mcb Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Radeon 7200 or GeForce2MX400 - which is a better deal? ive found them both for the same prices. but which is better? i can get the 7200 for $110 (canadian) or the MX400 for the same price, w/tv out, or without tv-out for $100. Both are 64meg, and (i assume) are barebones packages, w/o much if any software. votes and any advice/reasons for your pick would be most appreciated thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted January 25, 2002 Veteran Share Posted January 25, 2002 hmm.. i'd get the GF2 MX 400. The 7200 is severly crippled (as well as the GF2 but not as much) The second reason is that the features in the 7200 that would possibly make it better than the MX aren't implemented in the drivers yet (smoothvision) so that speaks for that.. One SHoTTa35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted January 25, 2002 Author Share Posted January 25, 2002 Also, if you voted GeForce, do you think its worth getting tv-out for $10? ======================= SHoTTa35: what do you mean by 'crippled'? do you mean outdated and cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted January 25, 2002 Veteran Share Posted January 25, 2002 hell yeah.. i wish i had gotten TV out instead so that's why i'm trying to sell my Geforce2 MX 200 64MB card so i can get something with TV out. Playing FPS games on the bigger 27 inch TV would be sweet! This 17 inch is driving me nuts! My MX 200 is good enough for me even though i know it would look WAAAY better with a GF4 Ti4600 (when they come out) but i'm fine with this for now till next year!! nah.. that's not what i mean.. the cheaper cards has the worse memory (SDR - Single Data Rate, while the other GF2 GTS and TI and ULTRA cards uses DDR - Double Data Rate) and the memory pathways to the bus and GPU and all that is lesser than the GF3 for example. The MX GPU (or the core) is 170mhz while the GF3 is 240mhz and the .. let's just take a quote from nVidia to show you..... MX 400 Graphics Core: 128-bit Memory Interface: 64/128-bit SDR, 64-bit DDR Texels per Second: 800 Million Memory Bandwidth: 2.7GB/s GF3 Ti 500 Graphics Core: 256-bit Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR Fill Rate: 3.84 Billion AA Samples/Sec. Operations per Second: 960 Billion Memory Bandwidth: 8.0GB/Sec. They don't offer direct comparisons but basically all they did is they did was remove some of the features of the more expensive chips. In certain cases diliberately locked the speed slower even though the chip can go faster (that's why most people overclock GPUs) I couldn't find more direct comparisons but you get the idea.. right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted January 25, 2002 Author Share Posted January 25, 2002 yeah, i know that GF3 is WAY better than GF2, but GeForce 2 is still at least twice as good as my current TNT2 M64. (plus Geforce 3 is kinda out of the price range im willing to go with) I see that your card is: GeForce2 MX 200 64MB @ 200/166 (clock/mmem). so how much did you o/c by if any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipgenius Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Originally posted by mcb Radeon 7200 or GeForce2MX400 - which is a better deal? ive found them both for the same prices. but which is better? i can get the 7200 for $110 (canadian) or the MX400 for the same price, w/tv out, or without tv-out for $100. Both are 64meg, and (i assume) are barebones packages, w/o much if any software. votes and any advice/reasons for your pick would be most appreciated thanks Well... I've bought a Radeon 7200 and I'm really happy with it and with its TV out feature (it's included in european packages). Playing FIFA 2002 on 33'' TV set is such a great experience. Also the ATI card (here in Italy) is what every hardware geek suggest if you want a cheap but great card. Get the Radeon. Bye, Matteo Get ZipGenius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted January 25, 2002 Veteran Share Posted January 25, 2002 Originally posted by mcb ..... I see that your card is: GeForce2 MX 200 64MB @ 200/166 (clock/mmem). so how much did you o/c by if any? well my defaults were 175/143 (clock/mem) so as you can see that added some better results for me when playing at a higher resolutions. I can play Max Payne at 1024 X768 X 32bit X 85hz all ABOVE that magical 25FPS mark. Sometimes it dips below that but it does run pretty good and stable too i might add... I used a reg key to add a hidden option "Clock Frequencies" and according to that... i can O/C my card all the way 220/180 but i'd need some super cooling. Normal air cooling alone wont give me those results.. the fastest i can pus this now is 210/170 but it crashes every now and then and i get some bad image dithering and terrible dvd quality sometimes... so i just leave it here.. where it's stable. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted January 25, 2002 Author Share Posted January 25, 2002 zipgenius : unfortuately, The North American 7200 Isnt offered with w/tv-output, would that change your mind if i could get the MX400 With the tv? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khujo Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 I've been through a Geforce2 MX 200 an MX 400 and now I've got a Geforce 2 ti200, I am a tech for a local CompUSA and we have a Gainward geforce2 that normally retails for $130 and i have seen it on sale for $99 thats an awesome deal and the performance over a MX series geforce2 is quite noticiblem I have installed geforce2 mx400's in quite a few high powered systems and have seen time and time again that the MX is a huge bottleneck on fast computers. Athlon 1.3Ghz pcs with a MX400 was a good 40-50 frames slower then my classic 850 athlon with Gef2ti. Just something to think about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted January 25, 2002 Author Share Posted January 25, 2002 well, you can see my specs in my sig, so my 866 is probably similar to your 850, that should be okay. and either way an MX400 is 2x better than TNT2, (a Ti would be nice, but isnt going to happen anytime soon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Gates Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 ok, get the geforce or i'll come and kick your ass. i know from experience. i bought the 7200 originally (you've probably heard my little time i had with ATI) . it is a peice of ****. it's weak as hell and plus, the geforce has a built in fan/heatsink. ati has horrible customer service and when i bought the 7200 there weren't even any official drivers. the geforce's have detenator drivers coming out like crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dfx Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Go for a 3dfx V5 6000... I wish 3dfx where here :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipgenius Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Originally posted by Phil Gates when i bought the 7200 there weren't even any official drivers. When I first installed the 7200, XP used NATIVE drivers: the card was recognized as RADEON 7200 64 MB SDR. Also: in the CD-ROM bundled with the card I've found the latest available official drivers for Windows XP. This happened on Dec. 23, 2001. Bye, Matteo Get ZipGenius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipgenius Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Originally posted by mcb zipgenius : unfortuately, The North American 7200 Isnt offered with w/tv-output, would that change your mind if i could get the MX400 With the tv? No. Many friends working for PC makers told me that they prefer the ATI over the MX400, because they consider the last one as a strange product, as a limited GeForce and this doesn't justify the price (they say). I'm disocvering my ATI on XP PRO and I'm really happy. I've just tried Test Drive 6 demo and it's really fast. I'm beginning to think that many people just buy a GeForce only because it's a "GeForce", without considering a good (and cheaper, in Italy) alternative. Ah... My system has a Celeron 433 MHz CPU and 128 MB of RAM, so you can understand what I'm saying. Obviously, if you can, you'd better look at the ATI 8500. Believe me: ATI cards are really good. Bye, Matteo Get ZipGenius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sworph Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Hard decision. I have a Hercules GF2 MX 64mb and I have had nothing but trouble with XP I can only run it at 1X AGP or else the computer hangs, I have the latest drivers 27.11. But thats not to say its a bad card because it runs great at 4X AGP in Win 2000 so like I said tough call. Save your money and get a GF4 my system: ASUS A7A 266 Athlon 1333 256mb DDR GF2 64mg 40gb WD + 10GB Seagate 21" Sony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts