| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 22403 | 2002-07-20 06:18:00 | Geforce 256 vs MX 200 vs 400 | Gigo (1128) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 63759 | 2002-07-20 06:18:00 | I am looking for a cheap GeForce card. I looked online for new cards and the cheapest GeForce I found was NZ$134 including GST and it was a GeForce 256. I was wondering what is better a GeForce 256 or MX? I have a tight budget as I am 13years old :) The reason I need a new card is for Gaming and Graphics - Photoshop and Webdesign and video card problems. (I have a TNT2 M64 Pro) - For instance- At the top of my 17' monitor I get these light blue lines. The further I shift the image on the screen down the less lines and at 75hz my top bar thing disappears - the title bar with the minimize, restore and close buttons [duh!] If I lower the hz level with my adapter I also get less lines. This really annoys me as in Windows 98 it runs games in the video cards highest hz so I get tons of lines! I can't find any solutions and I don't know if it's the monitor or if the video card is fryied! |
Gigo (1128) | ||
| 63760 | 2002-07-20 06:40:00 | hey gigo, any geforce card with mx infront of it is the budget version of the normal and it/ti cards, if u r mainly into gming it would be better for a mx cos ur budget ( i'm assuming) won't be all that great, mx will still do everything u want it to but won't do extraordinarily well. but if ur into photoshop editing, web design and gaming it would pay to go for a more frontend graphics card. nuf said, it is ur decision. cheers, v.K-------- :D (i'm 2 yrs older than u and my budget still sucks) :_| :_| :_| :_| :_| :_| :_| |
vk_dre (195) | ||
| 63761 | 2002-07-20 06:45:00 | How much better is a Geforce 400 than a 200? | Gigo (1128) | ||
| 63762 | 2002-07-20 08:41:00 | You think I should go with a 64 mb MX 400 than a 32mb? - How much more performance will I get? | Gigo (1128) | ||
| 63763 | 2002-07-20 11:41:00 | Just a remider, if you cpu is slow, upgrading your vid card won't give you better performance.. not by much anyway. GF2 mx 400 is better than 200 in terms of core clock and memory clock frequency. The performance is almost identical. GF2 mx200 has 32mb memory onboard and GF2 mx400 has 32/64mb memory onboard. GF2 mx200 has a core/memory of 175mhz/166mhz GF2 mx400 has a core/memory of 200mhz/175mhz or 200mhz depending on the brand. GF2 mx400 is like an overclocked version of GF2 mx200, the only difference is the memory onboard. I would go with GF2 mx400 because the price between GF2 mx200 and mx400 is identical. You can get GF2 mx200 for as low as $115 and GF2 mx400 for $123. GF2 mx400 would be faster than GF2 mx200 only when you cpu is fast enough to handle those graphic details. I'm still on GF2 mx (the really first version of GF2) and cpu (p3)running at 776mhz, i get around 60-99fps in counter strike. A few months ago I was on celeron running 550mhz with the same vid card and I used to get around 20-70fps. |
boom23 (176) | ||
| 63764 | 2002-07-20 13:26:00 | www.tomshardware.com has a few pages that compare 30 different graphics cards, looking at four (I think) different games, and the average frames-per-second they give, and a 3DMark test as well. -- Hervard |
Hervard (405) | ||
| 63765 | 2002-07-20 14:41:00 | Your ,problem sounds like it might be the Monitor ,you need to try another video card to find out for sure. If you want upgrade your video card anyway,then an MX 400 would be by far the best choice ,Boom23 is not right when he says the MX400 is just an overclocked MX200. The difference is in the memory used and I,m not talking about the speed of the memory rather the bandwidth,the MX200 uses 64bit SDram and the MX400 128bit ,this makes a huge difference in performance,whether you get a 32 or 64m card does not make much difference ,but as the price is almost the same you may as well go for 64m,just make sure it is 128bit ram ,ask the vendor as i have seen so called MX 400 cards with 64bit ram and there not suppose to...... and also a new video card will make a big difference to your graphics performance regardless of the cpu,provided it is at least 400mhz |
tech_mister (433) | ||
| 63766 | 2002-07-21 00:03:00 | the 256 if its DDR ram is really fast I have one paid $220 for it a bout a year ago got a gforce 3 now which runs about 25% faster but the 256 ddr version is really fast for gaming much better than the mx series stay away from the mx 200 it sucks | kiwibeat (304) | ||
| 63767 | 2002-07-21 02:24:00 | I have 256mb Ram and a Pentium 3 500mhz I heard you don't need a great CPU as the Video card does the 3D not the CPU...............but theres no point of a Geforce 4 on a 486! I'm looking at perchasing this card www.ascent.co.nz any ideas on another cheap card? |
Gigo (1128) | ||
| 63768 | 2002-07-21 03:41:00 | Hum, I'm still gonna stick with mx400 is an overclocked version of mx200 . In theory mx400 has more bandwidth and suppose to perform better, but I was talking about having the card in a crap machine . Vid card doesn't perform 3d on its own, it needs cpu as well . The 3d calculations is being done by the GPU then everything is transfered to the bus and that's when cpu comes in . If your cpu is not fast enough to process all those information, then you won't get better performance . But ofcourse you'll gain performance . go to www . pp . co . nz there are a few cheap cards there . |
boom23 (176) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||