NVidia videocard performance question

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
E

ErraticMAX

Senior member
Nov 29, 2000
206
0
0
Would this be the correct order if placed in order of performance? (slowest to fastest)

I'm not trying to start a flame war or state that one brand is better than another, I'm just checking the facts ;)

As a matter of fact, I'd love to see all video cards listed in this fashion... ATi, nVidia, 3dfx (R.I.P.), Kyro, Matrox, etc.

Thanks.

UPDATED 04-18-02

(edited with updates from replies so far... a BIG thanks to "QuestionsandAnswers", "Rand" and everyone else for their input!)

"Rand" brought up a very good point about a handful of cards shifting places based on the specific app/game, color depth and resolution. Without getting into a heated debate, lets just say in general. :D

The following list should eliminate some of the marketing confusion in the nVidia product line and help you determine how your card stacks up against the rest of the nVidia graphics cards.


TNT 2 Vanta
TNT / TNT 2 M64 [about the same]
TNT 2
TNT2 Pro
TNT 2 Ultra
GeForce 2 MX 200
GeForce 256 (SDR)
GeForce 2 MX (DDR)
GeForce 2 MX (SDR) / GeForce 2 MX 400 (DDR) [about the same]
GeForce 2 MX400 (SDR)
GeForce 256 (DDR)
GeForce4 MX420 (SDR)
GeForce2 GTS-V
GeForce 2 GTS
GeForce 2 Pro
GeForce 2 Ti-VX
GeForce 2 Ti
GeForce 2 Ultra
GeForce 4 MX440
GeForce 4 MX460
GeForce 3 Ti200
GeForce 3
GeForce 3 Ti500
GeForce 4 Ti4200
GeForce 4 Ti4400
GeForce 4 Ti4600

Jensen, CEO of NVIDIA, said that there would not be a product carrying the name "GeForce5".

Now that this list is almost complete we could turn it into a poll... any thoughts on this?
 
J

John

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
33,944
2
81
Here are some changes in order of performance to the best of my knowledge.


TNT
TNT 2 M64
TNT 2
TNT 2 Ultra

Geforce 2 MX200
Geforce 2 MX
Geforce 2 MX400
Geforce 2 GTS
Geforce 2 Pro
Geforce 2 Ti
Geforce 2 Ultra


Geforce 3 Ti200
Geforce 3
Geforce 3 Ti500
 
BrunoPuntzJones

BrunoPuntzJones

Lifer
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
I think there are a couple of spots. Someone else will let ya know, but I want my guess :)

Geforce 256 SDR
GF2MX series
GF 256 DDR

GF2 Ti (forgot what the clocks were)
GF2 Ultra

GF3 Ti200
GF3
GF3 Ti500

*crosses fingers*
 
R

RanDum72

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2001
4,330
0
76
You guys forgot the GF2 GTS-V (sold exclusively by Visiontek)which is a lower clocked GTS and should be between the GF2 MX400 and the regular GF2 GTS.

And how about the Quadros?
 
Q

QuestionsandAnsweres

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2001
1,628
0
0
TNT 2 Vanta
TNT
TNT 2 M64
TNT 2
TNT 2 Ultra
Geforce 2 MX 200
Geforce 256 SDR
Geforce 2 MX
Geforce 2 MX400
Geforce 256 DDR
Geforce 4 MX 420
Geforce 2 GTS
Geforce 2 Pro
Geforce 2 Ti
Geforce 2 Ultra
Geforce 4 MX440
Geforce 4 MX460
Geforce 3 Ti200
Geforce 3
Geforce 3 Ti500
Geforce 4 Ti4200
Geforce 4 Ti4400
Geforce 4 Ti4600

I changed it some. The geforce 4 MX 460 is faster than ageforce 2 ultra. geforce 4 mx 440 is probably about the same speed as the geforce 2 ultra maybe faster. Geforce 2 ultra has faster memory than the Geforce 4 mx 440 but the geforce 4 mx440 has faster core but the geforce 4 mx has LMA 2 and other things are faster like more TPS (triangles per sec). and the all geforce 4 cards have the new AA feature. The geforce 2 ti is basically a geforce 2 pro just tad faster. Difference between the Geforce 2 ti and the PRO is the TI has 200million more pixels per sec and 6million TPS. but real world performance isnt much different. Maybe because of memory not being fast enough. Geforce 1 DDR is faster than any Geforce 2 MX out there. It had 4.8 GBs memory bandwith. alot more than the 2.7GBs of a Geforce 2 MX. Geforce 1 SDR had 2.65GBs. much more than the 1.3GBs of the Geforce 2 MX 200. Another thing is the Geforce 4 MX 420 has lower memory bandwith than the geforce 1 DDR. Yet with all the other enhancements of the Geforce 4 MX 420 I would say they are about even. I may be wrong tho. If i am the Geforce 4 mx 420 definatly faster than the Geforce 1 SDR and Geforce 2 MXs.

hope this helps :p
 
R

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81
I'll make my own changes and include a few nVidia boards the other have omitted.

TNT 2 Vanta
TNT/TNT 2 M64--- Too close to call.
TNT 2
TNT2 Pro
TNT 2 Ultra
GeForce 2 MX 200
GeForce 256 (SDR)
GeForce 2 MX (DDR)
GeForce 2 MX (SDR) / GeForce 2 MX 400 (DDR)
GeForce 2 MX400 (SDR)
GeForce 256 (DDR)
GeForce4 MX420 (SDR)
GeForce2 GTS-V
GeForce 2 GTS
GeForce 2 Pro
GeForce 2 Ti-VX
GeForce 2 Ti
GeForce 2 Ultra
GeForce 4 MX440
GeForce 4 MX460
GeForce 3 Ti200
GeForce 3
GeForce 3 Ti500
GeForce 4 Ti4200
GeForce 4 Ti4400
GeForce 4 Ti4600

The above listings are only my opinion of OVERALL performance. The listings of about 5-6 of those cards can vary by as much as 2-3 spots depending upon the specific application/color depth/resolution and rendering aspects utilized.

I intentionally omitted the GF4 MX420 in DDR configurations as that's been announced but is not yet available, and it's difficult to accurately gauge relative performance as yet.
Those cards that are available in both SDR/DDR configurations I listed the specific DRAM type in brackets.
Also remember some cards are available in varying DRAM capacities and using SGRAM rather then SDRAM, which could further change the listing.

Some of it really comes down to what resolution/color depth your playing in and what specific game.
At high resolutions a classic TNT can absolutely pund the TNT2 M64, and the TNT2 Vanta, lower resolutions the TNT2 M64 as a pretty big lead.
GF4 MX400 vs. GF2 Ultra can be a matter of specific application preference as well, some apps tend to give a definite advantage either way. MX440 seems to fare better at high res, while the GF2 Ultra tends to handle FSAA and anisotrphy better.
In low resolution games that are heavily T&L limited the MX400 can often beat the GF DDR, though overall the GF DDR usually has a definite performance lead.

In current games the MX460 often beats out the GF3 Ti200, but in DX8 apps that are GPU limited it starts falling quite a distance behind. Though in some more processor limited DX8 apps it holds up well, and tends to do better with non-T&L high polygon loads.

 
L

Leon

Platinum Member
Nov 14, 1999
2,215
4
81
Rand, you missed GF MX100, and GF4 MX 420.

FYI - MX100 was Nvidia attempt to convice OEM's to replace millions of Vanta's by creating very crippled chip (32bit memory bus, SDR memory). It didn't work. Eventually, Nvidia cancelled the production, due to lack of demand. They still produce hundereds of thousands Vanta's, though.

Leon


 
F

FishTankX

Platinum Member
Oct 6, 2001
2,738
0
0
Not to be off topic or anythign, but I have an intresting idea for a new value grahpics card from nvidia...

What you could do is have a graphics card, 2 inches by 2 inches, and one chip package on it. Inside the chip package would be a 384 bit bus (Easier to do because of ultra short distance) with SDRAM hooked up to it. Single 32MB chip in it, clocked at about 166MHZ. Would have a .15 micron Geforce2MX variant with only 1 rendering pipeline, 2 texture units, and no T&L block. This thing would be cheap as heck because of the lack of a PCB (1 capicator, traces to the AGP slot, nothing else) and the chip would be ultra tiny because it'd only have 1 rendering pipeline and no T&L block, but you could run the rendering pipeline at some 250MHZ (I know that's a bit of a stretch, but with the lack of rendering pipelines and no T&L block to weigh it down...) memory running at half speed (Giving it Geforce2MX 200 level performance) and due to it's tiny size you could five thousand on one die. ;) Combine that with like, *zero* PCB(Just the chip itself and a capicator on the back and enough PCB to accomidate the AGP slot) and a tiny chip that runs at high enough a speed to give it acceptable performance, this thing could sell for 30$ and you'd still make money! Throw in a 400MHZ ramdac and a nice, clear line to the VGA output and a DVI port and you'd have the perfect buisiness sollution. And it could play a game of QuakeIII or two at decent framerate....

Can anyone say 30$ retail graphics card? ;) That thing would sell to OEMS like *CRAZY*!!

 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
you guys forgot the riva 128 and the riva 128zx!

the riva TwiNTexel was a POS.


as for the single chip, tiny board thing, i don't think you could have 384 bits to a single SDRAM chip, SDRAM doesn't have that kind of granularity.
 
R

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81


<< They made a TNT2 Pro? I don't remember that one. >>



Yeah, about 4 months after the release of the TNT2/TNT2 Ultra they pulled out the Pro. It mostly just served to bridge the gap between the regular TNT2 and the high end Ultra.
 
E

ErraticMAX

Senior member
Nov 29, 2000
206
0
0
I'm not sure about this but... :confused:



<< GeForce 2 MX (DDR)
GeForce 2 MX (SDR) / GeForce 2 MX 400 (DDR) [about the same]
GeForce 2 MX400 (SDR) >>



Shouldn't it look like this...

GeForce 2 MX (SDR)
GeForce 2 MX (DDR) / GeForce 2 MX400 (SDR)
GeForce 2 MX400 (DDR)

Thanks again in advance!
 
R

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81


<< Rand, you missed GF MX100, and GF4 MX 420.

FYI - MX100 was Nvidia attempt to convice OEM's to replace millions of Vanta's by creating very crippled chip (32bit memory bus, SDR memory). It didn't work. Eventually, Nvidia cancelled the production, due to lack of demand. They still produce hundereds of thousands Vanta's, though.

Leon >>



Yep, my SDR MX440 listing was meant to be an MX420. Typo :)
It's fixed now.

I intentionally left out the MX100 as production of those was limited, and few cards ever reached end users.
Similarly there was at one point in time a Vanta LT, but OEM sales were virtually non-existent and it was quietly cancelled less then 40 days after initial launch.

ALi also pulled out a number of motherboards with integrated TNT2 based graphics, but performance could vary so drastically depending upon configuration and individual motherboard it's virtually impossible to give a relative performance rating for it.
 
O

Oreo

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
755
0
0
Isn't the GeForce4 MX420 (SDR) slower than the Geforec 256 DDR? It's only got half the memory bandwith so it should be around the speed of a Geforce 2MX or a little faster.
 
R

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81


<< Isn't the GeForce4 MX420 (SDR) slower than the Geforec 256 DDR? It's only got half the memory bandwith so it should be around the speed of a Geforce 2MX or a little faster. >>



You'd be surprised just how effective nVidia memory bus architecture is. nVidia's memory bus is one of the primary reasons the GF3, specifically the Ti500 generally has as much as 1-1.5GB/s of bandwidth available beyond the R8500... despite the fact that the R8500 theoretically has over 1GB/s available to it.

That said, the MX420's memory bus is slightly cut down from that used in the GF3 but it's still a significant order of magnitude more efficient then previously seen with the GF1/2.
My own experiences have shown that the MX420 often comes remarkably close to the GTS-V, and on the rare occasion actually catches up to the regular GTS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom