PDA

View Full Version : GeForce 2 MX 200 Overclocking



Aanidaani
05-19-2002, 01:52 AM
Hello everyone! I've been recently debating over whether or not I should try to overclock my GeForce 2, and I started checking out sites for information about exactly how to do it. Unfortunately, I could not find a specific guide for my card, and I don't really want to risk damaging it. Can anyone give me some help with it? I have a GeForce 2 MX 200 with 64 Mb of on-board ram. (It's connected to an AGP slot) Also, I'm running a Pentium 4 at 1.8 Ghz and 512 Megs of Ram. Thanks again

Morgan_Lander
05-19-2002, 03:06 AM
Get the OC tool of your choice, I use Riva Tuner, which can be had from Guru3D (http://www.guru3d.com). Overclock by about 5MHz or so and then play or run something video intensive for awhile to be sure it's okay. Keep upping the speeds until you start locking up.

Of course, since you're raping your potential with that card (64-bit memory interface instead of 128 or 256-bit), overclocking is not going to do you much good in the long run. You may not even see any performance from it.

Aanidaani
05-19-2002, 03:51 PM
Thanks for the advice. :)

Shepps
05-19-2002, 07:51 PM
Go out and buy a new gfx card, your system is sooo being heldback by that GF2.

daedalus
05-20-2002, 07:06 PM
Shepps is right....you might concider a Geforce3 ti200, can be found very cheap. :thumb:

Albinus
05-20-2002, 08:01 PM
A GeForce4 MX440 would be cheaper, and fster if you don't need DirectX 8 support :)

Aanidaani
05-20-2002, 11:05 PM
Lol, so which card do you think would be better? I've never heard that the MX 440 has any problems with DirectX, but I know most of the programs I use require it. Can anyone give me some more info on this? Also, if it isn't compatible with DirectX, does anyone know of a good card that supports DirectX, and is around $150? Thanks again.

Morgan_Lander
05-21-2002, 03:31 AM
All the cards menitoned support some version of direct X, but the GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 Ti's all support Direct X 8, thus having more longevity. Assuming your pricing is in USD, you can easily find GF3 Ti200 cards for under $150. You can also probably find regular GF3's for around the $150 if not less. The Ti200 is slower than the regular GF3.

Tatoruso
05-25-2002, 10:27 AM
Hi!
Iīm absolutely new at this forum stuff, but iīll tri to do my best...

Iīm currently running my GF2MX200 @ 210/180 (core/mem) rock stable (being 175/143 stock speed) and improves 400 3DMarks in 3DMark2001SE (1215/1622). itīs running on a [email protected], 384 Mb SDRAM PC133 CAS2, ECS K7VZA V1.2e and WinMe... i donīt know how good is this (iīm newbie to OCing too) but i guess itīs not so bad with stock heatsink on the core and nothing in the ram chips, i did put a small 0.5Watt fan in the core heatsink but i guess if i put some ramsinks too iīll be able to hit 210/200 (I can run windows at that speed but i get loads of artifacts after few seconds of 3DMark Bench....
ah, btw, the vid card has 32 Mb SDRAM w/128bit bus (iīm not sure ībout that last spec).

Good luck with your OCing!!!! iīm anxious to get my new GF3Ti200 in three days!!!!!! then i hope to get some decent OCing and scores in 3DMark (and obviously some beautiful, smooth and photoreallistic DX8/8.1 framerates!!! :lips:

[email protected]
(this country sucks, thereīs only Intel everywhere!!!!!!)

Morgan_Lander
05-25-2002, 11:00 AM
That score kinda sucks. I could get near or a little over 3000 in 3dmark 2001 (1024x768x16) with a GF 2MX @ 220/210 and an 800Mhz Duron @ 1016MHz

Oh, and to state again: the MX200 has a 64-bit data bus, SDR only. The MX and MX400 have a 128-bit data bus.

Tatoruso
05-25-2002, 11:05 AM
Morgan, what do u think can be holding me down????

I would appreciate any suggestion from anyone as well... :confused:

Tatoruso
05-25-2002, 04:56 PM
Hummm......
I didnīt read your post right at first, you say you get around 3000 3dmarks at 1024x768x16 in 3DMark2001....
I get now (after updating my drivers from 21.81 to 28.32, tweaking my RAM and updating to the latest 4-in-1) around 1700 3dmarks at 1024x768x32 in 3DMark2001SE, and 2500 in 1024x768x16... taking into account that your vram is DDR and has 128bit bus and were OCed 30 Mhz more than mine (plus 50+ Mhz in your CPU) and you were running in 16 instead of 32 bits color i think my scores DONīT suck....:devil: jejej... you really made me worry!!!
thanx anyway....

Morgan_Lander
05-26-2002, 05:44 AM
My MX did not have DDR. It uses SDR SDRAM. I think Creative was the only one to use DDR in an MX card.

I'm really starting to question the MX200 you say you have, cuz the one I briefly had was really no faster than a Voodoo 3 3000AGP at stock speeds:eek:

Also, the test taken were awhile back and under Win2k. I'd run them now, but the parts in question power my file server--which I'm leaving alone.

daedalus
05-26-2002, 09:29 AM
Yeah.....mx200's suck hard :shoot:

Morgan_Lander
05-26-2002, 03:46 PM
NVidia went overboard there...:scream:


*yaaay, SILVER TWEAKER

Tatoruso
06-10-2002, 10:07 AM
I'm really starting to question the MX200 you say you have, cuz the one I briefly had was really no faster than a Voodoo 3 3000AGP at stock speeds:eek:

what do u mean?:confused: the scores i got (1700 and 250) were with the card OCed to 210/180....

Morgan_Lander
06-11-2002, 01:52 PM
I'm talking at stock speeds, plus the fact that I never could install 3dMark 2001 with a Voodoo 3 in--wasn't compatible with DX8 stuff, so the install quit. Until I got my GF3, that Voodoo 3 was pretty fast in Unreal and UT (since the engine was built with 3Dfx chips in mind)