VOGONS


First post, by cxm717

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

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:

gfvsmx.png
Filename
gfvsmx.png
File size
269.55 KiB
Views
854 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 1 of 10, by blurks

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

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.

Reply 2 of 10, by keropi

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Thanks for the sharing the test results, always good to have more data

🎵 PCMIDI mpu
🎧 Orpheus soundcard
Action Rewind
MegaCard
💻 WTB Amstrad PC7486SLC-33

Reply 3 of 10, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

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?

Reply 5 of 10, by BushLin

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Scali 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.

Reply 6 of 10, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I think GeForce 2 MX suffers more performance penalty from trilinear filtering.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 8 of 10, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

GeForce 256 and GeForce 2 are practically identical feature wise, at least when it comes to real benchmarks and games.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 9 of 10, by cxm717

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
SPBHM 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

Reply 10 of 10, by cxm717

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

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.

mxv256td6.png
Filename
mxv256td6.png
File size
75.67 KiB
Views
382 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception