Soon it will be a year already since NVIDIA announced its graphics chip intended for Low-End systems, GeForce2 MX. Throughout all this period the chip was known as a smart product offering one of the best price-to-performance ratios. However, things never remain unchanged and even the best solutions become outdated some day. NVIDIA GeForce2 MX makes no exception. Last year it acquired several strong competitors. First of all, it is ATI RADEON SDR graphics cards, which overtake GeForce2 MX in 32bit color mode thanks to the new HyperZ technology aimed at optimizing the work with the graphics memory bandwidth. Another rival is the mysterious RADEON LE. It is close to GeForce2 MX in price, but comes equipped with DDR SDRAM. And the third newcomer, STM KYRO II, may theoretically become a real nuisance for NVIDIA, too.

Meanwhile, NVIDIA has moved the performance standards of its mainstream solutions upwards. GeForce2 GTS has been discontinued, and NVIDIA suggests replacing it with the faster GeForce2 Pro. But the new solution based on GeForce3, NV17, is not ready yet. Therefore, to keep pace with the time and with the competitors, NVIDIA decided to merely increase the clock speeds of its GeForce2 MX and this way to make the new graphics cards based on this chip very smart (and subsequently popular). That's how GeForce2 MX 400, an overclocked recast of GeForce2 MX, came into being.

The second chip announced in the beginning of March together with GeForce2 MX 400, is GeFroce2 MX 200. Its launching was determined by some other circumstances. In fact, it proves unreasonable for NVIDIA to manufacture a big number of different chips. For this reason the company tends to discontinue outdated models. On the other hand, it doesn't always make the graphics cards manufacturers happy, because cheap graphics cards are still in great demand. NVIDIA managed to find the golden middle: it discontinued TNT2 family and at the same time introduced a cheaper and slower version of GeFroce2 MX - GeForce2 MX 200.

In this article we'll scrutinize the newly launched couple, GeForce2 MX 400 and GeForce2 MX 200, which are supposed to replace common graphics cards based on GeForce2 MX. We'll try to figure out whether GeForce2 MX 400 has real chances to become as good from the price-to-performance point of view as GeForce2 MX used to be. Then we wish to see if GeForce2 MX 200 is good enough to take the place of the old buddy TNT2.

GeForce2 MX 400

To start with, let's have a look at GeForce2 MX 400 graphics card we got hold of. As long as the new chip is pin compatible with its predecessor, GeForce2 MX, and can boast similar features, graphics card manufacturers don't have to take the trouble of redesigning their cards. The only innovation will be the BIOS, which determines higher clocking of the chip and, perhaps, the memory by GeForce2 MX 400. The matter is that from now on NVIDIA doesn't dictate the working frequency of graphics cards as strictly as it used to. By GeForce2 MX 400 only core frequency is set to 200MHz. And as for the memory, the card maker is free to make it work either at 166, 175 or 200MHz. Besides, some enthusiasts will surely equip GeForce2 MX-based cards with faster memory. The only thing NVIDIA insists on is the use of either 128bit SDRAM or 64bit DDR SDRAM with the total size of 32 or even 64MB.

NVIDIA GeForce2 MX

NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 400

If you look at the photo of GeForce2 MX 400, you will be able to guess that its only difference from the previous chip version is the figure "400" added to the marking. Well, it makes no surprise, actually. As we remember, all GeForce2 MX successfully reached 200MHz last summer. Now since the technology has been improved, no problems with overclocking GeForce2 MX to 200MHz should arise. To say more, at such frequency GeForce2 MX 400 gets by perfectly even without active cooling.

Let us compare now the characteristics of GeForce2 MX 400 with those of the GeForce2 GTS and GeForce2 MX chips, which will be very soon discontinued:

You can easily notice that GeForce2 MX 400 is simply a slightly overclocked GeForce2 MX. Unfortunately, NVIDIA hasn't increased that much the core and memory frequencies of its new product, so theoretically the performance of GeForce2 MX 400 should be closer to that of the common MX chip than to that of GeForce2 GTS with twice as many rendering pipelines and doubled memory bus bandwidth. Thus, we had better treat GeForce2 MX 400 as another Value solution for an appropriate price (32MB graphics cards based on this chip fall into sub-$100 price niche).

As a bright representative of GeForce2 MX 400 performs the tested Sparkle GeForce2 MX 400/32MB graphics card.

As you can see, this solution by Sparkle features absolutely the design as the cards based on the regular GeForce2 MX chips. The memory installed is also the same: Samsung 6ns. It looks as if Sparkle hadn't run out of these chips and in spite of a faster core the card's memory works at the same 166MHz.

Graphics cards based on GeForce2 MX 400 can be bundled with 175 and 200MHz memory, hence, apart from testing Sparkle GeForce2 MX 400/32MB at nominal frequencies, we tried the card at 175 and 200MHz memory frequency, too.

Since NVIDIA recommends clocking GeForce2 MX 400 at 200MHz and the memory speed is left up to the graphics cards manufacturers, we made up our mind to try all the possible versions and hence overclocked the card we had at our disposal and summed up all the results obtained:

GeForce2 MX 400 with the slowest 166MHz memory performs similarly to the standard GeForce2 MX, because the higher core clock of GeForce2 MX 400 produces a notable effect only in low resolutions in 16bit color mode. Cards with higher memory clocking prove the importance of memory frequency for GeForce2 MX based products. At one of the most playable resolutions (1024x768x32bit) GeForce2 MX 400 200/200 is faster than GeForce2 MX 400 200/166 by the total of 20%. Evidently, the FPS increase is proportional to that of the memory frequency. So, when choosing a card based on GeForce2 MX 400, you should first of all mind its memory clock speed.

Graphics cards built on GeForce2 MX/MX 400 are positioned as a substitute for the "classical" GeForce256 and GeForce256 DDR cards. Their manufacturing was stopped long time ago already, however, these graphics cards will be available in retail for another while, we suppose. Nowadays graphics cards based on GeForce256 are selling for $100-110, and GeForce256 DDR - $120-130. GeForce2 MX/MX 400 cost the same money, so it would be interesting to check what GeForce256 and GeForce256 DDR look like if compared with GeForce2 MX and GeForce2 MX 400.

The results for GeForce256 and GeForce2 MX, as well as those for GeForce256 DDR and GeForce2 MX 400 are amazingly close! In the second case the tangibly faster memory of GeForce256 DDR is opposed by the much faster core of GeForce2 MX 400. So far GeForce256 DDR has been ahead of the classic GeForce2 MX clocked at 175/166MHz and selling at about the same price. Consequently, GeForce256 DDR based cards used to be much more popular among the users. Now that the graphics cards built on GeForce2 MX 400 with 200/200MHz frequencies are launched, the previously faster GeForce256 DDR products lose their performance advantages and will be soon swept away from the market (because of the more expensive DDR memory and the lack of GeForce256 chips).

In the meantime, if the competitors pressing on GeForce2 MX 400 from the bottom are GeForce256 and GeForce256 DDR, the one on the upper end is another NVIDIA's offspring - GeForce2 GTS. While GeForce2 MX is a cheaper recast with slower SDR memory, GeForce2 GTS is a well-balanced product provided with the mature 128bit DDR memory. Graphics cards based on GeForce2 GTS are constantly getting cheaper. Now a 32MB card of the kind is available for $160 and up. Now let's see how much slower appears GeForce2 MX 400 200/200MHz than GeForce2 GTS with DDR memory:

What is the outcome? At all the resolutions under 1024x768x32bit both cards provide really good fps rate pretty suitable for gaming. GeForce2 GTS raises the bar of the playable resolution by one point only: up to 1280x1024x16bit. In fact, you could play with this graphics card installed even at 1280x1024x32bit with the performance of 50fps on the average. But we wouldn't agree to play in this mode, since in this case we get the feeling that the performance is not fast enough and we badly lack those sacred 10fps.

Now let's take a look at the new cards against the background of NVIDIA's competitors from ATI. Currently, there are the following ATI RADEON based graphics cards sharing the price niche with GeForce2 MX 400 based cards:

• ATI RADEON 32MB SDR SDRAM (about $110);
• ATI RADEON LE (about $110);
• ATI RADEON 32MB DDR SDRAM (about $150).

In 16bit color mode GeForce2 MX 400 is steadily ahead of any ATI graphics card at any resolution (due to the higher chip clocking), and then in 32bit color up to the resolution of 1024x768x32bit the newcomer performs just excellent. At greater resolutions the fps rate shown by all the graphics cards appears beneath the playable level.

As the resolution grows in 32bit color, the optimized architecture of RADEON chips and their smaller dependence on the memory clock speed come to the forefront. GeForce2 MX 400 eventually falls behind at the highest (but unfortunately non-playable) resolution set. At the same time, at 1600x1200x16bit GeForce2 MX 400 is an obvious leader.

This is one more proof of the high capabilities of GeForce2 MX' GPU being "buried in the ground" because of the insufficient memory bus bandwidth. But on the other hand, it was only due to SDRAM used that graphics cards built on GeForce2 MX retained the reasonable price-to-performance balance. Hopefully, GeForce2 MX 400 will simply set new performance standards for the mainstream sector while the prices will stay as they are.

GeForce2 MX 200

The situation with GeForce2 MX 200 based graphics cards seems somewhat clearer than with their MX 400 based counterparts. At least, we came across no violations of the announced core and memory frequencies. The core of GeForce2 MX 200 cards is clocked at 175MHz, the memory - at 166MHz. That's what we saw while testing our Sparkle GeForce2 MX 200 with 32MB memory.

It is noteworthy that alongside with lower clock speed, cards based on GeForce2 MX 200 differ from those built on GeForce2 MX 400 by their memory bus bandwidth. According to the specs, graphics cards based on MX 200 feature 64bit memory bus instead of 128bit like by common GeForce2 MX and MX 400 based solutions. Certainly, that's what finally turns the main performance limiting factor (it's not the core and memory frequencies).

NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 200

Now let us compare the features of GeForce2 MX 200 to those of a common GeForce2 MX and then Riva TNT2 Pro and Riva TNT2 M64, which are to be replaced by this new product:

Well, NVIDIA is positioning GeForce2 MX 200 as a successor to the nearly discontinued Riva TNT2 family. Hence, unlike the original GeForce2 MX, the novelties will have a double cut graphics memory bus bandwidth, thus aiming at limiting the performance deliberately. However, this "artificial" endeavor will lead to a slight change in the characteristics of MX 200 chip. Because of a pair of texturing units on each of the chip's pipelines, the speed of MX 200 core in the multitexturing mode is twice as high. But the memory bus bandwidth of GeForce2 MX 200 remains as it is, that is equal to that of Riva TNT2 M64. The well-balanced Riva TNT2 Pro is able to carry out all the operations involving the graphics memory twice as fast as MX 200. For this reason we don't dare predict the performance of GeForce2 MX 200 as compared with the experienced Riva TNT2. In the long run it will depend on the applications. As for the price matters, graphics cards based on GeForce2 MX 200 will find themselves in the same niche as Riva TNT2 based cards, that is at circa $60.

On the photo you can notice that the outlook of GeForce2 MX 200 and GeForce2 MX 400 cards may be pretty similar, despite striking differences in the memory bus. This way, some jackleg sellers may offer GeForce2 MX 200 cards as more pricy GeForce2 MX or GeForce2 MX 400 based ones. That's why prospective buyers may find it interesting to know how to tell the cards with different memory bus bandwidth from one another. The trick is that 4Mx16 memory chips (in case there are four chips making the total of 32MB) used commonly on cards with 64bit bus feature a 54-pin packaging. And 2Mx32 memory chips installed onto the cards with 32MB of memory and 128bit memory bus have a 86-pin packaging. So, careful examination of the card memory chips should be enough to unmask a dishonest seller.

16bit memory chip (MX 200)

32bit memory chip (MX 400)

Now let's see what GeForce2 MX 200 is really worth in practice.

As we have expected, GeForce2 MX 200 is about two times slower than GeForce2 MX 400 because of its cut down 64bit bus. But it still fits the role of a successor to Riva TNT2, demonstrating better performance than the fully-fledged Riva TNT2 Pro.

Testbed

The testsystem was configured as follows:

• Intel Pentium III 1000MHz CPU;
• ASUS CUSL2 i815E mainboard;
• 256MB PC133 with ECC memory;
• Western Digital AC36400-32LC 6.4GB HDD.

Performance

Now let's take a look at some diagrams. First come the results obtained in Quake3 Arena in 16bit mode:

Now it's high time we checked the cards performance in Quake 3 Arena 32bit color depth:

Here are the results obtained for Unreal Tournament in 16bit mode:

And now Unreal Tournament in 32bit mode:

Some more diagrams for Mercedes-Benz Truck Racing (16bit):

And, of course, 32bit mode:

The last benchmarks we would like to offer you is 3Dmark 2001 also 16bit mode:

As well as 32bit mode:

Conclusion

The main idea connected with the launching of GeForce2 MX 400 and GeForce2 MX 200 is to shrink the list of chips manufactured, that is to make the life easier for the NVIDIA's production division. However, users can only benefit from a decision like that. Firstly, the recast graphics cards are faster than the original versions: GeForce2 MX 400 is ahead of GeForce2 MX, and GeForce2 MX 200 overtakes Riva TNT2. Secondly, we received a word that the newcomers will have an attractively low price: GeForce2 MX 400 - less than $100, GeForce2 MX 200 - around $60. Surely, in the first post-launch days the prices will be somehow higher mostly because of these will be very fresh new products, but very soon they'll come down to a reasonable level. Thirdly, the admirers of Low-End solutions will get a brilliant substitute of the outdated Riva TNT2 based cards. Moreover, GeForce2 MX 200 is not just faster than Riva TNT2, but also supports the whole bunch of features typical of the latest GeForce2generation.