Which of these video cards should I use...

GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
edited September 2003 in Hardware
I just got a whizzbang deal on eBay for two Radeon 7500 AGP 32MB cards for $35 shipped... Currently I have a choice on one PC between the Radeon 7500 32MB or the GeForce2 MX400 64MB that is in the PC... the choice was pretty clear at first, but then I found that the existing card has 64MB of VRAM... which should I use, and what is your reason for saying so?

Thanks!

Comments

  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited September 2003
    Radeon 7500 = GeForce 2 GTS performance level, and the GF2 GTS performs much faster than the GeForce 2 MX.

    It's not like you use anti-aliasing technologies with these cards, so memory size is not as important as raw performance.

    Go for the Radeon 7500.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    SimGuy, I just KNEW you'd have the answer! Thanks!

    Another thing I heard was that the 7500 uses DDR while the MX400 still uses SDRAM... true?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    True.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Interesting that you have those two cards to choose from as my wifes machine has the 400MX and my son's has the 7500 and otherwise both are identical. My son's machine gets around 4300 3D01 while my wifes gets 2600. Both are with all stock settings.
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I looked up a couple of old vidcard comparos at TH (I know) and in most tests those two cards had almost identical scores,
    3D2001 run in a 1.0Athlon at 1024x768/32bit/60Hz
    plain MX440 - 4580
    regualr 7500 - 4380

    I would guess that the the 7500 will have a better image and will run smoother. They aren't bad cards, esp for $17!!
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    GHoosdum said
    I just got a whizzbang deal on eBay for two Radeon 7500 AGP 32MB cards for $35 shipped... Currently I have a choice on one PC between the Radeon 7500 32MB or the GeForce2 MX400 64MB that is in the PC... the choice was pretty clear at first, but then I found that the existing card has 64MB of VRAM... which should I use, and what is your reason for saying so?

    Thanks!

    edcentric said
    I looked up a couple of old vidcard comparos at TH (I know) and in most tests those two cards had almost identical scores,
    3D2001 run in a 1.0Athlon at 1024x768/32bit/60Hz
    plain MX440 - 4580
    regualr 7500 - 4380

    I would guess that the the 7500 will have a better image and will run smoother. They aren't bad cards, esp for $17!!

    Sorry bud but ya got yer cards mixed up. That makes for a lot of difference! ;)
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    What number were the original Radeon 32/64MB DDR cards given?

    NS
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited September 2003
    When ATi added the numbers, the original Radeon was renamed to the Radeon 7000.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Well this doesn't make any sence. My Radeon 64MB DDR VIVO card was quite a lot faster than a GF2 MX, somewhere nearer GF2 Ultra than GF2 GTS......... (then I returned it and bought a GF3 as it had hardware issues with 16bit where it would add banding to all textures and made smoke INCREDIBLY grainy).

    NS
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    oh I am so sorry for being stupid.
    forgive me master
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    NightShade,

    So I take it you are saying that your old Radeon 7xxx was in the ball park of a GF2 Ultra but the GF3 beat it in numbers but actual performance issues kept it to possibly less of a card???
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    mtgoat said
    NightShade,

    So I take it you are saying that your old Radeon 7xxx was in the ball park of a GF2 Ultra but the GF3 beat it in numbers but actual performance issues kept it to possibly less of a card???

    Not following exactly what you said, but....

    The Radeon card had good performance (but not as good as a GF2 Ultra). But yeah, it had hardware issues with 16bit colour.

    The GF3 is way more powerful than that Radeon card (I just decided to splash out on the GF3 and cut my losses (GF3 was £300) as I couldn't put up with the banding in most games.

    NS
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Well that does make sense based on what everybody is saying though, because the GF2 Ultra and the GF4MX are basically the same card, so the Radeon (7000) would perform slightly less than the GF2 Ultra but better than the GF2MX, and the GF3 would walk all over it...
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    NightShade737 said
    mtgoat said
    NightShade,

    So I take it you are saying that your old Radeon 7xxx was in the ball park of a GF2 Ultra but the GF3 beat it in numbers but actual performance issues kept it to possibly less of a card???

    Not following exactly what you said, but....

    The Radeon card had good performance (but not as good as a GF2 Ultra). But yeah, it had hardware issues with 16bit colour.

    The GF3 is way more powerful than that Radeon card (I just decided to splash out on the GF3 and cut my losses (GF3 was £300) as I couldn't put up with the banding in most games.

    NS

    Ok, now I follow you. ;) Sorry if I sounded confusing but I got the answer.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    edcentric said
    oh I am so sorry for being stupid.
    forgive me master

    You are forgiven my son! may the electrons of the universe light your way.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    GHoosdum said
    Well that does make sense based on what everybody is saying though, because the GF2 Ultra and the GF4MX are basically the same card, so the Radeon (7000) would perform slightly less than the GF2 Ultra but better than the GF2MX, and the GF3 would walk all over it...

    Thats the one, but what was confusing me was........
    edcentric said
    I looked up a couple of old vidcard comparos at TH (I know) and in most tests those two cards had almost identical scores,
    3D2001 run in a 1.0Athlon at 1024x768/32bit/60Hz
    plain MX440 - 4580
    regualr 7500 - 4380

    Which says the MX is better than the 7500, when what I am saying was that what I had (which was apparently a 7000) was better than the MX series........ That is what makes no sence.

    NS
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Nightshade,

    edcentric was confusing the MX 440 for the MX 400 we were dicussing and since it can do the extra instruction sets, therefore completeling all the 3D Mark tests (which the 400 cannot) it put things out of perspective. That is also why I corrected him above.
Sign In or Register to comment.