read this.. it's fun!

[Joel]

Well it really doesn't matter for the most part considering that the G450's image quality is IMO actually better than the G400, while the MX's image quality is actually worse than it's big brother.

Joel

[Vlip]

You got a point, Boss ;-)

[Himself]

paulcs,

I agree, sounded like a fan type spouting off his opinion, (as usual). I mean use the cards you are talking about, make graphs that can be read, and stop jerking around spreading FUD about one card and spinning away the faults of the other. I don't see anything to cheer about here.

[Gurm]

No, he's just working on extrapolation. All tests show the G450 to be a little slower than a G400 Max. All tests show a GeForce2MX to be a little slower than a GeForce DDR (did I get that right?). Therefore, comparing the G400 and the GeForce DDR works as a rough benchmark.

And yes, in a PERFECT world where the drivers are PERFECT then the GeForce can run rings around the G400 in speed.

Now... DosFreak...

If you can't see the difference in 2D quality between a G400 and a GeFarce (of any denomination), then one of the following is the case:

1. Your monitor sucks.
2. Your eyes suck.
3. You're lying.

Even the nVidia people admit that the G400 is vastly superior in image quality. Period. The GeFarce2 is "catching up" but still has a ways to go.

On my Viewsonic 17" (yeah I need a bigger monitor, I've been spending all my money on my car lately) and my wife's Sony 17" the difference is night and day. I plugged my machine into her stuff to try some things out and then we plugged hers back in (she has a GeForce) and she said "why doesn't mine look as nice as yours?"

*sigh*

I'm not picking on you, just your lousy eyesight. It's like when my wife can't tell the difference between tone and TONE. "Why is Stevie Ray supposed to be so good? I mean, the music is cool but it sounds like any other blues/rock band..." AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Himself]

"No, he's just working on extrapolation. All tests show the G450 to be a little slower than a G400 Max. All tests show a GeForce2MX to be a little slower than a GeForce DDR (did I get that right?). Therefore, comparing the G400 and the GeForce DDR works as a rough benchmark."

The MX only perfoms like a DDR if you overclock it like mad, otherwise it's strictly SDR level, and I haven't seen any tests using an MX with dual head whether you can overclock those to the same degree or not. Extrapolating == guessing == BS.

[DuRaNgO]

Sorry, it sounds like a very good way to compare the two, it's done with every piece of computer hardware there is!

People have already concluded by past hardware that the v5 6000 will be even or slightly faster than the gf2 pro and neither are available yet, and they're most likely right!

Don't take it so hard