All things being equal, which is the better video card performance wise; a nVidia GeForce2MX 32MB or an ATI Radeon VE 32MB?:o
Printable View
All things being equal, which is the better video card performance wise; a nVidia GeForce2MX 32MB or an ATI Radeon VE 32MB?:o
mx by a long shot
i second that
Cool, my burger buddies.:D Another shout out goes to the MX.
No contest, the mx.
MX should be faster...had you said Radeon 32DDR(and not the VE), the Radeon would have been quite a bit faster.
Hey dudes the Radeon can do EMBM while the MX cannot and no i am not an ATI fanboy.
As you can see in my sig i desperately need a new videocard and do not have much money but i refuse to buy an MX because it has no EMBM and EMBM looks as good as Pixel shaded graphics if properly implemented.
But the MX has hardware T&L, which the Radeon VE does not, and hardware T&L is FAR more important than environmental bump mapping.Quote:
Originally posted by Darkman
Hey dudes the Radeon can do EMBM while the MX cannot and no i am not an ATI fanboy.
As you can see in my sig i desperately need a new videocard and do not have much money but i refuse to buy an MX because it has no EMBM and EMBM looks as good as Pixel shaded graphics if properly implemented.
It was important, not anymore , atleast if you run a CPU above 1Ghz it should be more then enough to compensate for the lack of HWT&L.Quote:
Originally posted by s1203372
But the MX has hardware T&L, which the Radeon VE does not, and hardware T&L is FAR more important than environmental bump mapping.
Besides the MX's T&L is not that powerful, hardwired T&L which the MX and Radeon has been a hype mostly the benefits are not that obvious.
Programmable T&L is much more promising and is the future.
try running any new game with the kyro II...it usually beats out the mx in direct x 7 tests but once you start playing games that require t&l (basically any new game) it'll lag considerably...that's if it'll run at all...or try playing americas army which uses the ut2k3 engine) with a ve/7000...you'll get terrible frame rates no matter what cpu you have...run any game that let's you choose between hardware and software t&l (max payne supports this I believe) and you'll find that hardware helps considerable...believe me...I've served as a tech support person for americas army and a lot of frame rate issues was usually the result of a card not support t&l and most of these cards were radeon ve/7000 cards...Quote:
Originally posted by Darkman
It was important, not anymore , atleast if you run a CPU above 1Ghz it should be more then enough to compensate for the lack of HWT&L.
a lot of games require it.nolf2 and doom3 spring to mind and im sure i got a few others-but the mx cant really run these games very well anywayQuote:
It was important, not anymore , atleast if you run a CPU above 1Ghz it should be more then enough to compensate for the lack of HWT&L.
renditionkid, how much money can you spend on a video card?
VE = ultra craptacular
Hands down, Tnt 2 pro.:D
Hmm...I would pick the MX
just spend like $15 more and get something a lot better,
When I built my system back in spring 2001, I put in a 32 meg Gf2 mx. My friend built an identical system with a 32 meg radeon LE (which is better than the VE). The mx is faster in 16 bit color, but the radeon is way faster in 32 bit color.
If you are choosing a VE i assume you are not going to play heavy games on it.
Besides the fact that some games require it to run means that you have no choice but to get an MX and not a VE but you should know that some games won't run on it.
And if youa re going to spend that much on a lousy MX you can better get a Radeon 9000 or PRO or maybe a Ti4200.