|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re:+Re:+The+GeForce2+Lineup (Reply to this comment)
by LetItRut
The GeForce2 MX200 is NOT exactly the same as the GeForce2 MX! Whereas the original GeForce2 MX used either 128-bit SDR memory or 64-bit DDR memory, the "new" GeForce2 MX200 supports only 64-bit SDR memory. Thus, the GeForce2 MX200 is even more limited in its 3D performance than the original GeForce2 MX.
|
Aug 20 '01
10:17 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re:+The+GeForce2+Lineup (Reply to this comment)
by cptsulu
Oh... if you're in the market for a video card and going to spend all that money on the Asus, you should check out the MSI Starforce 820 - I think that's the GeForce3. MSI makes really cheap GeForce cards. I have an 831 (GeForce2 Pro) in my system now. It shouldn't be too much more going from a high priced Asus Deluxe to a MSI GeForce3 with VIVO as standard. It also has VIVO features. A lot of the GeForce3's have VIVO features now. They're trying to take the crown from Asus. Still.. since you're going to be doing video editing with the VIVO features, look at the 2D quality ratings they get. Asus doesn't do very well. Gainward is probably the only manufacturer that probably matches the 2D quality of ATI.
AnandTech did a roundup of GeForce3's and their 2D quality. You can find it here http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1507 If the GeForce3 is out of your budget, it's still a good reading because they probably manufacture the GeForce2 with the same quality as their GeForce3.
Yepyep... no competition between a Radeon and MX class GeForce2. A Radeon SDR and LE (with HyperZ forced to work, of course) could probably take an MX class GeForce2 with no problem.
|
Aug 09 '01
11:57 pm PDT
|
|
Re: The+GeForce2+Lineup (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Thanks for the comment, and an excellent overview of the differences! I'll check them out, and see them for myself. So far, the Radeon is attractive (not the girl, the boards! ...although...) with it's feature set and 2D quality, even though 3D is not on the same level as the GeForce2 (at least not the GTS and Ultra), I think it comes pretty close to their MX-400 at least.
If I SHOULD go for the GeForce2, I'd go for the one made by Asus, the V7100 Deluxe, as I still would like the video capture feature.
Thanks, Ryan!
|
Aug 08 '01
2:31 pm PDT
|
|
The GeForce2 Lineup (Reply to this comment)
by cptsulu
Hi! You asked what the difference is between the GeForce2 MX, MX200, MX400, GTS, Pro, and Ultra and I thought I'd just respond in one of your reviews. Well written one too, by the way =)
Yes, there is an plain GeForce2. When it first came out, the only GeForce2 available was the GeForce2 GTS. It's the orignal 200mhz core clock, and (i'm probably wrong but...) 166mhz DDR memory, NSR, and 2nd generation T&L nVidia chip. All the other GeForce2 iterations are either clocked higher or lower, and have more or less memory bandwidth. At the time, the GTS was really expensive so nVidia introduced a budget oriented GeForce 2, the GeForce2 MX. To make it cheaper, they clocked the MX slower and gave it slower memory. Don't quote me on this, but I think they disabled 2 texture units on it too (the GTS has 4). The GeForce2 Ultra was released to be unchallenged champion in its class. I think it was released because the Radeon was beating GTS at high resolutions and 32bit color. The Ultra is clocked 50mhz higher than GTS, 250mhz, and has 3.8ns DDR memory, giving it a huge expansion in memory bandwidth. I don't think even ATI's HyperZ can compete with the Ultra's brute strength approach. Heck, the Ultra can still beat GeForce3 on certain DirectX 7.0 games and benchmarks. The Pro didn't get a lot of media when it was released so it wouldn't compete with Ultra. The Pro is basically a GTS with faster memory. It has 20% more memory bandwidth than a GTS. Its still clocked at 200mhz, it just has 400mhz DDR memory. To compete with Radeon VE and SDR, nVidia basically renamed the MX to MX200 and MX400. I think the MX200 is the exact same thing as MX, just with a different name. MX400 is a higher clocked MX. But since memory bandwidth is a key factor in gaining speed, the higher clock speed doesn't do much for it. nVidia just changed the name to sell more cards.
Regards,
Ryan
|
Aug 07 '01
9:20 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Viva+la+VIVO (Reply to this comment)
by cptsulu
Actually, ATI has also did the same with their Radeon line. The Radeon VE, which is supposed to compete with the GeForce2 MX, is clocked slower, features less texture units, and I think doesn't feature the Charisma Engine. The LE version is clocked slower and does not feature HyperZ. With the Radeon DDR, SDR, LE, VE, and AIW in the market, ATI has made it just as confusing as nVIDIA's GeForce2 MX, MX200, MX400, GTS, Pro, and Ultra.
Like you, I'd still recommend the Radeon though. Just for Windows 9x users. I run a Win2k box and had the worst trouble getting the Radeon to work. And with Windows XP, which is based on Windows 2000, coming out soon, ATI better get their NT based drivers up to par with nVIDIA's or they're going to be losing a lot of market share.
Yesyes... Asus makes great video boards. They charge a premium though. I don't blame you for going with Radeon's VIVO features. Plus, ATI has better 2D quality than Asus products if you look at the GeForce3 roundup on AnandTech.
|
Aug 07 '01
2:24 pm PDT
|
|
nVidia (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
I will not, however, discount nVidia's GeForce2, and I will look into it.
Thanks!
|
Aug 07 '01
11:07 am PDT
|
|
Viva la VIVO (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
I was a bit confused with so many GeForce2s out there. nVidia's mistake was that they have castrated GeForce2s out there which also have the "GeForce2" name in them...this confused alot of people who USED to keep up with PC technology and just lagged behind...and just got back on.
Me, just to be safe, went with the Radeon 64MB DDR. Also, I WAS looking for somehting with VIVO. The only other product that I may consider if I wanted a high-end GeForce2 would be an Asus GeForce2 board with the VIVO (the Deluxe). I forgot the model number though.... the V7200 or the V7100. In either case, I've always sided with Asus's video board implementations as they were never afraid to improve upon the reference board.
Remember Canopus's line of VooDoo-based cards? They, too were never afraid to improve upon the reference board AND drivers... I believe they were the first (if not the only) VooDoo2 card (or VooDoo for that matter) that have a TV out.
|
Aug 07 '01
11:05 am PDT
|
|
I still prefer nVIDIA (Reply to this comment)
by cptsulu
Hi there. ATI prices may be lower than the nVIDIA based cards, but they're so close together that you might as well go for a GeForce2 Pro 64. Looking at Pricewatch, an ATI Radeon 64 VIVO is 149, while a good GeForce 2 Pro 64 card goes for 137. They're really close together. The GeForce performs better and you won't run into the driver problems the ATI product brings with it.
You say that ATI is close to nVIDIA's performance. That's true if you look at the benchmarks, but after using both the GeForce2 and Radeon, I think the Radeon can't compete with the GeForce2. Everything is so much smoother and nicer to look at. With HyperZ, ATI should crush the GeForce2, but its drivers can't take advantage of the technology. 16 bit looks awful as well.
If you need those VIVO features, go for the Radeon. But the GeForce2 and Radeon prices are so close together that I'd go for the better performing product, even though Radeon's feature set is better than GeForce2.
|
Aug 06 '01
11:27 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
