Hot? Warm? Or just icy cold? GeForce 2 MX

[bleuiko]

I'm thinking about buying a new video card, because an ATi Rage Pro TURBO 8MB just isn't doing justice to Counter-Strike.. uh i mean my paper. Anyway, the best deal now is a GeForce 2 MX (i think) and so i found this on evga.com... is this a good price for it?

Chipset: nVidia GeForce2 MX
Graphics Engine: 256 bit
Memory: 32MB
Bus Type: AGP
RAMDAC: 350 MHz
Catagory: Mainstream
Driver Support: Win 95/98, NT 4.0, 2000
API Support: Direct X, OpenGL
Soft DVD: Yes
TV OUT: No
More info here.

PRICE: $129.00 <------ expensive? (reg price 159.99)

They claim (i HATE that word) that the below $100 dollar cards contain bad components, and that their card makes a big difference. Is this true?

e-GeForce2 MX

Design: nVidia Reference Design
Memory: 32MB 5.5ns SDRAM (128 bit)
Board Layers: 6 layers
Core Clock: 175 MHz
Memory Clock: 166 MHz

Generic Low Cost/Low Performance MX

Design: Propriatery Design
Memory: 32MB 7ns SDRAM (64 bit)
Board Layers: 4 layers
Core Clock: 143 MHz
Memory Clock: 143 MHz

More info here.

And someone posted that when the GF3 comes out... there will be a big drop of GF2 prices? Should I wait?

(please forgive if this post does not really fit the forum, not sure... but i'm a newbie at hot deals )

 

[divinemartyr]

You must not be familiar with Pricewatch. Here you can submit searches from hundreds of online vendors to find the best price on things. You can find a GeForce2 MX as low as $79 on pricewatch.

Try that first, should be a good place to start.

Once you've found an online reseller you want to shop with that has a good price, make sure they're reliable by checking their Reseller ratings.

dm

 

[Hgabriel]

Their claim is wrong. Most GeForce cards are made by the same Fab containing the exact same components.

 

[BigSmooth]

There are slight differences in the different manufacturers' versions of the MX cards (some manufacturers include fans/better memory/different outputs on their boards, etc.) Although it is true, many &quot;reference&quot; boards will be identical.

See if you can find some comparison reviews on the net, virtually any major hardware site will have something.

 

[bleuiko]

oh wow... thanks for the replies!

I knew about Pricewatch but was not too sure about the companies, thanks for the link to resellerratings, which should come in very handy.

Thanks again... now i must go graphics shopping

 

[Zap]

Kinda warm. Here's the deal:

&quot;Officially&quot; the MX runs 175 core, 166 memory (6ns). The eVGA 5.5ns memory should be capable of running at 183 un-overclocked (unlike what they said about it running 166). Yes, they are right that the &quot;cheap&quot; MX cards often come with 7ns memory (rated 143). They are incorrect saying &quot;cheap&quot; MX cards run 143 core. All MX chips are rated 175 core, using just a heatsink.

The GeForce series of chips seem to need memory bandwidth for performance, so it may be worth paying extra for the faster memory. However, I believe the purpose of the MX is for people who want _affordable_ performance, and if you REALLY want more performance, GeForce 2 GTS cards can be had for not much more. So, really, it probably shouldn't matter much.

BTW, I bought a &quot;cheap&quot; MX. It did come with 7ns memory, but it was clocked at 150 default. It runs fine at 165 with no visual glitches, but 170 starts getting glitches. There wasn't much performance gain between 150 and 165 (but it is measureable).

 

[RobsTV]

I would have to say ICE COLD.
For $129 you could have gotten a GeForce2 GTS card a month or so ago.
Anyway, the cheapest site for video card currently is newegg.com.
Newegg viideo cards (they also have one of the best ratings from resellersrationgs)

There current &quot;best&quot; offerings are:
Gigabyte Geforce2 MX with TV Out - Retail Box $89 + $5 Fedex Saver Shipping
ATI Radeon 32MB DDR 4X AGP Video Card - LE- OEM $83 Free Fedex Saver Shipping

 

[bleuiko]

Thanks for all the info!

Another quick question, which is better: GeForce 256 or GeForce 2 MX?

I have a friend who has GeForce 256 and it seem to perform as well as the MX... it also has 32MB RAM and cheaper (but only by about $10).

 

[rondeemc]

I was curious about which is the better card for the price also......GeForce 256 or GeForce 2 MX. How goes the opinions?

 

[Taz4158]

Heads up to check out the Radeon LE for about the same money. Far far better and faster card.

 

[Kelvrick]

Don't forget the reg-edit and powerstrip.

 

[KevinH]

Geforce 256 SDR<<Geforce 2 MX<<Geforce 256 DDR.

Kev

 

[Phunktion]

Hello the $90 (roughly) Radeon LE will beat the MX and the LE can be hacked to use the HyperZ with Direct3D.. read around the anandtech reviews

 

[GhostSoldier]

The Radeon is only useful if you play in 32-bit color at extrememly high resolution (1600x1200), only then does it come anywhere close to the GeForce in frame rates, not to mention the crappy, immature ATI drivers for the Radeon are notorious for horrible image quality, (things showing through walls, angles not matching up, etc.) That will be fixed in due time with better drivers but for now the Radeon is a poor choice both for performance AND image quality.

The GeForce MX is an awesome card, and the PowerColor MX can be found for $84 at www.verasoft.com (plus shipping). The PowerColor is one of the better ranked cards, although ALL of the MX cards are so close in performance that the difference is only a couple of frames.

However, for only a few bucks more than you were going to spend on the MX, you can buy a Leadtek Winfast (best ranked Geforce2 GTS on Tom's Hardware) at iBuyPower.com for only $175 shipped.

I personally have an MX and the Leadtek GTS and they are both much faster and much better image quality than the 64 MB DDR
Radeon I JUST RETURNED.

Hint: 64 MB GTS performs almost exactly identical to the 32 MB version, don't bother spending the extra money.

Bottom line:

Radeon = Bad,
Geforce 256 SDR = Ok,
Geforce2 MX = Good,
Geforce 256 DDR = Better,
Geforce2 GTS = Best.
Geforce2 Ultra = Overpriced.

DO NOT BUY A RADEON unless you play in strictly 32-bit 1600x1200 resolution, and don't mind waiting it out for better drivers.

 

[novice]

RE: Another quick question, which is better: GeForce 256 or GeForce 2 MX?

IMHO, the Geforce 2 MX is better, even if a little more expensive.
1. Newer technology based on the geforce 2 core
2. uses much less power only 4 watts compared to like 15 for the GF 256
3. runs much cooler (see note above) a cooler case = happier cpu !
4. more compatible some older motherboards can't put enough juice through their AGP slot to properly feed the 256 SDR, the MX doesn't require as much

If you want a &quot;name brand&quot; card for under $100 check multiwave for the A-Open geforce 2 MX. $92 plus shipping and handling. Mine works great, although I paid $110 plus shipping a few months ago.
Chuck

 

[rondeemc]

I had no idea the power draw varied so much Novice. That makes the MX the choice for me. I have had some bad experience with ATI drivers in the past so that bridge has been burned.

 

[halik]

I got Elsa GTS for 130 in jan. Mx's go for around 80...

 

[eyez]

EVGA store has a price match option. They will match price of any similar, non-EVGA product. I'm getting their GF2 MX DH pro for $136 shipped after pricematching with asus D1V2.

 

[Torchem]

I'm sorry to hear about these bad ATI experiences that every speaks of... I've never had problems with ATI drivers at all. In fact, my only complaint was that the Rage 128 cards were overpriced, performance-wise. However, the Radeons are priced well and perform better.

 

[GhostSoldier]

I have nothing against ATI, I just don't like the Radeon in particular. The price makes it almost justifiable after their price break, but it's still got nothing over ANY GeForce. Why do you guys keep saying it performs better?

This may seem sarcastic, but it's really not. I'd like to see a single benchmark suite that shows a consistant advantage from the Radeon over a decent GeForce. Any URL's I should see?

Now I'm not talking about overclocking the damn thing, that's not fair. I mean an off the shelf Radeon consistantly beating an off the shelf GeForce. The bottom line is that the Radeon is just plain an inferior card, in both price and performance.

 

[GoSharks]

the radeon will run circles around the geforce Mx, but not the gts. keep in mind that the mx is the value card of nvidia, and the radeon 32ddr is the equvilant to the gts for ati.

the radeon has very good top end performance, anything above 1024x768 and 32bit color, it will generally be faster than the gts and most definitly faster than the mx.

also, the radeon has much better 2d quality compared to the geforce line.

 

[GhostSoldier]

Like I said, I wanna see hard numbers, but these &quot;Radeon kicks GeForce ass&quot; numbers don't seem to be showing up anywhere. Damnit this is getting annoying. Let's settle this.

Wanna see GeForce's spanking Radeons? Check out MX spanks Radeon 32 SDR and everything GeForce spanking everything Radeon, and kicking some Voodoo ass as well.

Don't like Tom's Hardware? Fine, how about this Article from right here at AnandTech showing a GF2 GTS kicking a Radeon 64 DDR across the parking lot.

That's three seperate benchmark suites from 2 different websites, all showing the GeForce family kicking the Radeons asses. Wake up, people, the Radeon is INFERIOR!! Unless you're getting a Radeon 64 DDR for about $119, it's not better than a GeForce.

Prove me wrong!

 

[BA]

HardOCP Radeon review

Look at all the 32-bit benches. Radeon's taking the GTS in every one.

Pretty good for a card that costs HALF as much($83 LE).

 

[Deuce300]

I would have to agree with GhostSoldier, the GeForce line of cards are a no-brainer. I really can't see any reason to buy the Radeon line of cards, or any ATi for that matter. And this is coming from a past ATi owner mind you. Their driver support is horrible in my opinion, from my experience with their Rage128 and All in Wonder series along with Windows 2000 support. It was a debacle trying to get my All in Wonder working 100% with their drivers and workarounds. Its not worth spending that kind of money on video cards to have to go through that kind of compatibility nightmare. I just reverted to nVidia and all is well. The unified Detonator drivers from nVidia are the BEST video drivers out there, how easy can it get? AnandTech shows this in their Win98/2k comparison of ATi and nVidia right here.

The benchmarks out there pretty much tell the story of the GeForce MX being on par with the 32MB SDR/DDR Radeon with prices being similar for both company's products. The GeForce 2 GTS pretty much kicks the crap out of everything else. But lets remember that you can't put a price on compatibility and headache avoidance.

That's just the Deuce's 2 cents...

 

[Deuce300]

I don't know what benchmarks you're looking at over at HardOCP, but it looks like to me that the GeForce won the majority of those benchmarks.