Elsa Gladiac GeForce2 MX-400 - Is it worth paying the extra for 64mb or is 32mb adequate for todays games? The reason I ask is that I want 2 monitors but can only get a 32mb card with 2 video outs. This means if 64mb is best, I have to buy another card for the 2nd monitor(a cheap one tho!)
Both aren't too good with with today's games. If you want dual-monitor support and good gaming at a reasonable price, look at the Radeon 7500. It'll cost a bit more than the MX400 but it's worth it. It includes 64MB DDR RAM that runs at an effective 460MHz rather than the MX-400's 166MHz.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
If you're going to spend $199 retail on the Radeon 7400, why not just go for the GF3 Ti 200, which is roughly the same price, and kills the 7500? the R8500 vs. the Ti 500 is of course hotly contested, but the R7500 doesn't hold a candle to the GF3 Ti 200.
I have a Gainward Geforce2 MX Golden Sample 32 MB with twinview. Twinview really sucks in my opinion. If I use two monitors, I have to go down to 1024x768. I have a 22'' monitor and a 17'', so I really don't get more screen space with two monitors since my big monitor has to come down to 1024x768 from 1280x1024. Perhaps it's true as they say, that Nvidia's cards suck in 2D and that you should get one of those ATI cards with good 2D and pretty good 3D to have a good dual monitor setup. Twinview is crap, that's for sure. But I've had this card for almost a year now, so it's time to upgrade I guess...