How much slower is an Nforce 220 vs GeForce MX 200?

Tequila

Senior member
Oct 24, 1999
882
11
76
Is it just a few frames worse or are we talking 50%ish worse? Mostly looking at playing games like Counter-Strike and BF 1942, not so much concerned about UT2003 or Doom3.

Basically would an Nforce 220 based mobo be good enough till I can afford a better video card or would games like CS be unplayable?

Thanks.
 

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:eek: It could be as bad as 50% slower than a GF2MX400 on nForce220 as the 220 lacks the 420's dual channel RAM which is only of use when using the o/b gfx. As to a GF2MX200 you shouldn't be too far behind, 10-20% tops, but considering the huge boost a $50 GF2TI, GF4MX or Rad7500 would deliver using that o/b doesn't much sense. In fact 128MB GF3, Rad8500 or Rad9000 give a massive boost in both speed and abilities and come in at $100. I don't know specificly about the games in question but if you want any usable perf then seriously upgrade your card.
 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
an nForce 220 isn't going to cut it for BF1942, unless you want to run at the lowest possible settings. and even then it would probably be slow.
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
13
81
Originally posted by: Tequila
Is it just a few frames worse or are we talking 50%ish worse? Mostly looking at playing games like Counter-Strike and BF 1942, not so much concerned about UT2003 or Doom3.

Basically would an Nforce 220 based mobo be good enough till I can afford a better video card or would games like CS be unplayable?

Thanks.
cs would be playable, you are looking at tnt2 ultra speeds there. bf 1942 you'd probably want something faster. an nforce2 board would probably be ok for bf1942
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY