Low end GF2 vs. high end TNT2

[Tremo]

Guys, given the choice between a GF2-MX400 and an older TNT2-Ultra, which one performs better? Which would give higher Q3 frame rates? Thanks.

[cheapster]

a GF2-MX400 and an older TNT2-Ultra, which one performs better?

If you are talking an original MX or MX400, then the MX will be the faster card. If you are talking MX200, then I am not sure, what with the 64 bit memory bus and the slower ram. Frankly, with the Visiontek Geforce 2 GTS-V down to $56 shipped from newegg.com, I don't know why anyone has anything less than the Geforce 2 GTS-V. It owns any MX made, 32 mb or 64 mb due to its' superior memory bandwidth (over 50% greater than any MX, even at default settings). I just wish the prices would get down to $125 or less for the Geforce 3 Ti 200 cards.
Chuck

[GatorBait]

Any GeForce 2 video card will beat out a TNT 2 based card in any game because of the hardware transform and lighting engine on the GeForce 2. 'Nuff said.

[Tremo]

Chuck, I was talking MX400.

I have a GF2-MX400 in the new AthlonXP1800 system, for the next month or two, while I wait for the GF4 Ti4200 to become available. Once that happens, I'll be moving the MX400 to the old Athlon 750 to replace a TNT2-U, since the old TNT is starting to show artifacts around the mouse cursor once it heats up. I was just wondering if the replacement was going to help any at all. Sounds like it will.

Regarding buying a new GF3, just wait a few weeks. Once the GF4 cards are on the store shelves, the GF3 prices for those remaining in inventory have gotta drop. I think Nvidia is delaying the GF4 Ti4200 because it performs about on-par with a GF3 Ti500, and sells for about $100 less. This delay will allow dealers to dump their inventory of GF3 cards between now and then, so they won't have to sell them below cost once the GF4s are on the shelves. Since the suggested list price of the GF4 Ti4200 cards is $199, that will push the GF3 Ti cards even lower than that. You should eventually be able to get a GF3 Ti500 for less than $175, so forget the Ti200. If you see the Ti500 for under $200, go for it then. The GF3 should represent a good value since they are fast and they are DX8 compliant. Strange that the GF4-MX cards are not DX8.........

[Brian48]

I "upgraded" one of my older backups (classic Athlon 700) that was using an overclocked TNT2u to a GF2 MX200. Performance difference in Direct3D was very minor and only noticable in benchmarks. OpenGL was roughly about 15+ % better. The TNT2u, thanks to it's 128bit memory pipe, seemed to handle the larger textures a bit better. At least I never noticed any of the slight jerkiness that I'd get every now and then with the MX200.

[Tremo]

Hopefully my MX400 won't have that problem.

[cheapster]

slight jerkiness that I'd get every now and then with the MX200 Hopefully my MX400 won't have that problem.

You shouldn't, since the MX 400 offers a maximum memory bandwidth of 2.8 gb/sec vs. the MX 200 1.3 gb./sec. For comparison purposes, the Geforce 2 GTS has 5.3 gb/sec and the Ultra has 6.4 gb/sec. It does make a difference, particularly at higher resolutions. If you run the MX400 at 640x 480 16 bit, it should run pretty fast. I ran most games at 1024x768 32 bit with my old MX and Celeron 600@900 and for the most part they ran fine. If they did slow down any, I dropped the settings to 800x600 16 bit and it would run better. With the GTS and up cards, that type of adjustment is rarely necessary, assuming an adequate CPU and ram.