Geforce 2 GTS-V?

[Marvelii]

I bought two Geforce 2 gts V last night for my athlon xp system and my k62 500mhz. for $51 each was it a good bargain or should i have stuck with an MX400? Whats the deal with the V? How does this card run on games like max payne?

 

[phsstpok]

Actually performance-wise, the Geforce GTS-V does quite well vs MX-400. My 3DMark2001 scores (default benchmark) are 3441 on my Duron system and 4047 on my Athlon system.

As far as I can tell the "V" stands for value as the GTS-V is clocked slower than a standard GTS, 175/286 vs 200/333. However, you will have no trouble overclocking up to 200/333. Mine can go to 205/340 without artifacts. Higher GPU speeds seem to hinder performance. Higher memory speeds (up to 405mhz) produce artifacts. (Actually I'm amazed the memory runs this fast because there are so many artifacts. Maybe ramsinks will help).

The top scores scoring MX/MX-400's for all processors, at all speeds, default benchmark (1024x768, 32-bit color) at Madonion range from 4032-4860 (top 23 scores, as of 1/23/2002). Considering the top 3 scorers did not run all the tests then the top 20 scores range from 4032-4479. (I know the Geforce 2 series cards cannot run the Nature test, the Environment Bumpmap test, and the Pixel Shader test but those top 3 scorers skipped other tests).

For a bargain basement card, the GTS-V does quite well.

My Duron official score
<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2077624 " target="_new">http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2077624 </A>

My Athlon official score
<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2537937 " target="_new">http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2537937 </A>



<b>We are all beta testers!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 01/23/02 04:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Oni]

so this chip isn't crippled any other ways other than clock speeds?
I can't remember for sure, but I thought that Geforce 2 GTS had 4 rendering pipelines, and Geforce 2 MX was crippled with only 2.
Hopefully I'm not getting confused with Geforce 3 specifications. Because if the only thing is clock speed its WAY better to get Geforce 2 GTS-V over MX, especially if you plan to run resolutions around 1024x768 and higher. The MX just isn't a performer at higher resolutions and the GTS does a much better job.

Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the greatest thing we ever did -Homer

 

[phsstpok]

I seem to recall reading that someone removed the heatsink and confirmed that the GTS-V uses the same GPU as a GTS. Only the memory is different, 7 ns vs 6 ns.

You're right, 4 texture pipelines plus 128-bit DDR memory. Definitely better than 2 pipelines and SDR memory (most of the time). Some of the MX-400's gain back some performance with really fast memory, 3.8 ns and faster but those unit cost more too. The GTS-V at $51 is a better deal.

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>

 

[Oni]

if you got 3.8 ns memory on a Geforce 2 MX you could overclock it to like 275 SDR and maybe higher.
And if it was teamed with DDR then you'd have memory clocks comparable to Geforce 3 Ti500. With 3.8 ns memory that is.....

Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the greatest thing we ever did -Homer

 

[phsstpok]

It's got to be the 2 texture pipelines that hold back those fast-memory MX-400s. I just thought they would perform much better than they do, despite SDR memory.

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>