Which is better? GF2 or ATi 9200?

[Souka]

Ok.... which is a better card for playing games?

Geforce2 MX400 PCI 32mb
ATI Radeon 9200 PCI 128mb


I'm guessing the ATI card because it's newer......but just a guess.


Not looking for the generic "Geforce sucks" or "128mb has got to be better" responses.......



Thanks,
Souka

 

[Corporate Thug]

i would take the 9200

 

[rbV5]

My AIW 7500 was ~ GF2 ultra (AGP), the 9200 PCI should be much better than GF2 MX400 PCI.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: shady06
i would take the 9200

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: modedepe

Originally posted by: shady06
i would take the 9200

 

[Gamingphreek]

Take the 9200. If it were an AGP Geforce 2 Ti or Ultra (64mb DDR) i would say take that but... only a PCI card and 32SDRAM. Nah. The 9200 is better.

-Kevin

 

[rbV5]

Take the 9200. If it were an AGP Geforce 2 Ti or Ultra (64mb DDR) i would say take that

Why? The 9200 is a bit faster than those as well, a 7500 would be a close call to a GF2 ultra with the 7500 faster in most cases, but close.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Take the 9200. If it were an AGP Geforce 2 Ti or Ultra (64mb DDR) i would say take that

Why? The 9200 is a bit faster than those as well, a 7500 would be a close call to a GF2 ultra with the 7500 faster in most cases, but close.

I have a GF2 Ti200 and it is indeed faster than the radeon 9200.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: rbV5

Take the 9200. If it were an AGP Geforce 2 Ti or Ultra (64mb DDR) i would say take that

Why? The 9200 is a bit faster than those as well, a 7500 would be a close call to a GF2 ultra with the 7500 faster in most cases, but close.

I have a GF2 Ti200 and it is indeed faster than the radeon 9200.

I don't believe there was a GF2 Ti200, that was a GF3. Just GF2 and GF2 Ultra.

Anyways, out of nostalgia I'd get the GF2.

 

[Pete]

There was a GF2Ti, but I don't think it had a number after the Ti. Anyway, the OP is asking about a GF2MX, so of course anything with 128-bit DDR memory (which I'm assuming the 9200 has...?) will smack a GF2MX around. Get the 9200.

9200 (250MHz, 4x2, DDR) >> GF2MX (<=200MHz, 2x2, SDR). Corroborating benchmarks: the 9000 (equivalent to the 9200) is much faster than the GF2MX400 (probably faster than your 32MB model).

It's safe to say that currently the GF2MX basically sucks, and of course 128MB is better than 32MB.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Childs
I don't believe there was a GF2 Ti200, that was a GF3. Just GF2 and GF2 Ultra.

The box my card came in says "GeForce2 Ti200" right on it. Xbit Labs makes referance to the GF2 Ti as being a Ti200 in an article. link
"GeForce2 Ti doesn't show any significant performance improvement compared to the GeForce2 Pro and is very unlikely to be as attractive for the customers as GeForce2 Ti 200, so we wouldn't dare predict its fortune."

Referance bolded.

 

[Cawchy87]

NVIDIA Titanium.Besides three new solutions aka GeForce3 Ti 500, GeForce3 Ti 200 and GeForce2 Ti

(quoted out of you link)

there is a geforce 2 ti and a geforce3 ti200. no such thing as a geforce2 ti 200.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I had a Geforce 2Ti... there is no Ti200. The Geforce 2TI is indeed faster than a 5200 series card, a 7xxx series card and in some cases a 9600SE or N/U, and all the 5600 cards. This was discussed in an earlier thread with great detail. In fact The Geforce 2 Ti massacres a Geforce 4mx, a 5200series card, the 9200Series cards, and beats a 9600Se N/U and a 5600N/U in a little bit of tests.

But since we are talking about the MX and 32mb PCI and all that the 9200 will massacre it.

-Kevin

 

[acemcmac]

Gaming with your PCI for video is a joke.... You're better off cutting your losses now and starting by replacing your motherboard on up.... TRUST ME!

 

[Soulkeeper]

gf2 mx is not only budget, it fast becoming "oldschool" hehe

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
gf2 mx is not only budget, it fast becoming "oldschool" hehe

GF2 mx is already ghetto oldschool.

 

[SickBeast]

It would be a very sad day for ATi if a GF2 could beat their 9200.

 

[BFG10K]

The 9200 will kill the entire GF2 line.

 

[Gamingphreek]

No it wont... actualbenchmarks have been done!!!! They are recent and in the forums too. Seach for em.

-Kevin

 

[edmundoab]

I was hoping you'd ask GF 2 Ultra or Pro

But since its MX
Then I definately go for the ATi 9200

 

[JBT]

My old GeForce 2 TI 64MB scored around 5000 in 3dmark01 My laptop with a Mobility 9000 64MB which is slower than a desktop card 9200 gets 7000-8000 I forget exactly the score as I don't ussually benchmark it. Maybe I will give it a run or two when I get home just to be sure.

I relize 3dmark sucks but it is a decent benchmark for general system performance.

 

[monzie]

Errr...this is a pretty pointless discussion!

A PCI gfx card, post.. say 2000AD (of just about any flavor) will be limited by the speed of the PCI bus so its true potential will never be reached anyway...its thru put /output will be crippled.

I had a GF2 400mx pci card (about 3 maybe 4 years back) and it would play something like the original Half Life...just (at 800 X 600)...the odds of playing anything modern would be very doubtful...

....surely a better option would be buy a new mobo with integral gfx (as a modernish nvidia based mobo with onboard gfx would walk all over a pci gfx card.....plus you get an AGP slot for upgrading when you have the funds).....presuming, that is, that you want a pci card due to a lack of AGP slot.

Listen to reason........ pci gfx = naff 3d

 

[ss284]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I had a Geforce 2Ti... there is no Ti200. The Geforce 2TI is indeed faster than a 5200 series card, a 7xxx series card and in some cases a 9600SE or N/U, and all the 5600 cards. This was discussed in an earlier thread with great detail. In fact The Geforce 2 Ti massacres a Geforce 4mx, a 5200series card, the 9200Series cards, and beats a 9600Se N/U and a 5600N/U in a little bit of tests.

But since we are talking about the MX and 32mb PCI and all that the 9200 will massacre it.

-Kevin

Huh????????

You might want to look at some recent benchmarks, because in no way does the gf2 ti "massacre" any of those cards. Seeing as how a mx440 is based on roughly the same core, just clocked faster and made on a better process, there is no way the gf2 ti is faster than the mx440. And while in dx7 benchmarks, the gf2 ti might equal or slightly exceed the fps of the cards you mentioned, this only applies to the severely crippled versions of those cards based on the chipsets (ie 64 bit memory interface with lower clocked memory and core).

The 5200 ultra/radeon 7500 pro/radeon 9200 pro/5600NU and the 9600 NP especially will beat the gf2 ti in most if not all the benchmarks you run on it.



-Steve

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: JBT
My old GeForce 2 TI 64MB scored around 5000 in 3dmark01 My laptop with a Mobility 9000 64MB which is slower than a desktop card 9200 gets 7000-8000 I forget exactly the score as I don't ussually benchmark it. Maybe I will give it a run or two when I get home just to be sure.

I relize 3dmark sucks but it is a decent benchmark for general system performance.

3DMark is the AOL of benchmarking, seriously. 3DMark is also flawed because it will give a card an incredibly low score if the card is unable to play a scene. I benchmarked both my GF2 Ti and my FX5200 in 3DMark 2001, and since some of the scenes could not be rendered with the GF2, it got an incredibly low score. 3DMark 2001 said the FX5200 was much much faster than the GF2, but another program called GL Excess said the GF2 was faster. I tried playing Neverwinter Nights with both cards and found that the GF2 Ti really was faster than the FX5200 just like GL Excess said.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: ss284
You might want to look at some recent benchmarks, because in no way does the gf2 ti "massacre" any of those cards. Seeing as how a mx440 is based on roughly the same core, just clocked faster and made on a better process, there is no way the gf2 ti is faster than the mx440.

I've actually tested them both, and the GF2 won. The GF2 also beats the 5200 which is slightly faster than the MX440.


Here are some GL Excess scores I got when benchmarking most of my video cards (link)

Fill Rate
Radeon 7200: 1841
GF4 MX440: 2798
GF FX5200: 3017
GF2 Ti: 3490
Radeon 9600XT: 8825

Polygon
Radeon 7200: 1024
GF4 MX440: 3207
GF FX5200: 4120
GF2 Ti: 5331
Radeon 9600XT: 10495

VRAM
Radeon 7200: 1483
GF4 MX440: 2072
GF FX5200: 2257
GF2 Ti: 2239
Radeon 9600XT: 5212

CPU/GPU
Radeon 7200: 2433
GF4 MX440: 7565
GF FX5200: 7763
GF2 Ti: 7666
Radeon 9600XT: 8376

Overall Score
Radeon 7200: 1999
GF4 MX440: 4856
GF FX5200: 5260
GF2 Ti: 5640
Radeon 9600XT: 9274