Thread: 3d MArk 2K1

In 16 or 32-bit color. Generally, I'd say so. I'm actually running some benchmarks for an upcoming review right now, so I'll see how it comes out on my test system.

Hey. With my GF2 at default settings, and my new DDR, I am hitting 1518. I was hoping to break 2000 with my system, but i am going to have to do some tweaking.

It's an MX200 64MB card, and none of my system components are overclocked. I suppose that's a decent score.

Yeah. While overclocking wouldn't hurt you any in the benchmarks, the MX200's are closer performing to the Voodoo 3 and TNT2, due to the 64-bit data path, unlike the 128 on the normal MX and MX400's. I wouldn't hold too much hope for getting much higher with that card, regardless of an overclock.

Yeah, I agree about the relative performance. The funny thing is, though, that the GF2 was my economic upgrade from my TNT2 32MB, which just stunk. I am getting literally twice the performance video-wise now, and, even though I would love more, I think I am holding out for another good economic upgrade. My scores with my TNT 2 were close to 1000, MAYBE.

LOL. well, I am here to testify about the great bang for your buck with the GF2, and also to remind everybody to throw in the few extra dollars for the MX400, not MX200. Hey, the MX400 on a comparable system of a friend of mine is pulling over 2000 already, so there's proof, i suppose.

Yup. With the CPU and Video overclocked, I can hit close to 3000 on my file server, back when it was my main rig. GF2MX aren't bad, but they definitely have their limitations, even overclocked.

Also, for the next economical upgrade, keep in my the GeForce 4 MX's don't seem to be all that great of a deal when dealing with Direct X 8...so I've been reading.

In other forums, they are having a freaking huge debate over that kind of thing, i.e. cost versus quality, exactly which benchmarks and situations each video card works best on, and really they are gridlocked. I know a couple of things for sure.

1. The Radeon 8500 is an awesome card, gets excellent performance, and is a little buggy unless run in compatibility mode. It is significantly less expensive than the GF4s and even some GF3s, and it still pulls excellent performance.

2. I don't have an infinite supply of money.

3. The GF4 costs significantly more, and I doubt that you get SIGNIFICANT performance improvement.

I am going to hold out for a lot of money to come my way or the Radeons or some other similar cards to go down in price.

Just so you know, on 3DMark 2k1, my friend's system broke 9000.
He has: Radeon 8500, XP 1700+, 256MB crucial 2100DDR, and a 7200 60 GB. Epox mobo, overclocked just a little on everything, but still, it's a very competitive score even against GF3s and 4s, i think you would agree.

I've tried the MX200, and while it does perform better in benchmarks, the Unreal engine games still own on a V3. For other game engines, the V3 is not as fast. The MX200 is more of a step backwards for Nvidia than anything else.

LyNeX: I'm gonna ask you to not make personal attacks against me. If you don't like this message board, you can leave. Consider this a warning.

This stuff has come out of my own pocket, an I am trying to stay as up to date as possible. I only have so much cash with which to spend on hardware.

Whoah, what's happened with this board recently.

My scores based upon the same settings in 2001 as Black Bart are: 3641.

Dunno how good or bad that is.