GeForce2 mx 200 VS TNT2

[grimfandango]

I have read in many places that a TNT 2 (just the tnt 2 not the tnt2 m64)outperforms the geforce 2 mx200 mainly due to its memory bandwidth and memory interface

geforce 2mx 200 =1.3gb/// memory bandwidth
tnt2 = 2.4gb/// memory bandwidth

geforce 2 mx 200 = 64bit memory interface
tnt2 = 128 bit memory interface

is this true? does the TNT 2 really ouperform the mx200 in games and score more marks in 3d mark 2000,2001 because of its memory bandwidth and memory interface ...!!!!!!!!

[araaraara]

I don't know for sure, I will try to find some info on the web.
I do know that the GF2 MX200 sucks @$$ compared to most other video cards because it is a very stripped down version of the GF2 chip which is then coupled with slow ram. These weaknesses are compounded by the fact that it also runs at a slower Mhz clock than the normal GF2's.
The normal TNT is just that, normal. I is designed for the best performance at its time, so it uses fast memory(slow by today's standards) and it has all of the features of the TNT2 chip.

I think it's really sad, not to mention deceptful when I see ads with Pentium4's(a couple hundred $ chip) with mostly decent other features crippled by a $20 video card which should rightly be matched up with a Pentium 1/2 system. And these things which cost over $1000 are supposed to be "Gaming" systems:confused:
I have also seen a lot of systems with 16mb ATI video cards. That is freakin' stupid:mad: I bet they're just Rage Ultra's or something. It's the same video chipset they use in laptops!

[grimfandango]

you said it.................... it i real sad..

[tricktx]

i unfortunatly own a GF2MX and TRUST me they arnt worth the solder on the curcuit board. They do out perform the TNT2 by about 1% thats it. With the MX 400 being only £10 $20 more theres just no point in getting one. I bought mine and have just replaced it with a Radeon 7000, nothing in itself but compared to the MX200 it kicks its *** for less money. If you need to upgrade thegraphics and on a tight budget go for MX400,Radeon 7000 or Kyro II.
The MX200 id to far cut back to be a main contender for graphics. Ok the Radon7000 has only 1 Pipleine compared to 2 from other cards. but the Mx200 has about 5 cutbacks compared to a GF2 card. You dont get the Ummph for gaming from it, and it doesnt give the Geforce cards a good reputation Boost

[delhi]

Get a cheap Radeon DDR or the Radeon LE (requires tweaking).
they are both the same.
These cards come with 128bit chipset and faster DDR rams. Better than Radeon 7000 and 7200. and they are very cheap.

[Brian48]

A few months a go I replaced my aging TNT2u that was in one of my backups (slot A Athlon 700) with a temporary GF2 MX200. There was roughly a 5-7% increase in performance under OpenGL depending on which benchmark you used. Direct3D remained virtually unchanged.

Although the card didn't benchmark any worse than the older TNT2u, there was a lot of jerkiness in games that stress the memory bandwidth that was not present before. Even my brother, who is not a heavy gamer, noticed that the TNT2u seemed to run much smoother while playing some games like NHL2002.

The GF2 MX200 (and MX400 for that matter) is a pathetic card and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone. Especially since you have cards like the Visiontek 5632 GTS-V (now only $48) which blows all the GF2 MX's out of the water.

[grimfandango]

Well delhi how much did you pay for it in india..

for Radeon DDR ...

[InnovaZero]

Hell even the Voodoo 2 had a bigger memory and bandwidth. (In tervined 192bit, or 64 x 3) (2.2GB of Bandwidth)

Although Voodoo 2 was just plain overkill and a half at the time, it's still bad to see a 4 year old card have more then the POS mx200.