GF256 has the nostalgia factor because of hype and advertising, but yeah there isn't really a feature they have that stands out. The T&L is pretty useless, their anti aliasing is useless, they seem to run a bit jittery, S3TC support is fugly, AGP compatibility isn't great with non Intel chipsets, VGA signal is usually less than great. They are just a buggier, slower GeForce 2. And a super inefficient, less flexible form of GeForce 3. And that's just a flawed GeForce 4. 😎

I still want one. 🤣

Fusion wrote:

I still want one. 🤣

put a few search listings out on ebay, they usually come around for 20-40 depending on SDR or DDR. Best is to search for the OEM names like elsa Erazor XII or something similar (I had a guilemot before my current Erazor XII)

I have both an SDR and a DDR; I may sell the SDR on eBay if it would indeed fetch 30-40 bucks..

I'd pay more for a DDR, but an SDR is a good place to start. 🤣

I just secured the sale of my spare (SDR) @ $50 USD.

appiah4 wrote:

I have both an SDR and a DDR; I may sell the SDR on eBay if it would indeed fetch 30-40 bucks..

they are rare enough to find so asking 20-40 is justifiable and people will pay it especially during the autum winter seasons.

What about a 64mb sdr version?

I remember buying a Geforce 256 DDR (Creative 3D Blaster Annihilator Pro) back in 2000 to replace the G200/Voodoo 2 combo in my PIII rig. I really appreciated the performance increase at the time, but the card failed a little over one year after purchase and I remember replacing it with an Elsa Gladiac 920 (Geforce 3).

I wonder if these early Geforce cards were particulary prone to failure, which would explain their relative scarcity nowadays if few of them are still working. I have to say I can understand the nostalgia for 3DFX cards as they have a unique display quality going for them, but I don't think these early Geforce cards are very interesting as I don't see what they can do that the later cards can't. I guess this nostalgia thing depends on what you grew up with and how old you were when you first used it...

The fans were certainly prone to failure within a year or so. I fixed a few GeForce 1/2/3 cards back then. You could usually oil them and get them going again for awhile. Overheating and repeated thermal cycles might kill them.

I plan to overclock once I acquire one. Hopefully I have no issues. I've had 18 years of luck with overclocking cards, I wanna continue that tradition!

If there ever existed "GeForce 256 MX", THIS would be it :

I give you, ASUS GeForce 256 SDR 32MB 64-bit.

Level of fail is simply beyond words.
For comparison, a TNT2 Pro is 1,8x as fast on the same settings :

Coudn't tested TNT because it can't work with AGP 3.0 port 😁

Is this the slowest GeForce of them all ?

agent_x007 wrote:

If there ever existed "GeForce 256 MX", THIS would be it : […]
Show full quote

If there ever existed "GeForce 256 MX", THIS would be it :

GeForce 256 MX.jpg

I give you, ASUS GeForce 256 SDR 32MB 64-bit.

Demo001 GeForce 256 (MX) 32MB mini.png

Level of fail is simply beyond words.
For comparison, a TNT2 Pro is 1,8x as fast on the same settings :

[Demo001] Riva TNT2 Pro 1024x768 TF mini.png

Coudn't tested TNT because it can't work with AGP 3.0 port 😁

Is this the slowest GeForce of them all ?

No because that's still slower than the 2MX PCI. Mostly due to bus limitations.

Anywho, that card will still hand the TNT2 it's ass in anything using HW TnL. Also XP is a horrible test platform for cards that early. Challenge accepted though. I'll pull out the Gigabyte 370 board, the TNT2 Ultra, and the 256 SDR later.

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote:

No because that's still slower than the 2MX PCI. Mostly due to bus limitations.

Anywho, that card will still hand the TNT2 it's ass in anything using HW TnL. Also XP is a horrible test platform for cards that early. Challenge accepted though. I'll pull out the Gigabyte 370 board, the TNT2 Ultra, and the 256 SDR later.

TNT2 Pro is a good bit faster overall in 3DMark 2000 than this joke of a GPU.

It is clear winner in High Polygon Count (1 light) test, I give it that, but it lost in 8 lights test and barely have any leads in 4 lights test.
PS. Also TNT2 isn't a GeForce.

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote:

I just secured the sale of my spare (SDR) @ $50 USD.

Whoa there, so you hate on scumbags retailers like Electromyne for reselling HW for a massive profit.

Yet you do this yourself?

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote:

No because that's still slower than the 2MX PCI.

I guess you meant "faster" right?

dexvx wrote:

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote:

I just secured the sale of my spare (SDR) @ $50 USD.

Whoa there, so you hate on scumbags retailers like Electromyne for reselling HW for a massive profit.

Yet you do this yourself?

Tother thread is littered with toy-shaped projectiles from a prammer.

I got two Dell OEM ones on ebay last year for $12 each, with 32MB SDR.
The original listing was just "DELL Video 4x AGP 0933CP + 933CP + 32MB NVIDIA GEFORCE".
But I still want one with DDR.
I really miss my first ELSA Erazor X2...

dexvx wrote:

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote:

I just secured the sale of my spare (SDR) @ $50 USD.

Whoa there, so you hate on scumbags retailers like Electromyne for reselling HW for a massive profit.

Yet you do this yourself?

RMA thread, nough said 🤣
It's those kinds of posts that will make him lose any form of credibility he has imo.

I really miss my first ELSA Erazor X2...

Love the erazor, it even smelled like flowers when I recieved it from spor.
It's a beautiful design heatsink yet sadly it is prone to overheating even though the fan works.

I am on the look out for a aftermarket cooling solution, since I don't trust the stock one. Anyone has a idea how to fix this within a 2 slot space?
Recently submitted a request at zalman for 1 of their coolers but was ignored flat out, which means I won't be purchasing their coolers for my GeForce 256 AND my i7 which I was also looking at, their loss. 😀

agent_x007 wrote:

It is clear winner in High Polygon Count (1 light) test, I give it that, but it lost in 8 lights test and barely have any leads in 4 lights test.
PS. Also TNT2 isn't a GeForce.

I think something is going wrong with 3DMark2000 on that system. The results just aren't right. Fillrate for the GeForce is way off the mark. It should not be less than any TNT2. The GeForce is only showing about 25% of its potential...

See here
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/full-revi … dia,204-10.html

Also, GeForce 256's T&L is only about as fast as a low-end Pentium III at doing T&L calculations. You have a crazy fast Wolfdale CPU. You would probably not want GeForce 256 doing any T&L for you. So I think the results for the lighting tests are funky because of that. 3DMark might not be scoring any of that stuff right with such a fast system.