<< The point of Anandtech (and many other good video card review sites) is to place the cards in comparable systems and test them with both synthetic and real-world benchmarks. >>
You seem to have very low esteem for my computer knowledge-of course I know that the 3 systems I mentioned are not directly comparable and benchmarks are divided in 2 main categories. But don't u think that they are both higher in specs (not only regarding the vid cards) from mine even if the P4 is based on a SDRAM-crippled 845 motherboard?
<< You never answered my earlier question about memory, but I'll ask a new question. >>
I stick to the DDR platform-just a matter of opinion based on my knowledge. The issue is not completely answered I think-both of us could be wrong. Why don't we start another post with that?
<< Or does it mean that perhaps your settings for the benchmark / drivers / resolution are different that those used in the review? >>
Yes, this might be an answer. It could also be the fact that my Radeon runs on a 89Mhz overclocked AGP bus (great respect for that don't u think?)
You seem to have very low esteem for my computer knowledge-of course I know that the 3 systems I mentioned are not directly comparable and benchmarks are divided in 2 main categories. But don't u think that they are both higher in specs (not only regarding the vid cards) from mine even if the P4 is based on a SDRAM-crippled 845 motherboard?
I don't know what your computer knowlege is, but in general I start discussions at the ground floor and work up.
With regards to the MX400, my point is that dozens of reviews in dozens of benchmarks show the MX400 performing
1) Very much higher than the TnT2 which you claimed performs the same as MX400 in "real world" benchmarks
2) Much higher than the Radeon VE, even at high resolutions
3) Certainly not at the level of "the worst chipset nVidia has ever made for the low budget segment"
I stick to the DDR platform-just a matter of opinion based on my knowledge.
In addition, I wanted to clarify the point that 64bit DDR memory actually provides less memory bandwidth (at similar clock speeds) then 128bit SDRAM and lower performance. This is due to the fact that although DDR memory operates at both the leading and trailing clock edges there is an slight overhead which reduced the overall efficiency to about 85%. So the VE and the MX400 have approximatly equal memory bandwidth.
Yes, this might be an answer. It could also be the fact that my Radeon runs on a 89Mhz overclocked AGP bus (great respect for that don't u think?)
And now we come to my final point... have you ever tested a MX400 on your system? Have you compared the cards with the same hardware in the same benchmarks/applications? Yet, you tell people that they must "Learn to look behind Anandtech's simple numbers man", although Anandtech is doing just that. They are comparing the cards for you, in the most fair way possible.
No web site review is perfect (and many have produced questionable data) but before I would disregard the and data post your opinion of a card when you've never compared it with the other hardware... well, there are going to be jerks like me who call you on it.
I don't know what your computer knowlege is, but in general I start discussions at the ground floor and work up.
With regards to the MX400, my point is that dozens of reviews in dozens of benchmarks show the MX400 performing
1) Very much higher than the TnT2 which you claimed performs the same as MX400 in "real world" benchmarks
2) Much higher than the Radeon VE, even at high resolutions
3) Certainly not at the level of "the worst chipset nVidia has ever made for the low budget segment"
I stick to the DDR platform-just a matter of opinion based on my knowledge.
In addition, I wanted to clarify the point that 64bit DDR memory actually provides less memory bandwidth (at similar clock speeds) then 128bit SDRAM and lower performance. This is due to the fact that although DDR memory operates at both the leading and trailing clock edges there is an slight overhead which reduced the overall efficiency to about 85%. So the VE and the MX400 have approximatly equal memory bandwidth.
Yes, this might be an answer. It could also be the fact that my Radeon runs on a 89Mhz overclocked AGP bus (great respect for that don't u think?)
And now we come to my final point... have you ever tested a MX400 on your system? Have you compared the cards with the same hardware in the same benchmarks/applications? Yet, you tell people that they must "Learn to look behind Anandtech's simple numbers man", although Anandtech is doing just that. They are comparing the cards for you, in the most fair way possible.
No web site review is perfect (and many have produced questionable data) but before I would disregard the and data post your opinion of a card when you've never compared it with the other hardware... well, there are going to be jerks like me who call you on it.
heres my take on it........im getting the R8500 anyways even though i do pretty ok in games with my PNY GF MX400. Standard clocking on this lil think is 200/334 and yes it has ddr in it. I can clock this thing up to 230/370 with no artifacts on standard air cooling. i get a 3000+ score on 3DMark 2k1. So as I look at it when you say the VE is a good card. I have one. It had 64MB of DDR on it when standard is only 32. I wipe the floor of my VE with this MX400. My VE could only get maybe a 2200 on 3DMark 2k1. That was while overclocked. My standard score for my MX400 is higher than that. So how could the VE even possibly be better?
Ok it's clear, you support the MX, I support my VE for different reasons that DON'T have to do with specs and benchmarking only.....
But maybe u shouldn't answer the way you like to avoiding what suits you or not to answer like:
1. Don't u think the other 2 systems are PROBABLY better in terms of specs than mine and they should perform much better in graphics??
And don't tell me that the pcs are not comparable etc....We are talking about real world stuff-we are not benchmarking here...
2. True or false that if the AGP bus is up to 89 mhz the MX400 system won't even boot??? I ve seen it with my own eyes....Why don't u give it the credit it's worth for that then?
Simple questions that need simple answers - yes I know that all reviews show the MX400 is faster and I believe them of course. But tell me what happens here because I can't.....
But maybe u shouldn't answer the way you like to avoiding what suits you or not to answer like:
1. Don't u think the other 2 systems are PROBABLY better in terms of specs than mine and they should perform much better in graphics??
And don't tell me that the pcs are not comparable etc....We are talking about real world stuff-we are not benchmarking here...
2. True or false that if the AGP bus is up to 89 mhz the MX400 system won't even boot??? I ve seen it with my own eyes....Why don't u give it the credit it's worth for that then?
Simple questions that need simple answers - yes I know that all reviews show the MX400 is faster and I believe them of course. But tell me what happens here because I can't.....
Time for me to step in and heat this up a bit 
Did you know that a "miserable" bandwidth restricted GF2 MX outperforms ever the full blown Radeon 64MB DDR in Counterstrike - eh?
Well there ya go - I thought it was the best value card I ever bought personally - upto 100fps in Counterstrike at maximum resolution
Get any card you like but at least be objective about it.
I bought the cheapest card on the market in Feb 2001 for about US$75 with -5ns RAM and it overclocked to 210/230 - well chuffed!
Now running a GF2 Pro at 230/465 and quite happy with it also
Did you know that a "miserable" bandwidth restricted GF2 MX outperforms ever the full blown Radeon 64MB DDR in Counterstrike - eh?
Well there ya go - I thought it was the best value card I ever bought personally - upto 100fps in Counterstrike at maximum resolution
Get any card you like but at least be objective about it.
I bought the cheapest card on the market in Feb 2001 for about US$75 with -5ns RAM and it overclocked to 210/230 - well chuffed!
Now running a GF2 Pro at 230/465 and quite happy with it also
Just read the last post - MX's not posting at 89Mhz...not true - I had my MX card in my old ABIT BH6 with PIII450@600Mhz (133FSB) the MX card worked flawlessly.
Even my old GF 256 worked flawlessly at that FSB
Even my old GF 256 worked flawlessly at that FSB
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter