GeForce2 GTS 32MB or GeForce2 MX400 64MB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
could someone please help me, i either want to get a GeForce2 GTS 32MB or GeForce2 MX400 64MB w/tv out(for both), both are in my price range, so... please help out, thanks, ladr
 
From experience, I'd say it depends. For old games like Quake III the GeForce2MX400 will give you enough fps and the 64MB will ensure the AGP bus is rarely used thereby reducing sudden slow downs in the game sometimes.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
Perhaps, but the GTS, in some situations is almost twice as fast as the MX400. Get the GTS, you'll be much happier overall, and it will have a longer life span.

60 FPS, 70 FPS, 80 FPS Crash!
Daylight comes and I have to go to work :frown:
 
The greatest bottleneck for all GeForce2 cards is memory SPEED, not size, and the memory on the GTS is twice as fast. Add to that the faster processor and better all around specs, and the GTS is far faster in most games than the MX, even with half the memory (still at twice the speed).

Back to you Tom...
 
Your silly, your answer was irresponsible. Most games are playable in reasonable quality on a 3-year old TNT2 card. In two years most games will still be playable on the GTS. Don't freighten off those who can't afford annual upgrades with such unsubstantiated opinions.

Back to you Tom...
 
Your stupid. Most games are playable in reasonable quality on a 3-year old TNT2 card. In two years most games will still be playable on the GTS.
Click to expand...
Crashman, I see no need to insult me. However, it greatly depends on what kind of gamer you are. If you are a hardcore gamer that always wants the latest games, then it will be useless after a year. If you just like a few games today and you won't be buying the latest greatest games, a couple of years in the future then any of today's cards are great. I'm sorry, I just make major upgrades to my computers once a year, but I didn't mean to convey a biased view on the lifespan of modern graphics card. However Crashman, I am sincerely upset! By calling me stupid, you are treating me no different than a troll.

From experience I have found that more RAM DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. In Quake III, a 32MB GTS may boast an average 100fps but there will be times when it dips to 20fps for a fraction of a second and jumps back to 100fps because it was accessing textures from the AGP bus. In a 64MB GeForce2-400 the average will be 60fps in Quake III but there will be less dips in fps because all the textures will fit into the video RAM most of the time.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
I thought you were offering bad advice. I could play games at 1600x1200 at 32-bit color on my GTS with very good framerates. So I expect that even in two years the newest games will be able to play on that card at 1024x768 at 32-bit color. Newer features won't be suported but the game will still look good and be playable.

Back to you Tom...
 
crashman you shouldn't call other people stupid.... dats not nice... and just for your own knowledge.. it's you're not your....ok bye and be nice crashman

Nice people are kool...Mean people just suck :lol:
 
hey i am thinking exactly the same thing!so in the end..which is better huh?GTS has DDR Ram but MX using SDRAM?
 
My 32mg gts stomps the hell out of my friends 64mb mx400. Hes using a 1.5 p4 and im running a 1.3 athlon. same system other than proc, mobo and he's using rdram.

If you ever stop learning, YOU'ER DEAD!!
 
so u say that geforce 2 gts 32mb is better?
but less ram tho it's using DDRRAM
 
The 32MB GTS is far faster than the 64MB MX. Like I already said FASTER is better than MORE in this case, and the GTS has memory that's TWICE as FAST. Besides, most games can't even use anything more than 32MB to a large degree.

Back to you Tom...
 
Short answer: The 32mb GTS is a better choice, but both choices are bad.


The 64mb MX is a joke and the joke is on the consumer. If you play a game with the texture settings high enough to need 64mb of memory, then you've also set the settings high enough to bog down an MX. They're just trying to sucker newbies into buying an OOOOOHHH 64 frickin megabytes!!! video card.

For that matter, the 32mb GTS has enough horsepower to run games at full texture settings but doesn't have enough memory to do it!!

Your real answer is a GeForce 2 Pro 64mb. It will be priced the same as the GeForce 2 GTS 64mb which is only slightly more than the 32mb version.
 
Crashman, and Smilin, just as there is a MHz Myth, there is also a FPS myth. People believe that because they get high average FPS that the game will be smooth when that's not true. While the GeForce2MX400 is undoubtly much slower than the GTS overall, to the naked eye, the 64MB may make the game seem smooth because the frame rates are more steady than with 32MB.

If those are you're only two options then do go with the 32MB GTS because it is faster overall.

My original point was, the extra 32MB does make a difference; it's not there just for bragging rights. The GeForce2MX-400 may have slow RAM but it's still nearly 3 times faster than the 4X AGP bus. Quake III is know to use huge textures at times (especially if you disable texture compression, which I really hate anyway), so there will be in infrequent textures in main RAM. What this means is for a fraction of a second, the game will slow down to around 20fps. At that period of time, the naked eye would notice the jumpy motion. No, the MX400 64MB isn't better, that's not what I'm getting that. I'm saying that the 64MB does actually do something. If you look at the minimum FPS in a 32MB MX400 and 64MB MX400, you will notice that the minimum FPS for the 64MB MX400 is almost always notably higher. Please Crashman, don't call me stupid. You have to agree that I am making some sense. I'm not telling him to go with the MX, I'm telling him that the 64MB can be good for something.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
No, no. I'm with ya. You're pretty much talking about the texture thrashing that occurs at full texture settings on Q3 maps such as dm9 and tourney4.

Back in the day I owned a 32mb GTS for about a week. It would run IDENTICAL to a 64mb GTS if you bump the texture setting down just one notch. If you put the texture setting to full it would still run just the same until you got to the maps that had the larger textures in them.

The trick to this whole 32 vs 64 debate is the MX part. That 64 meg MX will not texture thrash at all. That is a good thing. BUT, the MX also is not powerful enough to run at decent framerates when the texture detail is set high enough to actually USE the full 64mb. It's a catch 22. With both the 32GTS and the 64MX you're going to be forced to turn down the texture detail a notch. In the MX's case it's because of GPU/memory speed. In the case of the GTS it's the lack of enough texture memory.

So, if you're left having to run at less than maximum texture detail the GTS is the faster choice.

I don't think I've seen framerates as high as 20 when texture thrashing occurs, it's an ugly thing. I'm usually in the 5-15fps range for a few seconds. This is all past tense...I'm using a Ti500 now Weeee! :)
 
so the sudden jump will occur definitely if using a geforce 2 gts 32 mb..?wut about using geforce 2mx 400 64 mb
 
ONLY if you have the texture detail on the maximum setting in Quake III. There are several maps whose textures will exceed 32mb.
 
Congratultaions! You have managed to provide a RARE instance in which the 64 meg mx Might be a slight improvement over the faster 32 meg gts. Seeing how the original post was in general terms it would be wise to keep the answer in general terms as well. Which, as Crashman states, the 32 meg gts spanks the 64 meg mx hands down! Its a marketing gimmick pure and simple.

Another Cookie? Who is going to pay my dentist bill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom