Please recommend video card for this system

[dbl_0527]

I am building the following system:
ASUS A7V133 mobo
1.2 Athlon Thunderbird, 266 FSB
256Mb Cas2 Crucial SDRAM
20 Gb Maxtor 7200rpm HD

I may experiment with slight overclocking, but I will be extremely careful not to damage system. I want a decent video card, and the only thing I really need it for is NASCAR racing sims. Can I get a good 32mb card for around 50-60 bucks. Any suggestions?

[gfunkmartin]

Go to www.pricewatch.com (http://www.pricewatch.com)
Currently, they are showing GeForce2 MX400 cards with 32 MB at around 65 dollars, and I've heard pretty good stuff about them

[NDD]

Don't touch S3 production !!! Look at another link about it, S3 doesn't support their Savage4/2000 line no more !
Spend few bucks more on GeForce2 MX/400, it's much more advanced and <u>supported</u>.

Best Regards ...

[deadkenny]

Ya, I'd go with the GeForce2 MX card if you can afford it. Don't spend the extra money on the 64MB card, and stay away from the MX200 card. Only go with an older MX or the current MX400 32MB.

[AndreRIO]

i go with radeon le, everybody says it is faster than the geforce2 mx.

i have the elsa gladiac geforce2 mx, and i going to get a new card a radeon 64 ddr next month.

[Praetorian]

Not sure if this is a really good card but ComputerGeeks.com has a S3 Savage4 32mb. This card requires an AGP slot. Only $27.95. E-mail me at Maverick7241@aol.com for the link. I have to find it.

[Hellmund]

That's only if the LE is hacked, otherwise it is really restriceted my lack of T&L and no HyperZ in Direct3D. The lower clockspeed hurts it bad as well, the core/mem are in sync so the memory lowly clocked as well http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif If your interested there are plenty of other thread exactly on o/cing the LE or you can just ask and I'm sure me, eagle1 or ND will oblige http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[eagle1]

And that system is fast enough with either one of those cards (geforce mx, radeon LE,etc.)

If you have the $$$$ go with the GeForce 3 or GeForce 2 Ultra..!!
If you have SOME $$$ go with the Kyro 2! Good performance (on par almost in every benchmark with GeForce GTS), good speed, good card.!

[Hellmund]

Could you actually give a price range, there a card for every price and situation http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[dbl_0527]

I only want to spend about $60-70. There's only one game I play that would benifit from a good vid card, and those are NASCAR sims, so I don't need to go all out. I think I've decided on the GeForce2 MX400 32mb. Although on pricewatch, the 64 mb is actually $1 cheaper. From what I've read, the mx400 is definitely better than mx200, and there's not that much performance gain in 64mb over 32mb.
And when I referred to oc'ing the system, I don't think I'll mess with OC'ing the video card, i just wanted to make sure that the GeForce could handle a slight overclock to the system. But I've since got the OK that it should be fine.

[Hellmund]

Yeh that should be fine, the 32mb MX400 is quite a good little card for the casual gamer. A Radeon LE will beat it badly though for a little more and the effort of a BIOS flash.

[deadkenny]

The LE is a good deal once you do the reg hack. Especially if you get lucky and the GPU OC's well, but that's really the luck of the draw. Keep in mind though, nVidia driver support is better than ATI's. And the MX400 32MB card is a good performer for the money, especially for games. ATI's strengths are really 2D and video capture etc.

[eagle1]

And trust me, any of these cards will run Nascar (and more powerfull games) without a hiccup or hitch.!! So go get them.!

[AndreRIO]

please disregard what i said before. the radeon le is not faster than the geforce2 mx!!!
click on this: http://www.sysopt.com/forum/Forum4/HTML/005640.html
after much thought i now know that even their flag card the radeon 64 ddr is not that fast, even compared to a geforce2 mx.

[AndreRIO]

sorry very much

[Hellmund]

Uh the LE is a whole lot faster than an MX andrewrio. The Le doesn't pump out 200fps at 640X480X16 but consistently dishes out 60+ fps at 1024X768X32. The MX can only really play more recent games at 800X600X16. The HyperZ on the Radeon coupled with DDR memory allow it to consistently pummel a MX at higher resolutions. That's only is it's flashed with a 32mb DDR BIOs though. In it's standard configuration the MX will hammer it.

[eagle1]

Are you sure about what you are saying AndreRIO???
Because almost every benchmark that I know of, the Radeon will kick the mx ****.!!!!!

Who plays at 640x480 anyways??? At high resolutions (like Hellmund says) the Radeon will beat an mx easily.!!!!

[Hellmund]

Even in it's "crippled" state it gives the MX a run for it's money past 800X600X32. Looks like I'm off to get some benchmarks, I'll be 8 minutes this time eagle1 http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[Hellmund]

Here's one at Anand: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1473&p=9 and another: http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/radeon-le.html and one more http://www.bench-house.com/video/ati/radeon/le/radeon_le_002.html

[suzuki1]

Try the Geforce 2 GTS with 32 meg DDR
I have the asus V7700 and works great.
Picked it up for 150.00


suzuki1

[eagle1]

Yeah susuki.. it is good but this guy wants to spend $50 -- $60 dollars.!!

[Hellmund]

Actually he said $60-$70 http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[dbl_0527]

Well, I've decided on the GeForce2 MX400, either 64 or 32 mb, doesn't matter to me. I'll be keeping my eye on some auctions for a couple of days and if I can't find a steal, i'll just buy from an online retailer. Keep the thread going, lot's of interesting stuff here.

By the way, I've seen a couple of GeForce2 MX cards on ebay. If I'm not mistaken, these were produced before the MX400/200, but they're actually better than the MX400/200. Is this right? If I can find an MX for the same price as MX400, should I get that instead?

[Hellmund]

The Standard MX is 175/166 whereas the MX400 is 200/166 I think. Basically the MX400 is a slightly overclocked MX.

[eagle1]

Yeahh.. If you are going for an MX card, be sure to get the original mx (the one that you are talking about) or the mx400 and forget about the mx 200..!!!

[deadkenny]

The particulars of the cards vary depending on the specific manufacturer. The spec processor speed for the MX was 175MHz, for the MX400 it's 200MHz. However, it's basically the same processor. The only real advantage is that the MX400 card will usually have a fan / heatsink combo for cooling. The MX cards usually only had a heatsink. The memory spec on the MX card was 166MHz, whereas it's 183MHz on the MX400 card. I checked a review of the ASUS MX400 Pro, and it supposedly has 4.5ns memory, which is good for 222MHz "normaly". The review claimed the card could be OC'd to 240MHz no problem. However, it depends on the individual card, and 4.5ns memory is faster than spec for the MX400 card, so you might only get 5ns memory (which can also handle the spec speed of 183MHz). Basically, with the MX400 card you get a fan on the processor, which is already clocked to 200MHz out of the box, and faster memory. If they're the same price, go for the MX400 card. If you can get a significant savings on the MX card, then consider it.

[bill1971]

PC World consistently ranks the Cardexpert
GeForce MX200 AGP 32MB as the best bang for the buck at $90;www.newegg.com sells the retail boxed card with software DVD player for $54 + $4 Fedex Saver.
Since these guys don't seem to care much for the MX200, there's an MX400 w/64MB for $78 +
$4 Fedex.
Seems like for "Nascar" that $54 card would
do fine,but I'm not really a gamer.

[Hellmund]

Gainwards MX400 actually has 3.5ns memory modules. Are you sure MX400 are all 183mhz mem, got those spec off Tom's hardware, nvidia's reference specs are 166mhz.

[deadkenny]

No, not 100% sure that all MX400 cards are 183MHz. The ASUS is, and with 4.5ns memory that's not hard to believe. Not all the manuf's always follow nVidia specs to the letter. Since the memory is faster now than when the MX cards first came out it's tempting to clock the memory faster (for marketing purposes at least). Are you sure about the 3.5ns memory? That's way faster than what's required for spec (even if the spec is actually 183MHz). My older MX card has a spec of 166MHz, and it's got 6ns memory. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

BTW, stay away from the MX200 card. The memory bus has been crippled, and since the memory bandwidth is what limits these cards, it cripples the card. Since it's hardware, there's nothing you can do about it (unlike the Raedon LE card). The GeForce2 processor is just wasted on that card. Kinda like having a 1GHz PIII on a board with PC66 SDRAM that can't be OC'd. What's the point of the 133MHz FSB if the RAM is so slow?

[eagle1]

Yep.. The Factory defaults on mem speed of a GF mx400 is 166mhz. And yes deadkenny, Gainward card uses 3.5ns memory modules.
Gainward is really shipping good products (with good cores and mem.!!) ranging from mx to gf3.!

[Hellmund]

Yeh it's quite amazing the reviews their cards are getting, Anandtech rated their GF3's visual clarity as good as a 64mb DDR Radeon, as most of us know the Geforce Series of cards have usually suffered from lacklustre visual clarity yet their GF3 is rated equal, wish they'd make a KYROII! They make their cards cheap with very fast RAM, can you say "KYROII with 3.5ns RAM". Core/Mem is asyncronous on a KYRO but I'll take the challenge of getting that core past 250 http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif They're 0.18, same as a GTS/MX so it might do it....