GeForce1 DDR vs GeForce2 MX

[Sean453]

Hey I'm thinking about picking up a 64 MB GF2 MX from Fry's today since they are on sale for $30 after rebate. I intend to put it in my secondary system which is currently running a very old ATI 4MB card. My main system is still running an old 32 MB GF1 DDR and I was wondering if the 64 MB GF2 MX would be faster than my 32 MB GF1. I think they would probably perform about the same, but maybe the GF2 would overclock better? I also could get a GF4 MX440 for a little more if it would really be worth it. I only intend for this to be a quick fix. I wont be buying a high end video card for my main system until after HL2 comes out.

 

[Falloutboy]

your better bet would be to grab the 9200 64mb 128bit card thats in the hot deals forum for 40 bucks. much faster than both cards. (just a bit slower than a 8500)

 

[JackHawksmoor]

That's a waste of $30. Aside from a boost from the extra RAM, they'll perform about the same, and neither cuts it in todays newest games. Just put it towards something newer.

 

[formulav8]

I agree with the above. Try and get a Radeon 9200. It is around the same speed as a Radeon 8500 which is alittle faster than a GF3 Classic and even the ti500 for the most part. I think anyways


Jason

 

[Matthias99]

The 9200 is noticeably slower than the 8500. The 9100 is an 8500LE core, however.

The 9200 is about as fast as a GF4MX 440/460, and so will be marginally faster than a GF2MX. Neither is particularly good, though they are faster than a GF1. Save your money for something better if you can.

benches

 

[jswjimmy]

as for the overclocking my geforce 2 mx200 overclocks like a beast. 175/167 oced to 225/188, with no fan or ramsinks.

 

[yhelothar]

GF1 DDR should be much faster, it's almost as fast as a GF2GTS, just 10% slower. I've used both.

 

[JackHawksmoor]

The Geforce 2 has a 4x2 Architecture. You?d have to overclock a Geforce 1 from like 120mhz to 400mhz to have a chance at matching the Geforce 2? Err, although that's ignoring that the Geforce 2's RAM isn't much faster...so I guess you wouldn't have to overclock it that much.

The Geforce 2 MX and Geforce 1 end up about the same in general, with the Geforce 1 a little better, looking at old benchmarks. At this point they're so ancient it's kind of a moot point. (Although they still kill Intel's Extreme[ly Poor] Graphics.

 

[formulav8]

My bad. I thought the 9200 was the rebadged 8500. It was the 9100 I got confused with.

Jason

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: formulav8
I agree with the above. Try and get a Radeon 9200. It is around the same speed as a Radeon 8500 which is alittle faster than a GF3 Classic and even the ti500 for the most part. I think anyways


Jason

A 9200 will be considerably slower than either an 8500 or a gf3. I would try to find a used gf3. IMO, $30 is no deal for that old gf2mx, especially when you have to screw with a rebate to get that price.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
GF1 DDR should be much faster, it's almost as fast as a GF2GTS, just 10% slower. I've used both.

GF1 is 4x1, GF2 is 4x2 and probably clocked higher. How can a GF2 be only 10% faster than a GF1?

 

[BFG10K]

Memory bandwidth limitations; the GTS only has around 10% more than the GF DDR.

The cards are very close because the GTS has nowhere near the bandwidth to fully support its fillrate advantage.

 

[magomago]

Geforce1DDR should be faster than Geforce2MX.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Pete

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
GF1 DDR should be much faster, it's almost as fast as a GF2GTS, just 10% slower. I've used both.

GF1 is 4x1, GF2 is 4x2 and probably clocked higher. How can a GF2 be only 10% faster than a GF1?

Look..you don't know anything. Numbers mean sh!t. Go check benchmarks. The Geforce1 DDR is a pretty fast card for its time, and does indeed do its best to keep up with a geforce2 GTS. Remember, the MXs are weak.

Hell, check our very own AT review of the card, which has all of the old geforces together. the DDR even beats the GTS sometimes. Keep your DDR.

 

[Pete]

Thanks for answering so nicely!

Edit: Your mini-flame prompted me to investigate a little myself, rather than be stupid enough to ask a question in this forum that's obviously only for those who've done their research and know the answer before they ask it, and I see the GTS is a bit more than 10% faster than the GF1--more like 15-20%. Thanks for the common courtesy, Excelsior!

 

[igowerf]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Pete

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
GF1 DDR should be much faster, it's almost as fast as a GF2GTS, just 10% slower. I've used both.

GF1 is 4x1, GF2 is 4x2 and probably clocked higher. How can a GF2 be only 10% faster than a GF1?

Look..you don't know anything. Numbers mean sh!t. Go check benchmarks. The Geforce1 DDR is a pretty fast card for its time, and does indeed do its best to keep up with a geforce2 GTS. Remember, the MXs are weak.

Hell, check our very own AT review of the card, which has all of the old geforces together. the DDR even beats the GTS sometimes. Keep your DDR.

I still have my Geforce 256 DDR. It was such a r0xx0ring card when it came out. It still beat my friends' Geforce 2 MX's a year later.

 

[skace]

The Geforce1 DDR was an awesome card.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Pete
Thanks for answering so nicely!

Edit: Your mini-flame prompted me to investigate a little myself, rather than be stupid enough to ask a question in this forum that's obviously only for those who've done their research and know the answer before they ask it, and I see the GTS is a bit more than 10% faster than the GF1--more like 15-20%. Thanks for the common courtesy, Excelsior!

Uhh...are you trying to flame me back? I can't tell.

Eitherway, it is apparent that the GF1 DDR was a very strong card for its time, and is faster than an MX.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Yes, I remember the original Geforce 256 was much better than the MX series... at least the MX derived from GF2.

http://8dimensional.com/video-card-reviews/index.html

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Pete
Thanks for answering so nicely!

Edit: Your mini-flame prompted me to investigate a little myself, rather than be stupid enough to ask a question in this forum that's obviously only for those who've done their research and know the answer before they ask it, and I see the GTS is a bit more than 10% faster than the GF1--more like 15-20%. Thanks for the common courtesy, Excelsior!

Uhh...are you trying to flame me back? I can't tell.

Eitherway, it is apparent that the GF1 DDR was a very strong card for its time, and is faster than an MX.

Flaming Pete is like flaming freaking Ghandi. He's about the only guy here who never flames anyone and usually tries to help everyone. You should be ashamed.

Pete's question is valid, most of us don't have GF1 vs GF2 specs on the tips of our tongues anymore. BFGs answer is correct though, the GTS was hamstrung by it's memory bandwidth. The Pros and Ultras solved that.

The original poster should get a 5800 Ultra, which has more memory bandwidth and fillrate than either, not to mention a soothing "whooshing" sound. LOL