throw them.

 

[Varborta]

agaraffa where did you see the 50 dollars rebate???

 

[hans007]

3dmark is the dumbest benchmark in the world. The v5 with the new drivers is very comparable to a gts2, but gets destroyed in 3dmark. 3dmark just plain sucks.

 

[Varborta]

Still wondering where the heck does agraffat got 50 dollar massive rebate off radeon ddr card...

 

[SleepyTim]

In 32 bit color the 32MB DDR Radeon is much faster than the MX. It's not even close especially at high resolution. That's common knowledge. The Radeon is much faster than MX in 32 bit.

Now in 16 bit color the story is different, and the Nvidia cards are faster.

But the 32MB DDR Radeon is a big step up from the MX in every way except 16 bit color. They are not even in the same class. Not to be rude, but it would be crazy to buy a MX if you could get a 32MB DDR Radeon for the same amount of money. It's just a much better card.

 

[Taz4158]

Sleepy Tim is right. The MX isn't even close to the 32 DDR. The proof is everywhere. The 32 DDR is closer to the GTS and should be compared to it.

 

[Moving Target]

Why run 32 bit color, can any of you notice a diff, I can't. I do notice diff in FPS, so I personaly run 16 bit color so it runs faster. IMO 32bit is a waste. Which IMO makes the MX a better card for 2 reasons: 1) Cheaper 2) Faster (in 16bit)

Now before all you ATI lovers get all hyper, have you seen both of them run on the same system? I have and the MX is a better deal.

 

[agaraffa]

For Varborta and anyone else interested,

I heard about the $50 rebate on another hardware website. It is only available on purchases at CompUSA retail stores. Actually, I think it is also available on purchases at another retail outfit but I forgot which store. Before I bought the card I checked at the "CompUSA Rebate Center" (a bunch of slots mounted on the front wall with many rebate offers). I found the ATI Rebate Card and sure enough - $50 off the purchase of an ATI Radeon 32MB DDR on pruchases from CompUSA from Nov. 1, 2000 - Feb. 15, 2001 (I think those were the dates). I hate shopping at CompUSA but if it saves my $50 what the hell.

agaraffa

 

[Amaretto]

They also offer the $50 rebate at Fry's n Best Buy, just saw it a week ago.

 

[Amaretto]

The Mx has 32MB of SDR, the Radeon has DDR, which doubles the data rate of it's memory, I'm just wondering how MX could be faster?

 

[jaydee]

Uhhh, and what exactly is wrong with sharkyextreme? They are one of the best hardware sites there is.

 

[GuardianAli]

Id stick with the MX.
The 32megs DDR version is only clocked at 166 in core and memory and thus is still bottlenecked.
You can overclock it but with 6ns on the memory it wont reach past 175 max and even then need to get a heatsink and fan combo to go tad higher which in it self will cost more.

What you should do is get an mx for around 99 in many places on the net...

save the 50-70 dollars and simply save up until you get a real nice 64 meg version of a card.

What Im doing. The MX i have runs like a beauty with nice framerates, and the money i saved im saving up.

 

[MustangSVT]

hmmm.. read all the facts and comments and decide. if you still cant figure out which card is better after all that... then there is not much we can do for u. However RadeonDDR32 vs. Geforce2 GTS are both for $150 now so that's more of a fair match then Radeon vs. Geforce MX.

If someone truely thinks that 3Dmarks will show you how it'll perform with games.. then i dont have anything to say to them. 3Dmarks depends too much on fillrate unlike real life applications and games.

 

[SleepyTim]

In 32 bit (the only way to play IMO) the Radeon is much faster, especially at high resolution. I would list some other reasons it's a better card but then people would probably start arguing. And I agree with Mustang. There is no point trying to argue with people if they haven't got it by now. But then, I really don't like to argue anyway.

And to the person who said that 32 bit color is not noticeable to him, I can only say that most would disagree. Then again, since you have not seen 32 bit on the Radeon, it's probably whatever card you are using. Afterall, the Radeon's 32 bit image quality is absolutely beautiful, and most reviewers have commented on that.

Anyway, 32 bit does make a difference to most, and especially if you have a good monitor. Things look much richer, and much deeper in 32bit color. I believe Anand has even said that 32 bit is the "preferred" way to play.

So if you only have a small monitor, only care about 16 bit color, and the monitor can't handle the high resolutions, then the MX may be your best choice, so look around and find one for as cheap as possible.

But if you want to play at high resolution, 32 bit color, have the monitor to handle it, and want better overall performance and features, the Radeon is the best choice.