That's weird.
RAM looks like 4 pieces of 32bit 8MB SDRAM "-60" rated, so total of 32MB 128bit 166MHz. That looks legit for a typical GF2MX. I don't know what the spec is supposed to be for the "Go" chips.

Is there any kind of branding on these cards? I notice it has an NVidia FCC declaration on it, not sure if that means anything about the origin of the PCB.
I'm surprised if these were ever made by a licensed manufacturer back in the day. I'm not sure what the appeal would have been compared to an MX.
My first thought was that it could be a modern unlicensed card from somebody in China that got hold of a bunch of old "Go" chips.
However, the RAM chips all say "019" on them which I assume is a 2000 date code. I can't make out any other date codes other than the GPU and RAM. The FCC declaration is also something I wouldn't have expected to see on a gray market unlicensed card.
One other point against it being modern - nowadays 64bit DDR would be cheaper than 128bit SDRAM, and I think both are supported (they definitely are on the MX anyway).
Maybe it's really from 2000. I never heard of these if so.

I suppose another possibility is an old MX card that had it's chip replaced with a "Go". That's assuming those chips are pin compatible, and even if they are, it seems like a strange thing to do.

Here are some more photos. There is more than one variation:
http://yjfy.com/Museum/video/Geforce2_Go_ES.htm

The website lists the card as a "GeForce 2 Go ES" and the following review has "NV11 ES" printed on an early press sample of the GeForce 2 MX:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/full-revi … nvidia,204.html

I've also read somewhere that the GeForce 2 Go is basically just a GeForce 2 MX chip, so maybe they are identical except for for some chip id.

I looked at some of the pics, including a higher res version of the card you posted, and saw some more components with date codes from 2000. One of the cards has RAM from late 99 on it.
You're right - the card in that tomshardware article is the same PCB. So it's definitely a period correct PCB. I don't notice any difference in how the components are populated either (other than different GPU marking).

It looks like these really were made back then. I think the only doubt remaining is whether they were made by a licensed manufacturer, but they look legit other than the strange choice of GPU. I would think the MX chips were cheaper than Go chips, at least to somebody who was ordering them from NVidia.

This has happened before with another MX - this time S3 Virge MX - that mobile graphics were put on desktop. I suggest this fits nvidia's marketing model of 1999-early 2000s, where they only desighed the chips and reference cards, the rest was done by other companies. Geforce 2Go probably turned out to be cheaper in production if you compare it to MX, or maybe even pin-compatible (so that the company that made these actually made both MX and 2Go, but bought the chips depending on what was cheaper at the moment).

I've seen a similar thing with a Mobility Radeon 9000 before.

Virge MX? Compared to the usual Virge and Trio3D how it runs?

386SX wrote:

Virge MX? Compared to the usual Virge and Trio3D how it runs?

Putas' website is so far one of the most reliable sources: http://www.vintage3d.org/virgemx.php#sthash.n2GyhQYh.dpbs

RacoonRider wrote:

386SX wrote:

Virge MX? Compared to the usual Virge and Trio3D how it runs?

Putas' website is so far one of the most reliable sources: http://www.vintage3d.org/virgemx.php#sthash.n2GyhQYh.dpbs

Nice evolution of the Virge. DVD playback feature? Was motion compensation?

Seems to be a common process, I have e.g. a Savage MX: http://www.retronn.de/imports/hwgal/hw_s3_sav … x_spectrah.html

Hm, that's a very interesting card, didn't even know AGP cards with mobile GPU:s existed.

How is VESA compatibility etc compared to fully fledged GF2 cards? Thinking of building an ultra compact ATX case from scratch for a slot1 or socket370 build at some point, promised myself to not let this hobby take up too much space, it's not like homebrewing, skiing and aquaristics doesn't already. Guess something like that card would give adequate performance for a system like that, but keeping the heat dissipation at an absolute minimum. Very useful in a compact case where the cooling possibilities aren't the best.

I wonder how this would compare to a GF2MX in terms of performance. I would imagine that power consumption would be lower.

EDIT: From what I can see, it should be faster than a Geforce 2 MX200, but slower than a Geforce 2 MX.

Totempole wrote:

I wonder how this would compare to a GF2MX in terms of performance. I would imagine that power consumption would be lower.

EDIT: From what I can see, it should be faster than a Geforce 2 MX200, but slower than a Geforce 2 MX.

I would guess that it's probably either the exact same chip as the GeForce 2 MX or slightly under clocked for mobile form factors. No way to tell unless we can find one. Or maybe they are simply slightly better bins of the MX and rated for lower power consumption.

I know that during the GeForce 2 era, Nvidia reused the same chips from their GeForce 2 Ultra in the Quadro 2 Pro.

See here:
http://oocities.org/tnaw_xtennis/G-Quadro-2.htm

If it's lower clocked than the MX, then it's operating voltage might also be lower, which would lower the power consumption. Makes sense for a laptop, not sure the difference would be meaningful in a desktop though, since the standard MX is already pretty low power. Might save a couple watts or something.

Alternatively, the "Go" chips might be better samples than the MX are, and overclock better when run at standard voltage. MX cards were mostly limited by RAM performance so overclocking the GPU wasn't that beneficial, but maybe the "Go" chips are good at that for whatever it's worth.

It would be interesting to check out.

I'd be surprised if anyone actually bought an MX for overclocking. I had a GeForce 2 Ultra at the time so I wasn't in the budget crowd at the time.

Kahenraz wrote:

I'd be surprised if anyone actually bought an MX for overclocking. I had a GeForce 2 Ultra at the time so I wasn't in the budget crowd at the time.

I was, still am actually. 😊

I had a TNT2 M64 followed by a Geforce 2MX, a Geforce 4 MX440, and my brother had an FX5200. After that I moved to midrange cards like the 6600GT, and for the most part I've been buying midrange cards ever since.

I've always gone for the best price to performance ratio, rather than trying to keep up with the latest tech.

Very interesting, never knew they existed. Geforce2 Go closest dekstop should be Geforce2 MX400, albeit downclocked a fair bit.

Kahenraz wrote:

I'd be surprised if anyone actually bought an MX for overclocking. I had a GeForce 2 Ultra at the time so I wasn't in the budget crowd at the time.

Guess I'll have to surprise you, then. Price/performance of the GF 2 MX was exceptional when it came out, and it had a bit of headroom for overclocking - perfect for me at the time.

Marquzz wrote:

Very interesting, never knew they existed. Geforce2 Go closest dekstop should be Geforce2 MX400, albeit downclocked a fair bit.

Geforce 2 Go = Geforce 2 MX Mobile
Geforce 2 Go200 = Geforce 2 MX200 Mobile
Geforce 2 Go400 = Geforce 2 MX400 Mobile

So each mobile variant, will be a slightly underclocked version of its desktop counterpart.

Totempole wrote:

Geforce 2 Go = Geforce 2 MX Mobile Geforce 2 Go200 = Geforce 2 MX200 Mobile Geforce 2 Go400 = Geforce 2 MX400 Mobile […]
Show full quote

Marquzz wrote:

Very interesting, never knew they existed. Geforce2 Go closest dekstop should be Geforce2 MX400, albeit downclocked a fair bit.

Geforce 2 Go = Geforce 2 MX Mobile
Geforce 2 Go200 = Geforce 2 MX200 Mobile
Geforce 2 Go400 = Geforce 2 MX400 Mobile

So each mobile variant, will be a slightly underclocked version of its desktop counterpart.

Ok, I just checked gpureview which lists Geforce2 Go, Geforce2 Go 100 and Geforce2 Go 200. And when looking at this comparison it seems like regular Go is a downclocked MX400: http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=396&card2=117

According to gpureview 100 and 200 versions has narrower mem bus, 32bit and 64bit respectivaly, compared to 128bit for regular Go.

Checked Notebookreview and they say that regular Go only has 64bit bus: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-2-Go.6949.0.html I think it has something to do with that gpureview lists the cards as SDR 128bit instead of DDR 64 bit, for some reason.