GF2 GTS or GF4MX 420

[KWPLunchbox]

I was given a dead Dell system (2nd one hit by lightning) and it has a Geforce 4MX 420. It still works just fine. My backup system has a Geforce 2 GTS and I'm trying to decide if its worth swapping them out. (Gotta love friends with home owners policies and bad luck with lightning. Yet another free 80GB HD in perfect working order)

<font color=purple>AMD XP 2200+, A7N8X Deluxe, 512mb PC3200 Corsair XMS DDR, Geforce3 Ti-500, Audigy Platinum, 230GB of HD's, TDK 48x CDRW, Lite-On 16x DVD, XP Pro SP1, and more neon than a ghetto sled </font color=purple>

 

[phial]

well the 420 has SDR ram, so i imagine it would be slower than the GF2 GTS with ddr

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[KWPLunchbox]

However, the GF4 has 64mb while the GF2 has 32mb. Slower bandwidth but more capacity so less loading?

<font color=purple>AMD XP 2200+, A7N8X Deluxe, 512mb PC3200 Corsair XMS DDR, Geforce3 Ti-500, Audigy Platinum, 230GB of HD's, TDK 48x CDRW, Lite-On 16x DVD, XP Pro SP1, and more neon than a ghetto sled </font color=purple>

 

[Ion]

If that MX ever use up 64MB, whatever app you running will slow down to slide show speed anyway :tongue:

 

[cleeve]

I wouldn't have guessed it, but it appears that the MX420 is slightly better than the GTS... at least according to this review:

<A HREF="http://www.nextgenelectronics.com/xfx420.shtml" target="_new">http://www.nextgenelectronics.com/xfx420.shtml</A>

Which is weird, because I would have guessed the bandwidth hit from SDR memory and the 64 bit memory interface would really have slowed down the card alot.

I guess the GPU is simply more efficient.



------------------
Radeon 9500 (modded to PRO w/8 pixel pipelines)
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3529

 

[KWPLunchbox]

The GF4MX does run a little better than the GF2 GTS. I
use to run Battlefield 1942 (Desert Combat mod) at 800x600
with most of the details at medium or lower but the GF4
handles 1024x768 with higher details. The only drawback
is that it does take longer to preload the textures into
memory but that's no big deal. It definitely isn't enough
of a boost to pay for, but for free it's fine.

<font color=purple>AMD XP 2200+, A7N8X Deluxe, 512mb PC3200 Corsair XMS DDR, Geforce3 Ti-500, Audigy Platinum, 230GB of HD's, TDK 48x CDRW, Lite-On 16x DVD, XP Pro SP1, and more neon than a ghetto sled </font color=purple>

 

[jmecor]

Plus the Geforce4 MX uses DirectX7.0.
The GTS only at DX6. They're both DDR too.

<font color=red>If your nose <b>RUNS</b>, and feet <b>SMELL</b>.
Then you must be born <b>UPSIDE DOWN</b>.</font color=red>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

The GTS only at DX6. They're both DDR too.

OMG!!!

GF2 GTS is also DX7. GF2 MX is a crippled version of GF2 GTS and GF4 MX is doped GF2 MX.

GF4 MX 420 use 128 bit SDR or 64 bit DDR. GF2 GTS use 128 bit DDR. GF2 GTS has 2x fillrate and 2x more memory bandwidth compared to GF4 MX 420. But GF4 MX has much more efficient memory controller.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>

 

[phial]

Plus the Geforce4 MX uses DirectX7.0.
The GTS only at DX6. They're both DDR too.

wrong




whyy do people post [-peep-] that they know nothing about?


-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>