Foreword

Not everyone has the money to equal a high-end graphics card of GeForce à la 2 purchase are ultra or even GeForce 3. For this target group, the GeForce2 MX series in life launched nVidia about a year ago. They offered a ungeschlagenes price / performance ratio for a long time. But since a few months, STMicroelectronics tried with the graphics chip KYRO 2 to earn the favor of the buyer in this price segment. At the same time has its GeForce2 MX series split nVidia. There are now on the one hand the GeForce2 MX200 and the GForce2 MX400, which promises almost the same on paper, as once the normal GeForce2 MX. Inno3D was so friendly us two, graphics cards with the GeForce2 MX400 (Inno3D tornado GeForce2 MX400) to make. To compare the results with those of the previous chip (GeForce2 MX), we have incorporated also the services of the Hercules 3D Prophet in the benchmark charts with 2 MX. Because we wanted to limit ourselves in this comparison on graphics cards, which are interesting for players, we have deliberately outside left the GeForce2 MX200. It was already said that this test has been not so as you would expect.

Scope of delivery

The package of two graphics cards from Inno3D with 29 cm x 20 cm x 4 cm precipitates relatively small compared to some other manufacturers. To so so waived waste volume and is limited to the essential. The packaging looks by the way same as 100% for two graphics cards and specifies as feature regardless of the true content of the Pack of 32 MB of graphics memory. Only an additional label on the packaging a indicates that you may store, but the version with 64 MB in the hands hold the GeForce2 MX400 with 32 MB. On a further sticker can be seen, whether the video card with TV-out is equipped, which was the case with us. A third label us indicates that it is in our case a “Value Pack”. Therefore, we do without additional software and an Inno3D mouse pad. Inno3D has also a variant with twin-view in the program, which would then probably means the fourth label. By twin-view, two monitors can be connected to a graphics card. While the image is duplicated but not necessarily, but a monitor the image of the other monitor can expand vertically or horizontally. However, as mentioned our test came because without this technique.

We come now to the actual content of the Pack. There is as of course the graphics card itself to name first, which is packaged in an anti-static bag. It has however not stop and can slip around in the Pack. This, of course, it takes does not equal damage, but by no means it is healthy. The 64MB-Variante falls immediately to the double-sided Assembly with graphics memory. On closer inspection, one still finds that different memory was installed on the two graphics cards. The memory of the 32MB-Variante has an access time of 5ns, the 64MB-Variante must rely on slower memory with 6ns however. Therefore, the memory of the two products of also from House already different is quickly clocked. The 32MB-Variante operated with 184MHz memory clock 9MHz above the specifications, the memory of the 64MB-Variante they are operated with 166 MHz exactly the nVidia specifications. We will resolve later still extensively what effects this has on the performance, in the benchmarks. The graphics chip itself is clocked at two variants with 200 MHz, as expected which means an increase of 25 MHz towards the GeForce2 MX. At work, provides an active fan for this that the graphics chip is not too hot and moreover improves the prospect of good overclocking options.

Also is still a cable in the package, you can use to connect the TV-out of the graphics card to the video input of your TV. We have them subjected to the well-known TV tool a little test. This is only to say that the TV-out, as one could expect, works.

Of course you will encounter also a driver CD and a guide in the packaging. The detonator drivers 6.49 dated the 17.11.2000 are however hopelessly outdated, you should also download the latest reference drivers (currently version 12.41) and install. Still, the Pro version of 3DMark 2000 with the result browser 2000 and a series of 3D-Grafik-Demos by nVidia on the CD reside. With the help of these demos you will be a picture of the features of the graphics chip itself, even if the demos are not very sophisticated, but are focused on the pure appearance of a certain effect.

The manual is completely in English and is only 16 pages, describes all the necessary steps – but by the installation of the graphics card up to the driver installation if not very detailed. In addition to some typos and grammatical errors, but above all the page 1 is interesting. According to the text the 64MB-Variante in a resolution of 1600 x 1200 at 32 bit color depth will provide more pictures per second up to 25%, as the 32MB-Variante. Whether that’s so true, we will still resolve in the course of this test. Still is there written by the fact that the additional 32 MB of graphics memory of variant with 64 MB in the future could be very important. As owner of the 32MB-Variante keep the same manual in the hands, they could easily believe that they are prepared in spite of purchase of their new graphics card for the future. If really it, we will still see.

Specifications

The following table gives an overview of the specifications of the tested video cards and permits may already indicative of future performance.

< div >

Since the GeForce2 MX400 with 64 MB graphics memory addresses as opposed to the version with 32 MB only with 166 MHz video memory, the memory bandwidth when compared to the GeForce2 MX400 with 32 MB of graphics memory to 300 megabytes per second or 11 percent is reduced. Whether the 64MB-Variante again can compensate for this by the larger graphics memory?

Features

On the technique of these video cards with the GeForce2 MX400 we want to briefly here only, as compared to the classic GeForce2 MX nothing has changed. The second generation of the transforming & lighting engine promises highly detailed landscape representations and extremely realistic animated characters. Doing the GPU (graphics processing unit) of GeForce2 MX400 decreases much of the work the main processor, what the performance is good. The transforming is used here to represent changes in the position, size, shape, or the orientation of a geometric object. These operations require a very fast floating point unit of graphics chips. The saved so computing power of the main processor can be used then otherwise. Lighting ensures the appropriate illumination and sets as the scene in the right light.

There is also still cube environment mapping. Improves the reflection of the environment on an object by it they dynamically records that. This is achieved by drawing on 6 environment textures instead of only a use, covering all 6 pages of the object.

Another important feature is the pixel shader are effects. It has divided them into per-pixel lighting and per-pixel bump mapping. Through these techniques, it should be possible to highly complex and realistic surface textures. By per-pixel lighting a light source is associated with this individual pixels and the per pixel bump mapping, the object with an additional gray-scale structure gets mediated depth and height information. This technique is impressive set in scene in 3DMark 2001. Here you can see two screenshots from the game of Evolva, left with disabled and right with enabled per-pixel shader effects.

Test system

To restrict the three graphics cards by a low overall system performance in their capabilities, we have tested it on a fast AMD Athlon 1000MHz with a generous limited memory. Therefore, the bottleneck in the system are likely to be the video cards and ideally can show what is in them. As the operating system, Windows 2000 Professional came this time with the Service Pack 2 for use. This can keep up as Unreal Tournament in terms of performance with a few exceptions now quite well with the Windows 9 x-based operating systems. However, the aspect that the Windows9x series architecture more will find no successor was much more important for us. Yes we know, Windows XP based on NT technology, so that the benchmarks for the future with Windows 2000 have much more importance. Graphics cards drivers which were official detonator in version 12.41 used.

Since the GeForce2 MX come as comparison graphics used by Hercules so innately was, overclocked, we have them with the GeForce2 MX standard-stroke (graphics chip 175MHz;) Tested (memory 166 MHz), to have a general comparison with a GeForce2 MX. We have but left the two graphics cards from Inno3D her clock because we learned after consultation with Inno3D that these graphics cards are also delivered.

• AMD Athlon-B 1000MHz
• ASUS A7V BIOS 1,007 mainboard
• 2 x 128 MB PC133 SDRAM
• Graphics cards
  • Inno3D tornado GeForce2 MX400 32 MB + TV-out
  • Inno3D tornado GeForce2 MX400 64 MB + TV-out
  • Hercules 3D Prophet 2 MX (comparison graphics)
• Peripherals
  • Seagate ST320430A
  • LiteOn LTN-382 CD-ROM
  • Ricoh MP-7080A CD-recorder
  • Creative Sound Blaster Live! Value
  • AVM Fritz!Card PCI
  • Fiberline fast Ethernet adapter
• Software
  • Windows 2000 Service Pack 2
  • VIA 4 in 1 version 4.31
  • DirectX 8a

Benchmarks

To cover as many current and future games engines, both benchmarks based on DirectX 7 and benchmarks based on DirectX 8, found use. Of course also OpenGL benchmarks were used, a well-known member of this genus is Quake 3 arena. You can see that always a synthetic and a practical benchmark was used. As the 2D-Leistung of all GeForce video cards leaves no wish, as you know, we have here not on a test with system market.

• DirectX 7.0
  • 3DMark 2000-1.1 (benchmark)
  • Unreal tournament 4.36 (first-person shooter)
• DirectX 8.0
  • 3DMark 2001 (benchmark)
  • Aquanox Aquamark 2.1 (action-game)
• OpenGL
  • GL excess 1.1 (benchmark)
  • Quake 3 arena 1.17 (first-person shooter)
  • Vulpine GL mark (benchmark)

3DMark 2000

Although 3D mark 2001 was replaced by the version 2000, he is still very well to use as a DirectX 7 benchmark. It reflects the performance of the video cards in this test in the current games, yes almost all of which build still on DirectX 7, although not entirely correctly, but still such a thing as a standard benchmark.

Surprisingly the variant of GeForce2 MX400 with 64 MB graphic memory of the 32MB-Karte must admit defeat. Obviously no profit can beat the 64MB-Variante of their large memory and must settle, because her memory only with 166 MHz is addressed, the second place.

A similar picture is evident in the 3DMark 2000 with 32 bit color depth. Here the 64MB-Karte must admit even partially defeat the old GeForce2 MX. In 1600 x 1200, she can however match with the other graphics cards, which is due to their large graphics memory.

3DMark 2001

The latest addition from MadOnions 3D-Benchmark-Serie is the 3DMark 2001, which makes also use of DirectX 8 features. Therefore, the video cards can not run some tests. This benchmark is a point of reference for the performance of graphics cards in future games.

The two types of graphics from Inno3D are located on the same, the classic GeForce2 MX must be beaten here. Obviously the larger memory of the 64MB-Variante and the 32MB-Variante fast memory equalize itself, so that outcomes be almost identical. In resolutions from 1280 x 1024 the 32MB-Variante is but again just ahead.

The two MX400 GeForce2 graphics cards to secure almost equal to many images per second. The GeForce2 MX is rather behind in last place. In 640 x 480, the frame rate is obviously limited by the remaining components of the system.

Almost the same picture emerges in 32-bit color depth. But with the difference that in higher resolutions for the first time the 64MB-Variante at the top of the set itself, because she can correctly make use here of their large graphics memory. In 1600 x 1200 the two graphics card with 32 MB are memory neck and neck, which suggests that the limiting factor here is the size of graphics memory.

A reltiv balanced image offers this chart. All graphics cards offer nearly identical performance, the 32MB-Variante of the GeForce2 MX400 can’t place only minimally from the rest of the field.

Aquamark

The Aquanox based on the blatantly engine or the coming here to use benchmark Aquamark make excessive use of the new DirectX 8 features and run on all here tested video cards despite the strong processor but quite modest, as the GeForce2 MX400 on DirectX 7 are aligned. For this game you will be not equipped with a GeForce2 MX400, even if the Aquanox programmers turn anything on the performance screws.

Differences between the graphics cards there are hardly any and can be in the range of measurement inaccuracies. From 1280 x 1024, the GeForce2 MX falls back but clearly. Clearly this game requires DirectX 8 hardware.

In 32-bit the 32MB-Variante GeForce2 MX400 can break away some of the two competitors, which are roughly tied.

GL excess

GL excess is an OpenGL benchmark that the hardware has very low requirements. Scenes with over 100 or even 200 frames per second are not uncommon here. He offers some interesting effects.

Again the Inno3D leads to the field tornado GeForce2 MX400 with 32 MB memory. The version with 64 MB can have the classic GeForce2 MX behind if it loses with increasing resolution in start.

In 32-bit color depth, the two video cards with 32 MB are neck and neck memory. However, an exception is the 640 x 480 resolution, in which the 64MB-Variante gets allocated to very few XSMarks verwunderlicherweise.

Vulpine GL mark

The Vulpine GL mark is a partly quite impressive benchmark, as it can already assume because of the name, based on OpenGL.

Also in Vulpine GL mark must be the 64MB-Variante of the 32MB-Variante of the GeForce2 MX400 beaten, but can claim before the GeForce2 MX in all resolutions. The 64MB-Variante can obviously hardly benefit from the large graphics memory.

Topsy-turvy world in 32-bit: the classic GeForce2 MX lets the GeForce2 MX400 with 64 MB behind, even at high resolutions the 64MB-Variante can range not water it. Once again, it’s the GeForce2 MX400 with 32 MB of graphics memory, which leads the field as the undisputed leader.

Quake 3 arena

Quake 3 arena is an OpenGL-action shooter with impressive graphics. Today’s graphics cards have no problems to achieve high frame rates in this game. Even a GeForce2 MX is sufficient for almost all aspects here.

In 640 x 480 and 800 x 600, performance is obviously limited by the processor, because here are the differences in the field of measurement inaccuracies. Starting at 1024 x 768 looming but clearly, that the elderly GeForce2 MX falls significantly. The 64MB-Variante can resume but not with the 32MB-Variante it, and fails in 1600 x 1200 at this apparently invincible hurdle.

You will encounter an almost unmodified image. The difference is only that the GeForce2 MX in 800 x 600 can no longer keep up graphics cards with the GeForce2 MX400. Also the 64MB-Variante begins to weaken.

The difference between the high-config and Max-config values is minimal. Only it is striking that the 64MB-Variante so slowly runs out steam and she falls back to the level of the GeForce2 MX. She can then but again flashing in 1600 x 1200.

Unreal tournament

Unreal tournament is based on DirectX 7 and is considered to be very CPU centric, so the graphics cards have a rather limited impact on the speed. By the way, this first-person shooter is a good example of games that run on Windows 9 x a lot faster on Windows 2000. This can be regardless of us in this case, however, since we compare with each other on the same system so the performance of graphics cards.

In the resolutions 640 x 480 to 1024 x 768 lie on all three cards immediately. Here, the rest of the system to limit the speed seems really. In higher resolutions, the GeForce2 MX falls back quite significantly while the 64MB-Variante can keep still so just the connection of the 32MB-Variante.

And so there has been yet still a happy ending for the Inno3D tornado GeForce2 MX400 with 64 MB graphics memory! In 1280 x 1024 is 34% faster than the 32MB-Variante and thus it has verified himself still, what is in the manual of the video cards. In 1600 x 1200 x 32, unfortunately there are no tests could be performed with the two 32MB-Grafikkarten, but anzunhemen that the 64MB-Variante here would have to further expand their lead.

Overclocking

Let us the interesting topics for graphics cards at all now one, overclocking. How well can a graphics card overclock, depends among other things the cooling and the access time of memory. That is why maps available in times too bad for us. Finally, both graphics cards from Inno3D have an active fan on the graphics chip. Memory with an access time of 5ns remains installed on the 32MB-Variante, so you can get here probably also still quite a bit. The 64MB-Variante has 6ns memory, but here as well should you out can squeeze more performance. From memory of the Inno3D GeForce2 MX400 32 MB, which is operated by House with 184MHz something about the specifications, even 16 MHz can be more, get 200 MHz a total. When we wanted to increase the memory clock only to 1 another megahertz, the computer crashed immediately us on the Windows desktop and froze the image. Here the limit was reached. By cooling the memory you would have to get here possibly again more, but after all, we test the graphics card in the factory and not some changes. Further, it was so at the core clock. Had to first without problems on 235MHz set, where Quake 3 nor ran perfectly. In Unreal Tournament and the 3DMark 2001 we realized quickly that we have taken here is somewhat too high. After the collapse of graphics chip taktes on 230MHz ran the video card but again stable and we could perform the benchmarks.

At the Inno3D GeForce2 MX400 64 MB the thing proved to be somewhat more difficult. You could in Windows memory up to 190MHz increase, moreover appeared but series image already on the desktop. Finally, the graphics card only with maximum 180Mhz Speichertatkt completed all tests without crashes. As in the 32MB-Variante, you could also set the beat of graphics chips on maximum 230MHz, otherwise there freezes in pretty much all of the tests. With 180Mhz memory and 230MHz core clock, we carried out our benchmarks here. It must be said, that occurred in the 3DMark 2000 some unsightly image. The system ran but stable and no image errors were encountered in other benchmarks / games. Any video card should something heruntertakten here again.

The following table lists once again clearly on the clock rates of the two graphics cards, with which they could be operated stable.

< div >

Overclocking benchmarks (part 1)

The following diagrams illustrate how the overclocking affects the performance of graphics cards. We have tested the overclocked graphics cards with 3DMark 2000 and 2001 Vulpine GLMark, Quake 3 arena and Unreal Tournament.

The 3DMark 2000 benefit both graphics cards by the higher bar. The increase in the performance by points turns out very clearly.

The latest version of the 3DMark-Serie shows the same image. Both graphics cards justify the overclocking by a significantly increased number of points.

Even if we consider only the game 3-test, both graphics cards can increase. Plus on performance is slightly larger than seen in the 64MB-Variante, because its memory percentage in the 32MB-Variante more was overclocked.

Overclocking benchmarks (part 2)