This weeks video was a bit of a smaller project...As originally we were meant to be looking at the last ever British GPU (which Nvidia sneakily managed to get rid off) however the card has major issues with the SIS Chipset and Via Combo in our AGP Benchmark PC...So we are going to have to build another system capable of dealing with the card. So let me know if you'd like us to do a video on "The Ultimate AGP PC" as I have started importing parts ready for it. Also dont worry the other bigger video is still in the works it may just take a little while longer to get around to it. Anyways I hope you all enjoyed the pain that was Nvidia's MX4000 GPU.
Yes please , The Ultimate AGP PC would be great. Also , during UT play , your voice was cutting off and skipping words , I guess it was compression issue.
@@BudgetBuildsOfficial I think you can't do that on mobile :( the only audio setting is "Stable volume" which I guess is an implementation of ReplayGain, but it's already off
@@jimmymyers Phones use an ASIC for playing back video (Apple Media engine, Qualcomm Multimedia Processor, etc.) They... don't overheat when playing it back. That's not how anything works. If they used the general purpose CPU cores, your phone would last like 30 minutes in video playback mode.
The real original one was TNT2 M64. So many people bough that based on the 32MB of VRAM, they thought they were getting the real TNT2, but got gutted 64-bit card. My father back in the day bought it thinking he was upgrading from Voodoo Banshee, while in most situations it was a downgrade. And Nvidia got away with it. M64 sold like hot cakes, so the trend continued.
@@Lady_Zenith I wondered when someone would mention the M64! Total piece of crap. The Banshee wasn't much better, but at least you could use GLide with that, and that was 3dfx' second redheaded stepchild (after Voodoo Rush) and not Nvidia's.
@@johncate9541 Yeah and the banshee had better 16-bit rendering (Nvidia had that weird checkerboard pattern on alpha blending) and unlike the M64 it did not crash the system to BSOD once in a while cause it had a crappy VIA chipset under it. Banshee was not the fastest but at least it had 0 problem.
My first PC had this card. When Prince of Persia: Sands of time hit me with the "you need minimum shader 2.0" message I finally realized just how shit this card actually was.
Tried playing WoW with this piece of garbage. I couldn't see NPCs or mobs until I was just about on top of them. Tried running into Ironforge and my entire PC locked up and I could no longer log into that character. He was just stuck there because my computer could not load Ironforge and would just crash.
Unfortunately I had to stick with these junk cards (someone gave me a FX5200, ik ik from one shitpile to another) till I got a job after highschool and then built a rig with a 550ti.
Their biggest scam card IMO was the GT1030 that secretly had DDR4 RAM, while the 'decent' 1030 variant had GDDR5. That's right, not GDDR4. DDR4. System RAM. I bought it for a hackintosh I built for my dad, so we could play the odd game together, and it ended up having at most 40% of the performance of the already anemic GT1030. It rendered Mac OS just fine, though, but still. DDR on a GPU is wild. EDIT: OK I watched the video this one is worse.
@@federicocatelli8785except it did have 4GB VRAM, the implementation was just the GPU equivalent of putting 3 sticks of ram in a dual channel board with 4 slots.
Usually people buy graphics cards for the graphics card not the cardboard box but in this case, the cardboard box has more appeal, artistray and usefullness than the card inside the box.
I got my hands on a GeForce MX4000 for free when some friends threw together a bunch of parts to help me get into PC gaming. Thankfully, a few months later I ended up with a full system upgrade including a heavily overclocked Sapphire branded ATi Radeon 9800 Pro. I suddenly went from barely able to play Medal of Honor: Allied Assault on low settings 800x600 with decent frame rates, to hundreds of frames per second with everything maxed out at high resolutions. I do miss the Radeon 9800 Pro, I do not miss that MX4000, to the point I barely remember it.
I had this friggen thing. Got ripped off by my local PC builder. Traded in my dads beast of a machine after he passed away and his PC broke. The guy ripped off my mom and built me a piece of shit pentium III, 128mb or RAM and a shitty MX 4000 PCI card. Screw that guy ripping off an 11 year old kid and a newly widowed mother. This was in early 2005. Learned to build my own PC after that experience.
I remember buying one of these at a computer show thinking it was better than my geforce 3. Very important lesson to do my research before buying parts. Because it was impossible to return parts to these shows since they were around one Saturday every month and vendors didn't do returns, and sometimes even weren't there the next month!
I miss those fairs. Absolute rip off merchants mostly... There was always one vendor running a rig with a full clear perspex case and a billion LED fans. Usually with the crappiest deals going
@@AlistairBrugsch Went to one of those when i was 15 with a pocket full of cash i had saved up. First pc build/upgrade i tried on my own. Wanted to upgrade to the new AMD 2000/2600+, I needed a mobo cpu and ram. came across this seller displaying "pro2000+" mobo's with a free cpu and free 256mb ram for £129. (cpu alone was that price at the time if i remember). Me not paying attention and like a moth to a flame with the price i bought it no questions asked thinking i got a great deal... installed it into my computer and fired up 3dmark2001, WTH! 500 points lower than my old system. After a week of me pressing buttons and not really knowing what i was doing i took it to the local PC shop/repair. Turns out it was a duron overclocked to 1.2ghz and it gets better, both CPU and RAM were soldered onto the board 🤣. Went back the following month to return it, guess what guy not there 😑. Lesson learnt that day, research research research! Glad it was on a low cash figure. (didnt seem like it at the time though) Happy ending, became great friends with the Local Pc shop owner Martin and his apprentice Louis. Going to Lan parties he would setup in the shop and matching the online price for anything i wanted. He's retired now, become very wealthy on bitcoin/ethereum, biggest regret not listening to him on that one. Especially eth. after seeing bitcoin go nuts! Still winds me up about that damn mobo though to this day... 🥲 EDIT: Found the mobo in question if anyone wants a laugh. theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/pcchips-m810l-9-0m#docs
This card definitely existed. Back around 2005, I was searching for a 64MB card to "upgrade" my poor celeron PC. I ended up with MX4000. Playin heavily modded GTA Vice City on it... it burned out... Two of them. If I remember correctly their main drawback was memory bus.
@@mruczyslaw50 It definitely ran on it. And since It replaced my integrated intel 810 motherboard graphics abomination I even thought it ran good 🤣 It was an MSI model with clunky passive cooler. They got really hot.... and dead in the end.
I had it around the same time 😁But I newer tried to play anything "modern" on it, only games released up to 2001 , so I was quite satisfied with my used purchase.
When I started playing games on a "computer", I used a crappy old Celeron laptop with onboard graphics, even that would run C&C Generals better than that...
I remember owning one of these things. I aquired mine, because it came with a copy of Doom 3 and at the time my PC didnt have a graphics card that could run Doom 3. The MX4000 could barely run Doom 3 from memory. To be fair the only thing I loved about this card was in COD2 (I think it was cod2) there was a trench map with smoke and it couldnt render the smoke and it gave a massive pvp advantage on that map.
The GeForce 2 and derivatives are actually partially DX 8.0 compatible thanks to the NSR, a primitive pixel shader. Doom 3 takes advantage of it to get proper Doom 3 lighting, but most games didn't take advantage of it.
Yup, now this I would 100% call a scam card (but a vendor scam not a board partner scam). The GF 4 MX460/440/420 cards were already pretty bad, particularly the 32 bit versions, with the lies, deliberate misnaming and lacking DX support but the MX 4000 took it to a whole new level of scam. I am pretty sure some SiS based scam GPUs actually had better DX support and in some titles even ran better. Horrible cards that existed solely for people to be able to slap an "Nvidia Geforce" sticker on their system (mostly system builders looking to trick people into paying more for garbage). Genuinely a steaming pile of poo.
There is one thing that these are useful for: the PCI version is actually quite competent for DOS and win9x. The drivers also aren’t very heavy on the CPU, so you can pair it with something like a Pentium MMX-200/233. Which most of those were paired with ATI Rages and Nvidia Riva’s. In that case, the MX4000 is quite decent* especially since it’s much cheaper than a GeForce 256 or TNT2 Ultra, and supports Hardware T&L. *considering that it’s much newer than the ATI rage series and the Nvidia Riva/Vanta, that’s not saying much.
well, there goes the fine memories that had supplanted my time with a couple of MX cards. Curse you red headed baron. BTW you did not disappoint, your 'Race to The Bottom' series here is intriguing.
I may be wrong but I remember the GeForce 2 MX series to have actually been a pretty good deal at the time. Offering performance on roughly the same level as the GeForce 256. The scamming started when they released the 4 MX that was actually still was the 2 MX.
@@sandrinowitschM yeah for sure, GF2 MX was a proper decent budget set of cards. But once the GF4 4xxx series came about, rebranding MX cards to be "GF4" was straight up dishonest. At least the reviewers of the time called them out on it and Guru3D was absolutely Indisposable for cutting through all that
This is why the FX5200 shouldn't be called the worst GPU of early 2000s. The MX4000 is such a piece of s*it, it had simply nothing to offer. Obolete architecture, lack of DX8 or DX9 support, terrible performance...
From a modern perspective, the FX 5200 is at least fairly useful for a retro gaming rig thanks to its high compatibility with games from the 90s (including DOS). Pair it with a Voodoo 2 and you can play almost every game from that era. But the MX4000 seems like trash all around.
Exactly. The FX 5200 was horribly slow in DX9 (okay, all FX were) and the absolute lowest card of it's series. But it's DX8 support is great, performance there is fine, and since it was so cheap back then and every OEM threw them into their machines, they are readily available nowadays. If I hand't found a cheap OEM Geforce 3 Ti 200 and didn't already own a Radeon 8500 LE, 8200 Pro and 9600 Pro, I would probably grab one. Ar rather a 5200 Ultra if I can find one, or a 5600 if not.
At that time the 6600 GT was also already out. And memory bus, well my old 8800 GT has double the memory bus of a brand new 4070 Ti and my current 1060 pulls even. Heck, a GT 420 has the same bus as a 4070 Ti
I remember having an FX5200, and boy that thing sucked. At some point my PSU was starting to give me issues, the fan wouldn't spin and I had to manually give it an initial kick otherwise the PC wouldn't turn on, "sadly" my screwdriver got stuck and slipped and it shorted something and some caps exploded (I remember huge sparks flying out of the fan hole), and the only thing that died was the GPU if I'm not mistaken - so I then got a 6600GT, and that thing was sweet.
I had a GeForce 2mx in 2001, with 64MB 64bit DDR. It was an OK budget card for the time. There were 32MB cards too, which was OK. Not much at the time used over 32MB of graphics ram. There were also 32bit cards and SDR cards, which were problematic already since the whole GeForce 2 range was memory bandwidth limited. The GeForce 4MX was the same architecture with a few optimizations to make it less sensitive to the lack of memory bandwidth, but if you then half the bus width you are still going to have terrible performance. Introducing such a card in 2003 is absolute madness and only good for getting rid of an old silicon surplus, but the price is outrageous for the performance and feature set. Right now I'm sporting a Chinese re-manufactured GTX750Ti with crazy fast RAM chips on it and even though it is very much down-volted to stay within about 30watts the RAM overclocks like crazy and the core overclocks a bit as well. No lack of graphics RAM bandwidth for me now.
"For a game that focuses so much on hiding in the shadows, I'm not too sure I can tell...what is a shadow." Quote of the year goes to Budget-Builds Official. It's official.
Man, your video brings back nightmares of my prebuilt with an gf4 mx420. What a waste of perfectly good sand that was. With my first paycheck, that got yanked out and replaced with a proper 9800se 128mb.
I mean, it essentially a Geforce 4 MX440 SE with AGP 8x Halfway through the Geforce 4 cycle they updated all cards with AGP 8x, going so far as giving them new names. And that wasn't the only time they had a half gen update. SImilar happened with the Geforce FX (Replacing the 5600 with the 5700 and the 5800 with the 5900) and nowadays with the "Super" cards. Now the thing with the GF4 MX was, they were practically GF2 cards with a GF4 memory system and in some cases also higher clocks. And considering the core, it's a DirectX 7 card. And not just that but with a chip cut down to GF2 MX levels. The scammy part is that it ran in the same lineup with the big GF4 Ti cards. But there is a use case. It's a display adapter. It will give output to a monitor. And compared to the GF2 cards there are newer drivers and support on later OSes. The bad thing is, it was a display adapter even on release. Which means it isn't even an option for retro gaming. A Geforce 2 is stronger. A Geforce 3 is stronger. A Radeon 8500 is stronger. A Geforce 4 Ti is stronger. A Radeon 9200 or 9600 is stronger. A Geforce FX are stronger (even the FX 5200). All Radeon 9500/9700/9800 are stronger. There is no reason to get this card. Proper DX8 and 9 cards are available cheaply and for older pure DOS gaming there are more apropriate cards as well. Besides that those stronger newer cards also run them well.
I remember this card from my days in corporate desktop support. I probably deployed 1000 desktops with this card in 2004 and 2005 in corporate settings. It was cheap for corporate uses. Yes, it was horrible at gaming, but it was also the cheapest AGP graphics card available with decent driver support. Yes, there were integrated graphics (Intel chipset graphics) and ATI graphics available, but both of those had horrible drivers, and corporate desktop support people knew the MX 4000 was the only option with drivers that wouldn't massively increase their ticket count.
Hey, no, you got this all wrong: they bundled 3DMark 05 specifically to showcase the card's capabilities - and it does! The inability to run 3DMark 05 is an excellent illustration of the card's capabilities, which are after all pretty much nonexistent.
I looked it up and there's even an PCIE version of this card released in 2004, the PCX 4300. So not only did they release this awful AGP card in 2003, they even decided that it would be a good idea to re-release it for PCIE systems in 2004. Like I would bet that there were barely any iGPUs on the market at that point that were worse that this card, yet they still did that.
When I was a kid, I asked my parents to buy me a dedicated gpu for our old Pentium as that time it was still running on a motherboard integrated graphics. What they got for me was the Inno3d Ge Force Mx 440, I was happy at first as I had no idea about any pc parts, just what I have seen on tv regarding gaming etc. When i started to buy games and play with it, there was a slight improvement but still not much... that was my very first GPu.
Yup, a complete dissapointment. There were basically four FX cards that were okay. The 5200 Ultra (which outperformed the 5500 and 5600), the 5700 (from after they upgraded the chip), the 5800 (the famous fan) and the 5900/5950. And even with those, as with all cards, staying away from all SE, VE, LE cards.
Just when I thought the fx 5200 and gt 210 were the original *scam* video cards... I literally had no idea this ever existed. I wouldn't even use it in a windows 98 machine.
fx 5200 and GT210 were not scam. They were simply super low-end versions of a new GPU arch, fo use case were you jistw wanted barebones low power graphics card. FX5000 being universally terrible is a different matter.
@@tyatyThis thing falsely reports it's capabilities. It fails to run the provided benchmarks the board partner provided. It's a glorified GeForce 1, when, nvidia was about ready to debut the 8000 series publicly. Intel video of the day could run things better than it. BY WHAT MEASURE, is it not a scam?
@@ZeroHourProductions407 It's = it is. We learned this in third grade. The person to whom you are replying is not talking about the MX4000. You bleated out nonsense about the GT 210 and FX 5200, they called you out, and now you're crying and whining about how the...................................... MX4000 was a scam. Are you okay?
The MX4000 had a 64 bit memory bus. I have a Geforce 4 MX4000 with 128 MB of RAM and a 64 bit memory bus. It looks like you got a scam card of a scam card with only half of the memory populated. I can see on the PCB under the heatsink on your card where there are pads for a second memory chip, but it is not installed. My card has two memory chips, I bet if you installed the second memory chip, it'd greatly increase the card's performance. This is the second re-released GPU I've seen in recent years with a halved memory bus to make cheap crippled garbage. Several years ago, I'm guessing some Chinese company found new old stock of ATI Rage XL chips and started cranking out cheap garbage cards with a 32 bit memory bus and only one memory chip. Unfortunately for those cards, they didn't expose the other 32 bits of the memory bus by adding support for a second memory chip and those cards are severely crippled.
@@HappyBeezerStudios With the full 64 bit memory bus, they do perform well above integrated garbage from the time, even though they don't support DX8/9. I used to play early 2000s games on one of these and it worked fine for what it was. These cards filled a niche that existed at the time, OEMs releasing systems without AGP or PCIe slots, where these were one of the only cheap options for PCI graphics. There were some later PCI cards with more performance, but they were considerably more expensive.
@@BudgetBuildsOfficial I think it was just a connection problem on my end, I paused the video for a few seconds and it was fine afterwards. Another great video too of course.
I actually had that card for some time. I bought it used (2005, 2006 perhaps ...) , it was relatively inexpensive. By that time everybody knew it was sort of scam, well maybe not a scam but weaker than Geforce 2. In any case, I did play some older titles (20th century) with it, without much problem. Original Half-Life, expansion Opposing Force , European Air War., original Ghotic.Most demanding game was Soul Reaver 2 (from 2001), it did run reasonable well at 800x600 . Overall, I was quite satisfied with it, perhaps because I did not try anything newer (my computer was too weak for that anyway) . I don't know how original owner felt, tho 😁
I remember buying one of these when it came out & I was fooled by the claims on the box. I at the time was running a system on a 3dfx Voodoo 1 & I needed something so I could play my games. And I was so excited as I needed an upgrade badly & I thought this would be it. And once installed, it some how felt worse. It was so bad, I eventually bought a used Radeon 9700 which felt so much faster. It in my view was a scam, as this was during the days sellers could advertise very misleading claims for products to sell.
my father purchased young me a prebuilt dell pc back in 2005. it did not have an agp slot. i discovered that the onboard gpu could not game. i needed a pci card, and the mx4000 PCI was the only option in my local shop. honestly, it did what i needed, which was to provide hardware T&L. it played UT and Tribes Vengeance for me, i was a very happy little boy.
I got Morrowind and Splinter Cell in a box with my GF4 Ti 4800 SE , but that was a decent gaming card in its time. Never figured out how to play Morrowind or was too lazy or something. 😅
Fx5200 was good card it very well for when I needed for . It played the games I wanted to run . I swear fx5200 out performed 6200 . Now days i don't buy Nvidia anymore they over pricing things too
At least the front of the box has a sticker with 32bit on it, so that if you knew the difference, you'd be able to avoid it. S3 were scamming people back in the day as well (or at least some board partners were). Bought a 32MB Savage4 Pro-M based card, turns out it is a 32bit card. And I was only initially able to tell by a 1:1 comparison with the 16MB Savage4 GT I'd bought months before (made by the same board partner), and later by actually looking at the memory chip markings (and data sheet). The 32bit card was drastically slower, though it at least has AGP 4X so it might be better on my Intel 815E board. 4x 16bit 4MB chips vs 2x 16bit 16MB chips. The 64bit card was manufactured (or at least stickered in store) in 2001.
I just dug one of these cards out of my attic last weekend, along with another 2 cards mentioned in the vid, FX5200 and 8400GS. Also found a GT520, an ATI of some kind and an empty box for a HD6450. Currently building a Win98 PC.
I had one of those, but mine in particular had a little trick under it's sleeve, that was that you could overclock the hell out of the memory until it was useable.
Had the same experience with my 7300 GT, got it to run stable at 640 MHz chip 440 MHz memory, up from it's default 400 MHz on both. Not many cards that can run a stable 60% overclock.
This is most likely an effort by some board manufacturers to use batches of 'faulty' silicon. By disabling or downgrading parts so they will at least run at a reduced level, the chip manufacturers get to recoup some cash, and board manufacturers get a bunch of cheap chips to sell on. NVIDIA probably didn't set out to make low performance parts, but wafer and chip fabrication are expensive and error prone endeavours. It's certainly common practice in the CPU world to disable faulty cores or reduce clock speeds etc.
What you should have done was get a GF4 ti 4200 and 'clock the balls off it to be as fast/faster than a 4600. I think I still have gainward golden sample 4200 in a drawer somewhere
It wasn't considered a "scam" chip in Poland. Just the very, very low end, bought mainly for first time PC users. I recollect it having mainly 64bit wide bus. I've seen 32bit mem bus only once, on a mobile7300Go in a Taiwan laptop. Interesting video. Thanks for putting it together. Love those 3-D rendintions of cards.
I had a Geforce MX around 2003, in one of those compaqs too. My Compaq didn't have an AGP slot, so I had the PCI version of the card. It ran ok for the older games I was playing at the time. Neverwinter Nights ran fine.
I worked for a well known company back in the early 2000's that built machines, I used to build about 20 ish machines a day to make sure I got my bonus.. which had to be strictly built to ISO standards, and used to put these cards into fairly budget builds just like the MX400's of a couple of years earlier..
A few weeks ago I was building a retro pc for myself and almost got a MX4000, instead I bought a FX5200 which I know is not a great card but it seems to be much better the MX4000.
I had the 3D Fuzion version of this card, but it had 128MB of VRAM! It's what I upgraded my 32MB Geforce 2 MX with. It was technically an improvement, but barely. Didn't help that basically every new game at the time had "(excluding Geforce 4 MX series)" in the system requirements but I didn't notice that til later. I think the 128MB version at least had a 64bit bus.
I actually have this card! I got the 128mb version for about $50 at a best buy in late 2005/early 2006. Couldn't convince my mom to spend more at the time, so it was the best i could get. I did feel slightly bummed having it when i later found out i could have had pixel shader 2.0 for a bit more, but it was enough to play UT99/2004, Dawn of War, Halo CE, and was better than than terrible intel igpu that couldn't even render team colors on Halo. As bad as it was, it was enough to do level editing and modding for UT99, which sparked a deep creative love in me. I even used rivatuner to try and squeeze as much as i could out of it
If you look at the comments, you'll see that a number of people are really riled up that they were ignorant and blame... the seller of a product that publishes all specifications upfront and prints them on the box. Baffling.
I had 8500gt on pre build that family bought. With 512mb vram. It ran all games, at least on 800*600 low. Along with Intel E2160 that could overclock by 40% on that motherboard. Paired with 440gt it shines.
At this point, can it even run DOS? Heck, even turn on? Video idea: running earliest-supported UNIX on the earliest-supported computer you have (for 'Video Card'/OS). Video idea 2: comparing all scam 'video cards' you can reasonably/cheaply buy.
This exact 32 bit version was my first graphic card in 2004. GTA Vice City was working. I did not check fps (cause I did not know what it meant in 2004) but performance was bad. Probably, this card was one of the reasons why I became PC enthusiast because I wanted to be newer scammed again.
Back in the day, when I built and fixed PC's most of my customers didn't game. They pretty much only needed VGA or Super VGA and Nvidia had a decent reputation as a durable and reliable card. If it could do quickbooks and Word, it was good to go. It might have been a card I picked up cheap, for a repair job on an office computer, when that's what my local parts shop had on sale. My clients were mostly businesses and none ever asked if their video card could game..
The original GeForce4 MX was a scam in and of itself, and was commented on at the time. As you said, they took a cut-down GF2, faked some GF4 features, and gave it a new name. That was already gimped 2000 technology being released in 2002. As for these things, I can only guess Nvidia had a bunch of the chips it never sold (most everyone knew the GF4 MX was not what it claimed to be), and to get them out of inventory, let some cut-rate distributor make these cards in the mid-2000s while just refusing to acknowledge their existence. Nvidia has made more than its share of putrid products.
Tbh if it had been PCI instead of AGP it could have at least been said it was just a display adapter. This market segment is what made the 8400 so big with its 2 digital and 1 analog native outputs letting you connect 3 displays per adapter installed in a computer.
I clicked on this video and IMMEDIATELY recognized the BGM from simcity, despite the many flaws in that game it's still extremely fun, I just wish that EA didn't shut them down and a true cities skylines rival could've been made
Of course I remember the MX 4000. Had one out of an prebuild PC for testing back in the day. But it was one with the faster 64bit memory interface. Performance was more like a 'real' GeForce 4 MX while these 32bit memory interface cards were even slower than the original GeForce 2 MX aka GF 2 MX 200. Speaking on cards that not existed: There should be an GeForce PCX 4300 - a PCIe version of the MX 4000 very similar to the AGP card I had but never seen one in the wild.
Got an ELSA GLADIAC 518BP 128MB from a friend clearing out his old computer parts. With the same NV18 chip I'd say its performance was on par with MX 440; it does have a merit of having both VGA and DVI ports. Unfortunately I've got more AGP cards than motherboards so this 518BP is still idling in my cabinet. Speaking of longevity: with more and more iGPU capable of playing 3D accelerated games, GF210 can still be purchased new for US$39. 😅
I ordered one of these... I kind of want to see how it compares to the XGI Volari V3 XT. I thought that thing was terrible, but if this video is anything to go by, this might even be worse...
the laptop cards MX150, MX250, MX350, MX450 are all pretty much just slight bumps in clocks of the 940MX, which itself is just a 940M with higher clocks. They're all crap. 940M was okay for light gaming when it was new.
3dmark2005 is something that my 7800GT would struggle with it’s hilarious that they bundle it with this card. I guess at that point they couldn’t bundle 3Dmark2001 anymore.
Lol, I found an old graphics card yesterday, and it's a GeForce 2 MX. To put the massive power of these cards in perspective, most modern cards score about 20,000 in G3DMarks from Passmark. These score 2. Even IGPUs score 1-2000.
Ahhh, the "mighty" MX4000... It sold like hot cakes in my country (Argentina) in both 64b memory bus, and, especially 32b. I think every MX4000 I saw here was by XFX.
