GeForce 2 Pro vs. GeForce 2 MX400

[InverseOfNeo]

Hey guys...I am in need of a new video card. My Riva 128 isnt cutting it anymore.

I dont have enough money so I was deciding between the GeFore 2 Pro and the GF2 MX400......which one do you guys think I should get?

 

[Menacer]

2Pro, absolutely.

but how much are you willing to spend?

 

[Burnsy]

I would have gone for a geforce3 Ti200 but from the two you've mentioned i would go with the pro

Same memory bandwidth as the ultra and the same core clock speed as the gts. Much better than the MX400

 

[InverseOfNeo]

<< how much are you willing to spend? >>



I am thinking between 60 and 80........and I can get both cards for that price at newegg

 

[novice]

If your budget is maxed at $80, I would go for the Geforce 2 GTS-V from visiontek via newegg. $69 delivered and it seems all of them will overclock to match a regular GTS. Even at default it will whomp any MX regardless of 64 or 32 MB of ram, the GTS-V and its 4 pipelines vs. the 2 for the MX combined with its 128 bit memory bus and DDR memory will dominate at higher resolutions.
If you could squeeze just a bit more, I would go for a Geforce 2 Ti for around $95 for the 32 MB, or $106 for the 64 MB MSI card. Higher clocked core and memory, newer core design, worth the extra money over the GTS-V if you have the extra money! I have upgraded 2 different machines from the original MX to the GTS cards and it was worth it. I upgraded one of the 32 MB GTS machines to a 64 MB Geforce Pro Gainward 450 with the 4 ns ram, and it wasn't worth it IMHO. Should have saved the $50 and gone with the GTS-V in retrospect. Still hoping the Geforce 3 Ti 200's will drop to around $125 so they will meet my self imposed video card ceiling for the next round of upgrades.
Chuck

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

either card will give you huge boost over your riva 128.
with your athlon 1.4Gb try and go for the fastest card you can afford.

Of the two you mention go for a geforce 2 pro. Recomendation for the Gts-V or Ti200 are both worth the mention

 

[Egrimm]

Yeah, go for the Pro, it's faster. I had a Pro and my friend had a MX and my card was quite a bit faster.

Now other people have mentioned GF3 Ti200s, the cheapest I've seen costs about the same as many GF2 Ti's, a Palit Daytona GF3 Ti200.
I have this card myself and it's great, the 2d is acceptable (on par with MSI) and it can be oc'ed close to the speed of a Ti500 (mine is even a bit faster).

 

[Rand]

If you've got the extra money then a GF2 Pro is undoubtedly faster then an MX400.

 

[ronein]

Another vote for the pro

 

[BFG10K]

The Pro will absolutely cane the GF2 MX. It'll usually be about twice as fast.

 

[InverseOfNeo]

So the verdict is to go for Pro.....so what if I wanted to spend <edit>no</edit> more more than $150 (including shipping)?

 

[Doh!]

what if I wanted to spend more more than $150 (including shipping)?

More than $150? No limit? Or did you mean to say a maximum of $150 including shipping? If "more than" $150, then I would go with GF3 500Ti. If a maximum of $150, I would go with GF3 200Ti (after borrowing $10 for shipping 'cause I don't think the price has come down to the sub-$150 range yet...maybe next week).

 

[Darius]

I would pick the GF2 Pro, but you should go up for the ATI Radeon 8500

 

[gtd2000]

What games do u play?

I'd choose GF2 Pro at this point in time also - but if you play older games then MX is already enough.