So I did a Geforce256 vs GeforceMX comparison. The test setup I used was an Aopen AX6BC, P3s@1400, SBlive card and 256MB of PC133 CL2. This was under Win98 with the nvidia 6.31 drivers.
Some pics of the setup: https://imgur.com/a/xMvGXZF
Benchmark results:
That is an interesting comparison, thanks a lot. I especially dig the games you were using. They accurately resemble late 90's/early 2000's gaming.
The comparison itself doesn't show any surprises. It pretty much confirms my expectations and experiences from back in the day.
Thanks for the sharing the test results, always good to have more data
thanks for the testing,
and yes it very much matches the expectation of the MX400 being mostly behind the DDR but ahead of the SDR, kind of right in between... and the MX200 being just bad; still, at least on your test I would say the MX400 and 256 offers a very similar experience,
just for extra clarity, was the MX400 the 200/166 model or the 200/175?
GeForce256, the original GPU.
Seems that DDR didn't offer too much additional performance over SDR in certain games.
wrote:GeForce256, the original GPU.
Seems that DDR didn't offer too much additional performance over SDR in certain games.
Seems to offer more as the resolution rises as more memory bandwidth is required. None of this is apples to apples, the 256 SDR runs memory at a higher clock, presumably with better latency. The MX cards have castrated silicon, with fewer pipelines and render units.
Screw period correct; I wanted a faster system back then. I choose no dropped frames, super fast loading, fully compatible and quiet operation.
I think GeForce 2 MX suffers more performance penalty from trilinear filtering.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
Is there any advantage in GeForce 2MX in terms of supported APIs/effects/shaders?
GeForce 256 and GeForce 2 are practically identical feature wise, at least when it comes to real benchmarks and games.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
wrote:thanks for the testing,
and yes it very much matches the expectation of the MX400 being mostly behind the DDR but ahead of the SDR, kind of right in between... and the MX200 being just bad; still, at least on your test I would say the MX400 and 256 offers a very similar experience,just for extra clarity, was the MX400 the 200/166 model or the 200/175?
The MX400 was clocked 200/166
For these Test Drive 6 results I used driver 7.76 as there was some bad graphical corruption on the MX200 with the 6.31 driver. I decided to show the results for the different weather in the game (which seems to be random). I usually test each one and just average them for a single result.
