worth upgrading tnt2u to geforce2mx

[Guest]

Hi all, i'm real close to getting my local computer store to get me a geforce2 mx, but is this really worth doing? Would i see a good performance increase with my specs?

specs
duron 800
128mb
asus a7pro mobo
sb live value

Oh yeah as i've said before about getting blue screens when starting certain games, well i've managed to buy yet another one that does this, heavy metal fakk 2. There just doesn't seem away around this, i have a game called silver, that i've had for years and it's always done this even though i've changed my cpu/mobo/vid card, but the one thing thats always been in my comp is my ram, could this be causing these blue screen's? It's really starting to **** me off and my collection of blue screen games is getting larger
Thanx in advance

 

[lostinms]

I think it is worth it but if I was you I would try to get the GTS ver instead of the MX. You can get a 32meg one for $160 on pricewatch. I am getting the MX ver soon. The reason is cause my puter is older than yours.

K6-3 400.

 

[Guest]

hey man i would like the gts, but living in the uk it's probly about 250 pounds and i'm real poor at the moment

 

[bdaley]

I went from TNT2 Ultra to a GF2MX and there was only a slight difference in benchmarking scores.

But GF2MX does have T&L support, so any games which incorporate T&L should look a lot better than on the TNT2

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks"

 

[Guest]

Best bet is the ATI Radeon 32 meg DDR. This can be had for <$90. ATI seems to have updated the drivers and the performance seems to be better than the GTS again. (Nvidia released drivers to improve performance a while after the radeon hit the market) I read a review recently and the Radeon kicked ass. This solution will have MUCH better performance than the MX for the same $$$ or less!

 

[Guest]

hey thanx all, i think i'll get the radeon 32mb ddr, i just didn't know cause someone on this board said the mx out performs the radeon.
thanx

 

[Tempus]

No way is the Radeon 32MB DDR better than a DDR GTS!

- "That's no moon, it's Rambus!"

 

[noko]

Better in some things not better in others. DVD---better. 2d quality---Better. FPS---16bit worst, 32bit high resolutions about the same. W2k---not as good in performance. Linux---not as good. Games---more tweaking required with the Radeon. Performance compared to a MX the Radeon is generally better. Drivers are still being upgraded in which a steady stream of improvements are seen especially in W2k. GTS drivers are more mature, more time plus Nvidia top notch driver team driving. Radeon is more Directx8 ready in hardware. Radeon has better use of memory due to HyperZ. GTS overclocks better. Radeon overclocks but performance doesn't go up as much. GTS probably has less problems on most setups than the Radeon. Radeon works well with less setup problems on Intel plateforms but runs faster on Athlon setups. GTS seems to be the easier card to install with less problems. I recommend the Radeon in high quality 2d, DVD and 32 bit gaming. If you are a game freak only do yourself a favor and buy a GTS pro.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 02/10/01 11:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Hey,

I upgraded my P3-500 from a TNT2 Ultra to a Geforce MX. Not a very impressive upgrade though.. Only in 32 bit there is a remarkable performance boost.. I roughly play at the same resolutions now as I did before, but in 32 bit vs 16 bit color (mostly play at 1024x768 on a 19").

If I where you, I'd wait a while, and get a Radeon DDR or Geforce2 GTS when it becomes affordable for you. At that time, you're also likely to see the improvements of T&L in actual games.

 

[Guest]

With the new drivers the radeon @ 166mhz 32meg DDR seems to be faster than the GTS (32-bit ofcourse). Some freaks play Q3A in 640x480 so they can get 200fps. I don't have stats on the number of people actually doing this, but I'd say it's small. Why would anyone play lower than 1024x768? This is where the radeon has the advantage. I'd argue the radeon is for hard core gamers minus the absolute freaks. You can't argue about the price, it's insain!
I can't remember, can you OC the radeon asyncronously? This would be the only drawback I can see. OCing doesn't do as much because the memory bandwidth isn't as crutial. The GTS could run insainly fast if the memory bandwidth had no effect.

 

[Guest]

Before I saw a recent review I would have said the same thing about the GTS vs. the radeon. Look for a review from the last couple weeks or so and you'll see what I mean.
Here's one: http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/ati/radeon/
It's not the most extensive review out there, but it shows what I'm talking about.

 

[Berman]

I went from a TNT1 to a GF2MX, and I noticed only a slight difference. Not that I had much chance to examine it too carefully, because I'm one of those lucky people for whom the GF2MX freezes 3D games within a few minutes. I also managed to foolishly buy it from a place that doesn't do refunds!

 

[Guest]

with regards to the second question, if i remember correctly blue screens are often the results of bad memory. seems especially likely as that's the only component that's remained with you. and with ram prices so freakishly low, you might consider just replacing it.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Spetzo on 02/14/01 10:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[dannyaa]

wait. You won't see that much of a performance difference with an MX and the TNT2 Ultra is still a pretty good card. If you can hold off a couple of months until the Nv20 (GeForce3 equivalent) comes out from NVIDIA, their GeForce2 prices will drop dramatically and you'll be able to get an excellent card for much cheaper. So just be patient and hold out for a couple months! You won't see that big of a difference neways.