Anyway, here are the spec's on the card before I go further...
MX400 Pro-VT32S (MS-8833)
nVidia® GeForce 2 MX400 Chipset
256-bit Graphic Architecture GPU
20 Million Transistors/sec Through T&L
Maximum 3D/2D Resolution of 2048x1536 @75Hz
Supports Windows® 9x, ME, NT, 2000 and Linux
TV-Out, Video In, VIVO Intervideo WinCoder and WinProducer video-editing software
Live VGA BIOS"!, Live VGA Driver"!
Well, here are the system spec's we used in the test box should you want to try and reproduce my
|PCstats Test System
||Athlon 1.0 GHz AYHJA Y at 1.57 GHz (9.5x167 MHz)|
Iwill KK266-R Ver
1.2 BIOS May 15/2001
Apacer 256 MB PC-100 Ram 2-2-3-6
30 GB IBM
DeskStar 75 GXP
||Windows 98 SE |
Via 4in1 4.33V
||MSI MX400 Pro-VT32S (GeForce 2 MX 200/183)|
MSI MX400 Pro-VT32S
(GeForce 2 MX 220/229)
Creative Labs Annihilator Pro (GeForce DDR
ATI Radeon 64MB VIVO Retail (Radeon 183/386)
MSI StarForce 822 (GeForce 3 200/460)
||3DMark2000 Ver 1.1|
Serious Sam 1.02 (Fill Rate benchmark
People are probably asking why I'm testing on an
overclocked system. The answer is a simple one; the cards are tested on an overclocked system in order to eliminate as many bottlenecks as
possible. Also, testing was limited to resolutions of 640x480 and 1024x768. Anyone
with a GeForce2 MX400 is really not going to see any advantages by
testing at a higher resolution.
Let's take a look at what the synthetics have to say first, up next is 3DMark 2001.