which would be better? GeForce 2 MX 400 64mb or Radeon 64mb sdr?

chrisplchs · Post by **chrisplchs** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 1:20 pm

can somebody please recommend me which card to get: GeForce 2 MX 400 64mb or Radeon 64mb sdr. thanks

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:28 pm

radeon would be faster and have more features.

the strange thing about the MX line is the Mx 200 has a 128 bit path with half the ram but the mx 400 has a 64 bit path with double the ram. meaning they are about the same speed...SLOW!

Greg

dadx2mj · Post by **dadx2mj** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:38 pm

I have always used Nvida cards until recently when my GTS died. I decided to try a Radeon 32meg DDR. To make a long story short I have had a bad time with the drivers for the Radeon and can't wait for Leadtek to return my GTS.

Post by **sbp** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 6:23 pm

The GeForce2 MX 200 uses a 64-bit SDR memory bus. The GeForce2 MX 400 uses either a 128-bit SDR or 64-bit DDR. Most of the GeForce2 MX400 available cards use 128-bit SDR.

Both the Radeon 64mb sdr and GeForce 2 MX400 cards are in the lower end of the market.

In terms of 32-bit performance the Radeon SDR and MX400 match up well. That's because both the Radeon SDR and MX400 are hamstrung by using that memory.

Some of the MX400 cards come with Twinview.

Radeons have better picture quality.

Links of interest: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1453&p=2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/mx400/
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/digest3d/index.html

blade · Post by **blade** » Wed Oct 24, 2001 6:59 pm

You may have been unlucky enough to get a bad radeon dad. I've reinstalled mine 3 times recently thanks to some err uhh extreme overlcocking and each time it was a total breeze installing the drivers. Installed a radeon on several friends system in the past couple weeks and had zero problems updating the drivers either. Another wanted a geforce and that was easy too. Kinda surprise me,haha

Still think a radeon has better video looks but they aren't as fast a gf.

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 9:51 am

I have noticed with the later ati drivers. it is more picky about residual video drivers left on your system. have noticed this my self on 2 systems and a few other people i have talked to have noticed this as well. maby that is what U ran into. no idea. but once thye are up and going they are pritty damn fast and nice.

but Just because they are Both SDR doesnt mean you will get the same proformance out of them. the radeon will still be far faster with more features turned on.

Greg

Post by **sbp** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 1:40 pm

"the radeon will still be far faster with more features turned on." No it will not. Please click the links I provided. And what features does the Radeon have turned on GeForce 2 MX400 will not?

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 2:07 pm

i dont get it. it is common knolage the radeo nhas more features built in. ie it being DX8 ready as the gf mx line isnt among other things. and then the graphs go on to show that in Most games when U play them at a reasonable resolution IE not 640/480 in 16 bit the radeon is faster.

Greg

Post by **sbp** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 2:44 pm

The Radeon is a more feature rich videocard than the GeForce 2 MX variations.

In terms of DirectX 8: the Radeon is not DirectX 8 compliant. The features ATI promoted won't be used.

As for the 32-bit benchmarks in which playable frames are gotten: the Radeon SDR wins a couple, the MX400 wins a couple but most of the time these cards are virtually tied. The fact is neither of these cards is a stellar game card.

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 2:46 pm

in that case I would go for Picture quality.

Greg