128MB GeForce 2 MX 400

[RobRich]

The card should be an Unika 128MB GeForce-2 MX 400, as indicated. Unika does appear to be a low-cost vendor fron France. Could be a remarked card, similar to some cards from larger OEM's. Any rate, appears yet another low-cost vendor is entering the nVidia marketplace.

Performance difference? Only in sythetic benchmark tests, forget about any real positive gains in game fps rates.

Robert Richmond

[This message has been edited by RobRich (edited 07-17-2001).]

[AnakiMana]

I don't see how more memory is going to help anything. The bottleneck on this card is the speed of the memory. Pardon me for sounding negative, but this is just a marketing scheme. Sporting more RAM than the other MX cards will make this one look like the best choice, when in fact it won't be any better. This new company has found a way to enter the market... at the expense of tricking their customers. SAD.

[This message has been edited by AnakiMana (edited 07-17-2001).]

[Bob The Great]

I agree with you AnakiMana. 64MBs is enough for now. Now if they did that with the GeForce3...

[JayMan]

Bob The Great, If i remember correctly hercules were thinking about releasing a Prophet III with 128MB ram sooner or later. That thing will be a beast.

JayMan

[boran_blok]

this is really useless... the difference between an MX with 32 meg and an MX with 64 meg is less than 1% and now they are going to release this **** with 128 Meg of 6 ns mem there are far better cards out there (even ones with 32 Meg 3,5ns mem, but this 32meg card will swipe the floor with this card cous it is capable of running at 250mhz for sure, while this card is only speced for 166mhz, this is just a company who threw the cheapest ram they could find on a card to make it look like a high-perormer)

[ianomami]

Most people are computer iliterates at least here where I live. They think that a card with 32mb ram is good and with 64 is 2x better and a card with 128mb is a WOW!!
Companies knowing that will not think twice to explore their ignorance.

[This message has been edited by ianomami (edited 07-19-2001).]

[the corrupted]

Jay, are you forgetting why this is such big news? It's not because of the performance (or lack thereof), but because it's cheaper than some other oprions. Your prophet, for example, has the performance, but I know that it didn't cost what this will.

With that much RAM, I'm even thinking of gettin one when it comes out. I'll put this 32MB TnT2 m64 out to pasture in a 133 or something. Imagine what the buying masses with no intellect will say when they see it. "Ooh, wow. this must go really well. And it's cheaper. I wonder how they do it." And with that, it'll be bought before they have time to think. If they want performance, they'll be sent over to the proper performance section and sold whatever the salesperson can get them to buy. That's the end line. This is just another way to sell an old chip before the company has to re-work designs for the Geforce3.

[dosmastr]

why the heck would anyone buy a budget card with more RAM than the big boys put on a geforce3? Yea, in the future it MIGHT be able to handle games with more textures.... but by the time those games get here the GPU itself will be too slow Memory bottle-neck or not! Just plain stupid.
If you have enough money to buy a budget card with that much ram, go buy a decent card with less, but faster ram. (like a geforce ultra or a mid range radeon)i got a radeon rather than one of those cards because it supports more of directX 8 in hardware then any of the other cards out-- with the exception of the geforece 3. 150 dollars 3 months ago, by now you should be able to get one for equivlent price. after all, isn't teh true budget option one that lastes longer then the others for the same amount of money?