GF2 MX w/ 64MB vs. GF2 GTS w/ 32MB

[ZigZang]

Hi All,

I've own two GForce cards. One is a VisionTek GF2 MX 400 w/ 64MB and the other is an Asus 7700 GForce 2 GTS w/32MB. My question is which is a better gaming card, assuming all things are equal. Does the extra memory on the GF2 MX 400 give it an edge (on some games perhaps) or does the extra processing "umph" of the GTS more than compensate for any memory disadvantage?

I've looked for benchmarks comparing the two, but nothing exactly matching the two cards above.

Thoughts?

Zig

 

[nemesismk2]

<< Hi All,

I've own two GForce cards. One is a VisionTek GF2 MX 400 w/ 64MB and the other is an Asus 7700 GForce 2 GTS w/32MB. My question is which is a better gaming card, assuming all things are equal. Does the extra memory on the GF2 MX 400 give it an edge (on some games perhaps) or does the extra processing "umph" of the GTS more than compensate for any memory disadvantage?

I've looked for benchmarks comparing the two, but nothing exactly matching the two cards above.

Thoughts?

Zig >>



The extra memory is wasted on a Geforce2 MX, when using high resolutions you will be limited by your Geforce2 MX long before it starts using any of the extra memory. The MX being supplied with 64MB is just a marketing ploy to fool buyers into thinking the video card isn't the pile of s**t it really is!

You will find not a single person here who will recommend you the MX over the GTS regardless of how much memory the MX has!

As for benchmarks, whyn't try some of anandtech's reviews?

 

[ZigZang]

Hehe. . . .

Ok, thank you for not dancing around the issue!! I appreciate it.

I will say this, that gaming on the GF MX has not been bad by any streach, which suprised me a great deal. I've played Ghost Recon, Q3 and Unreal Tourney all at 1280 x 1024 with decent framerates (ok, so GR didn't really have great framerates. . . .)

Thanks again <cracking case, switching card>

Zig