Totempole wrote on 2021-02-14, 13:29:

The Geforce 2MX is still a great value card for someone looking for a proper Riva TNT2 (Not m64 version) but are not willing to spend crazy amounts of money to get one.

Really??? If so, then I'm really puzzled at it. I've got TNT2 Pro shelved somewhere, got it in exchange for my own MX200. If you really need that one, I can dig it out and ship it to you just at the cost of shipping, no kidding.
Just can't imagine if anyone wants to capitalise on a card which was anything but unique and gave you no advantages over Glide, but the opposite.

frudi wrote on 2021-02-14, 11:38:

I didn't consider Quake 3 comfortable at 1024x768x32 maxed out, since the fps would regularly drop down into 30s with a lot of on-screen action; something that running a timedemo and getting an average score of 60 fps won't really show you.

I think I just haven't noticed that at the time, to me it was all smooth enough. I have only began turning on the fps counter during an actual gameplay in Q3 since I got my 9000 Pro.

I've never used an MX200, and I'm put off by it's castrated memory bus. But the MX and MX400 are quite good budget cards.
With these cards and at that time it was expected that you'd have to compromise either on resolution, bit depth, or frame rate. Antialiasing was mostly out of consideration. If you wanted no compromises then you'd step up to a GTS or Ultra. In today's world the 4MX is another good budget option but it needs later drivers.
Many late 90s motherboards have design flaws with power delivery to the AGP slot. If that's a concern, the MX series cards are good choices for that reason in addition to being cheap.
The 2MX* cards in particular hit a nice combination of performing well at a low power budget using early drivers. The early drivers can help game compatibility and with some CPUs they also perform better. It's one of the most optimal cards for a fast K6 machine for example.

since when was tnt 2 standard and pro rare? there are tons of them on ebay in US atleast because not many people really want them...

Warlord wrote on 2021-02-15, 01:22:

since when was tnt 2 standard and pro rare? there are tons of them on ebay in US atleast because not many people really want them...

compared to GF2 MX400 and Tnt2 M64 I would say they are pretty rare!

true but tnt2 ultras are rare though. the normal ones and even the pros are not hard to find and still can be had for a few bucks. even ultras can be found for cheap since no one is really going for them,

Is there a way, how to distinguish Geforce 2 MX from MX400, other than put down heatsink? Most of the detection programs report them same , as NV11 MX/MX400.

Why bother? They are identical.

Why bother to make two pages on Vgamuseum info then?

To the original question.
Maybe by some chip revision? Maybe it is coded somewhere in the chip? In the card? Maybe date of manufacturing of the chip, is important?
So it is the same chip, only remarked by label on it after some time (same as with Riva TNT2 - Vanta 16 or TNT2 M64 Vanta chips?)

Vantas were manufactured in at least two packages and probably with different lithography. But MX400 is just a factory "overlocked" chip. But many manufacturers did multiple PCB designs for MX series, so it's usually not an issue to spot MX vs MX400 within specific brand.

TNT2 still got WIN3X Drivers (no TnL, no shaders)
2MX got TnL but no Shaders
4MX got TnL but no Shaders
MX4K got TnL and Shaders

MX4000 is identical to all other GeForce 4 MX - no support for DirectX 8 shaders.

Instead of MX400/MX4000 one can just use GeForce FX5200 which has 2x better pixel rate and 2 vertex shaders. It is also passively cooled and an excellent video card for DOS. GeForce FX5200 is same class as MX400/MX4000 but better in every way.

my MX4000 works in shaders-test and advanced shaders test in 3Dmark01...or do I remeber this wrong...I have to look this up again...

MX 4000 is basically just a MX 420 with AGP 8x support. There were two revisions of the GPU die used on GF4 MX cards. NV17 was used on the original MX 420, 440 and 460 cards. NV18 was a later revision that supported AGP 8x and was used on MX 4000 and MX 440-8x. All GF4 MX cards support the same feature set, namely only Direct3D 7.0.

W.x. wrote on 2022-10-16, 19:07:

same as with Riva TNT2 - Vanta 16 or TNT2 M64 Vanta chips?)

wasnt Vanta 16 and m64 the same chip? and LT a separate cheaper one? I remember buying one just as they got released in early 2000 for almost nothing (<$50) and overclocking back to full TNT2 MHz. NASCAR 2000 ran perfectly fine. Below $50 was such an amazing price point for a real entry level 3d card able to run brand new games. Before Vanta you were looking at scams from sis/cirrus logic/ATI (Rage LT) and maybe crashy S3 Savage4. M64 and Voodoo 2000 were $80. Voodoo 3 3000 and Rage 128 >$100. GF256 was $150-280. Today low end GPU doesnt seem to exist anymore.

AlexZ wrote:

GeForce FX5200 which has 2x better pixel rate and 2 vertex shaders.

FX 5200 has no memory bandwidth and fillrate saving features which were implemented in GeForce 3/4 series. So it does struggle vs "high-end" GeForce 4 MX.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-10-18, 09:59:

AlexZ wrote:

GeForce FX5200 which has 2x better pixel rate and 2 vertex shaders.

FX 5200 has no memory bandwidth and fillrate saving features which were implemented in GeForce 3/4 series. So it does struggle vs "high-end" GeForce 4 MX.

Thx for that comparison!!! Is the G550 really that bad! this is hard very hard.

Ok, to my original question. So, if you don't have box of graphic card, and sticker on graphic card, is there a way, how to find out, if it is GF2 MX or GF2 MX400? I mean, by software way? Or it's impossible to find out. (maybe according clocks? If it has 175mhz core, it's GF2 MX, and if 200, it's MX400? But there are definetely some underclocked MX400).

underclocked MX400 is by definition just an MX