GeForve 2MX vs Radeon

[mhan80]

I am deciding between a Radeon 32 SDRAM, or Ge Force 2MX 32. Which do you recommend, I am on a budget and the Radeon cost $20 more. If you recommend the Ge-froce, which one should I buy

 

[ctll]

creative annihilator gf2mx 32mb ddr
store: best buy $129

edit
or, try pricewatch.com they are cheaper there

 

[Taz4158]

Definitely get the Radeon. It's a much better all around card. There are MANY here to switched from nVidia to the Radeon.

 

[oldfart]

The Radeon is a MUCH better card than an MX. Yoy can get a Radeon 32 DDR for the price of the SDR if you shop a little. With a coupon or whatever, you can get a 32 DDR for $135 or so.

 

[BW]

The radeonb looks alittle better but the g-force will have alot less problems with games.

 

[Taz4158]

<< The radeonb looks alittle better but the g-force will have alot less problems with games. >>


If you haven't owned both your opinion has NO validity.

 

[oldfart]

BW, what &quot;problems&quot; are you talking about? Can you be SPECIFIC on what they are? I don't have a ton of 3D games, but the ones I do play Q2, Q3, Half-Life, Unreal, UT, STVEF, NOLF, Serious Sam Demo, Rogue Spear, all run perfectly. What are these problems you have experienced?

 

[rubberneck]

Taz, just wanted to let you know I appreciate your &quot;no BS&quot; posts....very refreshing to see.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Go with a 32MB Radeon DDR. Beg and borrow to get the extra ~twenty dollars or whatever. The 32MB DDR Radeon is very comparable to, and bests in many yardsticks, the GF2 GTS, let alone the GF2MX.

 

[PeAK]

To get an up to date review and perspective on things sometimes
you have to go abroad to Euroupe.

3D Concept's Radeon SDR reviews shows
the Radeon SDR beating the MX in 3 of 4 game benchmarks (similar
results for Anandtech and Tom's Hardware). The SDR actually challenges
the GeForce 256 with twice as wide a memory path and in some cases beats it. All tests run with Detonator drivers.

If you re-read the reviews by Anandtech and Tom's Hardware on
the Radeon SDR, they only complained about Win2K's lacklustre
performance under Win2K (which was retrofitted to support games
at the last minute by MS). Recent driver updates for Win2K have
made the performance under <a target=new href="http://
babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn?lp=fr_en&amp;doit=done&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.puces3d.com%2Fati%2Farticles%2Faiw-radeon-10.shtm">Win2K equal and in some cases exceed</a> that under Win98.

The last thing is not too pay too much attention to Tom's review about
image quality which is based upon a new and rarely
used game called &quot;Mercedes Benz
Trucking&quot; in which the application itself has not been patched/tweaked yet
to run on Radeon chips.

My training as an engineer sees an inconsistency:
The SDR reviews at both Anandtech and Tom's Hardware show
many benchmarks indicating Radeon SDR performing better
(in one case 50% better) but accompanying statements and conclusions being inconsistent. See Evolva 1600x1200@32...it should evoke some questions
from the reviewer regarding why?

The conclusions definitely show some bias with undue emphasis
on Win2K (addressed by other review sites with updated drivers),
price (quality issues of DVD and sharper 2D and 3D colour are not mentioned, simplistic and misleading statements about
image quality using a little know benchmark, and comments from
left field regarding comparisons to other more expensive siblings.
The reviewers should read their opening introductions and their
final conclusions to see how polarized some of their statements
appear. Just my editors hat.

Radeon has amongst the best image quality
(both 2D and 3D) seen on any modern chipset in the last two years
and this is not mentioned once. Go Figure....I think the SDR
version of Radeon is a sleeper