RSS Feed

HCW Tech Blog

For the latest info on computer hardware, tech, news, video games, software tips, and Linux, check out our new improved front page: HCW Tech Blog

Reviewed by: Carl Nelson [10.13.00]
Manufactured by: Leadtek
MSRP: $150


Under The Hood

More and more often, we are seeing video card manufacturers go from gluing the heatsink to the chipset, to using thermal paste, and fastening the heatsink externally.  It's obviously better to have thermal paste between the heatsink and chip than it is to have some cheap glue, but using external pins also makes it easier to install other heatsinks, and replace them more frequently.

The sad part, though, is most manufacturers simply can't be bothered to apply the heatsink paste thoroughly... As soon as I saw this, I wiped it all off, cleaned it up with some rubbing alcohol, put some Arctic Silver paste on it, and slapped the heatsink back on.  Man, this helps a lot! We also tested overclocking with ThermalTake's new Blue ORB chipset/video card cooler..

We also put a Tennmax cooler on there, for our future shootout, but Tennmax tells us that their coolers don't quite agree with Arctic Silver Paste, and we were seeing temperatures rise way above stock.  They are sending us a new unit, just in case ours is faulty (I've had it for quite a while), and some thermal paste they prefer to be used with their coolers.  Look for a full Tennmax vs. Blue ORB shootout very soon!

I Have To At Least MENTION The Specs

I know you hate it when hardware reviewers use up an entire page (or TWO!) just to show you the specs you can easily check out yourself.  I hate that too.  I will list a couple things though, and move on, just in case you aren't entirely familiar with the GeForce 2 MX.

The GF2MX is actually based on the same core as NVidia's current flagship product, the GeForce 2 GTS.  The difference though, is that the GF2MX only supports 2 rendering pipelines (the GF2GTS has 4).  Why not just stick with the original GeForce then? It also supported 4 rendering pipelines as well, right?

That's true, but the one of the big improvements the GF2 core had over the original GF was the ability to process 2 textures per pipeline in a single clock, where the GF could only process 1.

Long story short and simple: The GeForce 2 MX, because of its enhanced chipset features and clock speed, has a higher fill rate than the original GeForce card.  Because it uses only SDR ram though, it will still be hampered by the low memory bandwidth, like the original SDR GeForce.  This means that the GeForce 2 MX is a replacement for the GeForce chipset.  In fact, I don't think you will be able to find an SDR GeForce card in stores for very long, if at all.  Nvidia now has basically the entire market covered: Low end, high performance graphics - GeForce 2 MX.  Middle end, high performance graphics - GeForce DDR.  High end, high performance graphics - GeForce 2 GTS.  And the ultimate for hardcore gamers: GeForce 2 GTS Ultra (coming soon).  3dfx who?

Back to the specs: here are some of the features of the GeForce 2 MX chipset:

  • It supports the NSR - Nvidia Shading Rasterizer - just as the GF2 GTS does.
  • Same T&L Engine too (though it will be slightly slower because of the lower clock speed)
  • Texture Compression (although we all know what that looks like!)
  • AGP4X Fast Writes
  • Etc Etc... That's all that's really important.

The Numbers

Curious exactly how the GF2MX compares to the GF2GTS and even the original GeForce on paper? Here's a small table for you.  These stats are all official from Nvidia.

GeForce 2 MX GeForce 2 GTS GeForce 256
Core Name NV11 NV15 NV10
Rendering Pipelines 2 4 4
Texels/Clock 2 2 1
Fill Rate (Texels/sec) 700 Million 1600 Million 480 Million
Core Clock Speed 175 Mhz 200 Mhz 120 Mhz
Memory Clock Speed 166 Mhz SDR 333 Mhz DDR 166 SDR/333 DDR
Memory Bandwidth 2.7 GB/sec 5.3 GB/sec 2.7 GB/4.8 GB/sec

There are the numbers for ya.   I highlighted the Fill rate numbers, because those are probably the most important overall.  This is of course forgetting about memory bandwidth, which is very important, particularly in 32 bit applications (and who doesn't run 32 bit applications).

And Now - The Card Itself

Now it's time to throw some real numbers at you - BENCHMARKS! First off, here are the system specs, and our benchmarking process.  I'll make this real simple for you (again, no page wasted on showing you OUR specs!):

The System

AMD Duron 900 (100 Mhz Bus)
Asus A7V Motherboard (Via Apollo Pro K7T - reviewed here)
128 MB Mushkin PC150 Ram (review coming soon)
30 GB IBM 7200 RPM ATA/100 Hard Drive
Aureal Vortex 2 Sound Card

The Software

Windows ME
Via 4-in-1 4.24
NVidia 621 Detonator 3 Drivers
Mad Onion's 3DMark 2000
Quake 3 1.17 Timedemo 1 - ALL default settings at High Quality.  After that, only the bit rate and resolutions were changed

Next Page: (3)