GeForce 2 MX performance

[Ovi]

UtwigMU: Yup, I could try overclocking the processor, but that would probably help only when I play at lower res, low settings, coz at higher detail levels, the memory bandwidth limitation will then come into play (if this 64 bit memory bus thing is true!)
But I'm still very confused as to how an MX 400 can have a 64 bit memory bus (SDR)????
Any ideas?
Ovi

[Technoid]

It can!
As I erlier posted it can have either a 64 or 128 SDR or 64DDR

It all depends on how cheap the manufactor wants to make the board

[Ovi]

Technoid: Oops, I noticed it now! Thanks for pointing it out!
BUT, the 2 questions remaining are:

1. On the web site of the manufacturer (Mercury) of my gfx card, it is stated that the card uses 128 bit memory!
Link here:

http://www.kobian.com/pr_dis_sp6800a.html

2. In the specs that nVidia has listed:

GeForce2 MX 400 Memory Interface: 64/128-bit SDR, 64-bit DDR
Texels per Second:800 Million
Memory Bandwidth: 2.7GB/s

Why is the memory bandwidth given as 2.7 GB/s only. If 64 bit SDR can be used, then memory bandwidth should halve like the MX 200 ( 1.3GB/s)
Is there a way to use this cheaper 64 bit SDR and still maintain the memory bandwidth?? Otherwise, nVidia should be specifying that for the MX 400 the memory Bandwidth is 1.3/2.7 depending on ram used!!

Now this means that both Mercury and nVidia are misrepresenting facts! Esp, Mercury, as the specs that they are listing are not true!!!!

What's happening??

Ovi

[Ovi]

Hey, has anyone on this forum got the same graphics card as mine?? Then we could atleast share some performance notes!!
Cheers
Ovi

[UtwigMU]

I have teh regular MX but not using it ATM.

3D prophet 2MX
175MHz core, 2.8GB/s internal bandwith.
S-DRAM

IIRC Hercules was clocked the highest of all MXs

[Technoid]

I have a MX 400 with 64mb and I do think its sdr,
I'll run 3dstupid at it and see what numbers I get

[Ovi]

I'll wait eagerly for your results Technoid! (although I'm expecting them to be on the "good" side!!) Btw, what's the brand of your card?
Thanks
Ovi

[UtwigMU]

I can benchmark Unreal TimeDemo. I don't have 3Dmark and other things ATM.

I have a similiar system like you do.

[UtwigMU]

Since I always wanted to know how my G400 compares to my 2MX I ran a few benchmarks:
Here you go:

MGA:
Matrox Millenium G400 SH 16MB SDRAM (100%memory / 100%core)
Powerdesk version: 9x 6.82.016
AGP 2×
Vsync off
32 Z-buffering on

nVidia
Hercules 3D Prophet II MX 32MB SDRAM (175mem/183core)
(Aded fan to h/s)
Detonators: 9x 21.81

The rest of the system:
PSU: Macase 300W
Zalman Silent 80mm case fan
Mainboard: DFI P2XBL rev B+ (intel 440BX)
CPU: Intel Pentium][ 350@466,7MHz (stock voltage, stock Intel cooler)
(I have a WCPUID screen shoving 490 captured)
RAM: Micron 512MB PC133 CAS2
Soundblaster PCI64
(Original Creative drivers installed)
Adaptec 2904 Fast SCSI host adapter
US Robotics V90 Sportster Flash ISA
(drivers not installed)
HDD: WD AC28 8.4GB 5400RPM ATA33
CD-ROM: Philips 36× ATAPI CD-ROM
Teac CD-ROM 532S SCSI CD-ROM
Teac CD-R 56S SCSI CD-R

1.5GB FAT partition
Windows 98 SE clean Compact Install
DirectX version: 8.1
3DMarkSE version: 330
Unreal version: 220beta

Benchmark 1: Unreal timedemo OpenGL (32bit colour)
graphic board / resolution / average fps (minimum / maximum)

MGA / 640×480 / 26.2 (17.5 / 41.7)
nV / 640×480 / 26.1 (16.0 / 41.6)
MGA / 800×600 / 19.6 (13.0 / 28.0)
nV / 800×600 / 16.7 (13.4 / 30.7)
MGA 1024×768 / 13.7 (10.2 / 20.2)
nV / 1024×768 / 14.0 (10.7 / 20.9)

G400 is slightly faster in lover resoulutions, while MX again slightly comes ahead in higher resolution. Both boards might be CPU hogged. OpenGL renderer of Unreal is not very optimized, this was a glide game anyway.

Benchmark 2: Unreal timedemo Direct3D (32bit colour)
graphic board / resolution / average fps (minimum / maximum)

MGA / 640×480 / 54.4 (24.7 / 100.1)
nV / 640×480 / 54.0 (19.0 / 100.0)
MGA / 800×600 / 48.9 (22.2 / 83.1)
nV / 800×600 / 51.7 (21.2 / 96)
MGA 1024×768 / 35.3 (18.6 / 60.0)
nV / 1024×768 / 46.5 (20 / 88.7)

Again G400 is slightly faster in lover resolutions, but this time MX pulls ahead by 32% at 1024×768. At lover resolutions both boards are blocked by CPU while at higher resolutions MX shows it's advantage. Matrox' minimum fps dip on average to 47% of it's average while nVidia'sdip to 39% of it's average. Matrox' gameplay seems subjectively smoother.

Synthetic Benchmark 1: 3DMark2001SE (version 330)

MGA: 600 3DMarks
nV: 1364 3DMarks

GeForce2MX clearly shows advantage of 16MB RAM and hardware T&L over G400. Most games vere unplayable under G400, while some with lower details had over 30fps with MX (Lobby low detail; G400 20fps)

Overclocking and conclusion:
While this particular G400 isn't very overclockable, the Hercules' MX has great potential. I took core and memory to 220/220 and completed Unreal Time demo as well as 3DMark without any artifacts or other unusual occurance.

Unreal timedemo Direct3D (32bit colour)
Nv(220/220) / 1024×768 / 47 (19.7 / 97.55)

Considering that core was 25% and memory was 20% above factory settings this rather negligible improvement points to CPU bottlenecking the system.

3DMark2001SE (version 330)

nV(220/220): 1433 3DMarks.

Hercules image quality is not on par with Matrox but I must say that it's rather good for GF2MX. Since G400 doesn't fall behind 2MX in older games by too significant amount and has features that are more useful to me I'm using that board and planing to take it to next CPU/MoBo (RAM) combo.

[Ovi]

Hi UtwigMU
Thanks for the useful info! Though I don't have the Unreal installed now, but when I had it, under normal playing, my previous card (TNT 2 Pro) gave slightly lower results, so I guess my (crippled) MX 400 would give similar results as yours (or slightly less)
My 3D Mark 2001 SE score is 1101, explained by the fact that my MX 400 is running at 200 core / 143 memory.
Cheers
Ovi

[Ovi]

Update

Okay, after doing a lot of reading on the net, I have noticed the following facts:
1. Many companies are using 64 bit memory in their GeForce 2 MX 400 boards, but most of them are doing so very quietly! I don’t know why nVidia has not mentioned in their specs that if 64 bit memory is used, memory bandwidth will be halved to 1.3 GB/s. All they are mentioning is that the MX 400 can use 64/128 bit SDR RAM and that the memory bandwidth is 2.7 GB/s. As a result, almost every manufacturer using this cheap 64 bit SDR memory is stating the memory bandwidth to be the same as the 128 bit models – 2.7 GB/s !!
2. If a company is manufacturing cards with both types of memories, then the cheaper one is usually around US $ 10-15 cheaper, For eg on eVGA’s site, the MX 400 with with 128 bit memory is priced at $ 82 while the 64 bit one is priced at $ 72 (both are 64 MB)
3. While nVidia recommends memory frequencies in the range 166-185 MHz for the MX 400, most of the MX 400’s are clocked at 166 MHz, with the more expensive variants (with faster memory, ~ 4ns) being clocked higher. BUT, in case of the variants with 64 bit memory, the memory used is extremely slow ( 7 ns ) and the memory frequency is the real shocker – <b>143 MHz</b>!!!! That is way below the recommended range, I wonder how nVidia is even allowing that!! I seem to have got this cheap variant, but then, I noticed that all the brands available in the market here (India) are using 64 bit memory only (except the ultra expensive ASUS), so that doesn’t leave me with much choice!. But had I known this beforehand, I would probably not have bought the card, which brings me to the 4th conclusion.
4. Some companies are falsely advertising the memory bus as being 128 bit (SDR), when in fact it is 64 bit (SDR)!! My card’s manufacturer (Mercury) is doing exactly that!! Now that is blatant lying! I feel cheated
As a result, my MX 400 is severely crippled, and performs almost the same as an MX 200! So, if anyone is planning to buy an MX 400, I would suggest him/her to be careful about its memory bus width, as there might be other manufacturers too passing off these 64 bit memory variants as regular 128 bit ones! I got a lot of info about this whole thing from www.digit-life.com . This site has also given some ways to identify the type of memory bus used (128 or 64 bit), which can be helpful.
Hope my experience can help others!
Cheers
Ovi

[Technoid]

My GF2 MX400 is clocked at:
Core: 200MHz
Mem: 167 MHz

FR ST: 174
FR MT: 384

[Nuno]

Ovi: Welcome the the wonderful nVidia 3rd party manufacturers world.

Never ever buy a video card with a not-known brand. Besides horrid 2d quality because of poor filters, most of those 2nd league taiwaneses manufactures will do everything to cut costs. I remember seing a (very) cheap Powercolor Radeon 8500 Pro DDR 64 Mb. Even the more-than-average informed computer buyer would think that´s a LE version, clocked at 250Mhz, 230 at least. Well, it´s using 6 ns DDR ram, wich means... 166Mhz memory speed. Yup, same memory bandwidth as a GF2 GTS.

How nVidia allows it? C´mon, nVidia is the first one with deceiving marketing, starting with the GF2 "MX" and now with the most deceiving GF4 MX.

Return the card and demand the money. You were cheated.

I do think a GF2MX is a good card for your system and a good upgrade from the TNT2, just get one from MSI, Asus, Hercules and so on. NOT Creative as they tended to be expensive and used 64bit DDR memory, that was slower than 128bit SDR.

[Ovi]

Hi Nuno
I feared exactly the situation that you have mentioned: getting stuck with a no-name manufacturer. But the thing is that Mercury is quite popular and well respected here, that's why I chose this brand!! In fact, when I first turned on my computer after putting in the new card, I noticed that it's image quality was better than the Asus TNT2 Pro that I had before!! Also, Mercury is one of the few manufacturers here to use a fan on their MX 400's. All this gave me the impression that I had got a good deal, and that the manufacturer was not cutting costs unnecessarily, but the bubble burst soon after!
The only other choices in the market are:
1. Pine
2. Maxforce
3. Asus
Of these, the first two are even cheaper than the mercury, and little known, but popular coz of their low prices. I checked Pine's website, atleast they stated correctly about the use of 64 bit memory on their cards! Maxforce is the lowest of these brands, so I am sure it uses the 64 bit memory bus too.
As for Asus, their model is 2.5 times more expensive (available only with TV out etc)!! With such a limited choice, its no wonder that the market here is so immature in terms of graphics cards, no one here seems to care about anything other than the graphics processor and the amount of memory on board!
And to add insult to injury, there is no system here of returning components, unless they are defective! In fact, the dealers don't even know the difference between 64 and 128 bit memory! And proving to them that the card uses 64 bit memory as against the advertised 128 bits will be next to impossible! The only thing I can do is contact the manufacturer and ask them to explain this misrepresentation of facts. Had this happened in the US, one could have easily returned the card, but not here . And since the company is based in Singapore, it becomes all the more difficult to get any sort of compensation. They do have a branch office here, so I'll try to contact them also. Let's see what happens.
I still remember the good old days when I had my G200, and was far away from the big bad world of nVidia and its cronies!!
Ovi

[UtwigMU]

I had GF2MX by Asus @ work connected to Sony E500 21" monitor. When I set the resolution to 1600×1200@85Hz the image was shaking. I didn't test this with another card, but I'm pretty sure that MX was the cause.

Subjectively the Hercules looked better than the Asus and the guy who sold me the Hercules told me he had it runing @ 1600×1200 on a 19" monitor w/o problems.

TV - out makes the card to have better resell value latter since a lot of people stick such cards in their HTPCs.

As you can see from my example (G400 performs closely to TNT2) you won't be getting any considerable improvement even from a good MX in older games and your system is too slow alltogether for newer games.
1300 3DMark vs 600 3DMark doesn't translate in 2× performance increase in older games.

I suggest:
- resell the MX
- RMA it (a bad BIOS flash or something shorted or wrapping card in order for it to owerheat should do it) or even better tell them that your friend works for the local computer magazine and this means bad publicity ...
- keep TNT2 (G400s and TNT2s were paired with 700MHz Athlons and coppermine Pentiums)
- for the rest of the money get either:
A) ECS (Elite group) K7S5A (w/o LAN costs as much as GF2MX400 here)
+ AMD AthlonXP1600+ 1.4GHz (costs 10% more than 2MX400)
+ appropriate cooler like TT Volcano 7+ (I don't know lot's about coolers)
+ reuse your SDRAM (If it can't do 133 go Duron1300)

B) Asus TUSL2 (costs 60% more than 2MX400 here)
+ Intel Celeron 1.0A (costs slightly less than 2MX400) and o'c it to 1.4GHz (maybe 1.2@1.6)
+ reuse your SDRAM (If it can't go 133 scrap Celeron and go Duron)

I was reffering to Innovision GeForce 2MX400 with twinview (not very famous manufacturer)

Seriously I am not replacing G400 (~TNT2 performance) untill I replace HDD, CPU/MoBo (RAM), case and monitor.