nForce Integrated Geforce2

Newbie71

Junior Member
Jul 5, 2002
6
0
0
What type of performance is typically obtained from the integrated Geforce2 on an nForce motherboard.? I understand that it uses 32 MB of system memory. In the case of 266 MHZ DDR RAM, what type of performance is obtained? Is it comparable to a Geforce 2 MX 200?
 

imported_zenwhen

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
302
0
0
Just a little below the MX200. Honestly, you are better off with a GTS from newegg for about $50... no matter what. The nforce chipset is a dead fish.
 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
I disagree. The nForce video is actually comparable to a GF2 MX400...

...and it is a motherboard, not a dead fish. :D

Actually, depending on your purposes, the nForce is a really nice motherboard :D
 

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:( Sorry DevilsAdvocate but ALL of the benchmarks I've seen show that the o/b GF2 is actually at (actually just below) that of a GF2MX200. For $60 GF2TI or GTS is a much better buy if you have any gaming ambition what-so-ever. You do get the best perf from the nForce o/b gfx if your nForce has dual RAM ability like 420 IIRC, but even then no where near GF2MX400. The perf is comparible to other current o/b gfx though.

:D However GF3TI200 is great value for $82, and in the US & Canada the Radeon8500LE is even better at $93 (better image quality and VIVO, plus slightly better perf, even when o/c). The GF4TI4200 is the only other card the vast majority of us can consider and is excellent value at $138.

;) Here's a guide to the perf differences quoting: marks, game1HIGH FPS, game2HIGH FPS, game3HIGH FPS, NatureDX8 FPS.

3Dmark2001 1024x768x32 AthlonXP1600+:

GF2MX200: 1500, 15, 14, 13, n/a
GF2TI/GTS: 5000, 36, 40, 43, n/a
GF3TI200: 7500, 45, 63, 57, 39
GF4TI4200: 8500, 41, 98, 50, 37
Rad8500: 8000, 43, 77, 52, 46

3Dmark2001 1024x768x32xAA AthlonXP1600+:

GF2MX200: 550, 6, 5, 6, n/a (Athlon 1.5ghz only submitted result)
GF2TI/GTS: 2200, 21, 21, 21, n/a
GF3TI200: 4000, 23, 36, 34, 19
GF4TI4200: 6500, 38, 66, 43, 27
Rad8500: 5000, 38, 43, 39, 23
 

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:D The nForce are very reliable and stable mobos, but suck for o/c. Also the PCI bus has probs with PCI RAID, not as bad as VIA PCI though. The o/b 5.1 sound and LAN are excellent quality but the GF2MX200 is inadequate even for a Duron 800 (and that still applies for a GF2MX400 too). Still, since the o/b gfx option only seems to add about $20 to the cost, it isn't all that bad.
 

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81
AnAndAustin has covered it pretty well already, typical performance is comparable to that of a GF2 MX200 board.
Very good for an integrated graphics, but it won't keep up compared to even low-end discrete graphics cards.

If you only have basic 3D needs then it's an excellent option, and is perfectly suitable for older games.

While I can't say I care for 3DM2001 as a benchmark, AnAndAustin listings in the above post will give you a decent idea of the relative abilities of the integrated GF2 GPU's in current games.

If you've got the extra money, and your a gamer your definitely better off looking towards a a R7500/GF4 MX440/GF3 Ti200/R8500LE based board.
Even an R7500, the slowest of the above mentioned boards will give quite a boost over the integrated GF2 GPU, and is a solid al around graphics card.
 

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
;) Hey Rand! I agree that 3Dmark2001 is far from representative to all games and configs, esp since nearly every result submitted is from an o/c system, but it does give a good idea of what the differences between cards are like. I also give a result from the middle of the pack where there are a lot of similar results as quoting the fastest submitted result from any given config is never represenative or even attainable for 99% of us, even with the same hw!

:D If you have only small gaming ambitions then the onboard nForce gfx will suit you fine, very cost effective. If you're looking for a new mobo but can't afford a gfx card to go with it then the nForce gfx will give you decent perf until you can save up your pennies. But when it comes to perf it really is vital to put a seperate AGP gfx card in there, as mentioned Rad7500 is an excellent card if you're on a tight budget, as is GF2TI/GTS, all around $60. If you can afford closer to $100 then Rad8500LE and GF3TI200 are much more capable cards and well worth the extra cost. Of course the GF4TI4200 gives unequaled perf for the price but at $140 it may be more than most people can afford. If you've got an AthlonXP or P4 1.6ghz+ then you really should put at least a GF3/Rad8500 in there as anything less will be a huge waste of your PC's power, for gaming anyway. Same goes for folks with an AthlonXP2000+ or P4 2.0ghz, you really should have a GF4TI4200 in there, although it wouldn't really be worth upgrading from a GF3TI500 or full ATI Radeon8500. All IMHO of course.
 
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
That is funny... I read a few reviews that said that it was around a GF2 MX400... :eek:

Oh well... That level of video is not great regardless of whether it is Mx200 or 400 :)
 

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:) It is possible that it is a GF2MX400 but when considering the bottlenecks imposed from integrating the gfx (sharing busses and memory bandwidth etc) could result in GF2MX200 perf. Either way it would make sense for anybody with any gaming interest to only use the onboard gfx in the short term.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
tinpanalley Graphics Cards 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY