When I went from a GF2MX to a GF3Ti200 Deus Ex and many other games became playable on full graphics settings.

geforce3 is far superior than geforce2mx, so it would yield quite some improvement, unless your cpu is extremely slow.

and yeah, visiontek cards are good.

I think a Geforce 3 will be up to 3x faster than a 2 MX if the graphics card is the bottleneck. This would be when playing high resolutions and assuming you have a fast CPU like an Athlon XP or midrange Northwood Pentium 4.

It also depends on which GF3 it is. Ti 200 is the slowest. But any of them is certainly much better than a 2 MX of any kind.

I agree with the others. GF3 is a far better card then a GF2MX.
Copper, what are the specs of your rig you're trying to replace the graphics card in?

The system is a 933Mhz P III 512 MB Ram with Windows ME. I think it is a TI 200 Ge-force 3!

I Geforce 3 will still perform respectably on a decent speed Pentium 3. CPU will be a bottle neck, but its manageable depending on what you plan to play.

Pixel Shaders, better anisotropic filtering and DirectX8 compatibility are three good reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_3_Series

Anisotropic filtering is better but on a GF3 the performance hit is extreme. You really need to go up to a GeForce FX for anisotropic to be more usable. Same with anti aliasing.

Alternatively, all of the Radeon cards have very usable anisotropic filtering. However, until the R300 GPU, ATI's anisotropic was rather low quality. A trade off to make it much less costly to implement while being speedy.

CPU will be a bottleneck, but if you have the cards then go for it.

For its time, GeForce2 MX = entry level card; GeForce3 = high-end. No contest there.

swaaye wrote:

Anisotropic filtering is better but on a GF3 the performance hit is extreme. You really need to go up to a GeForce FX for anisotropic to be more usable. Same with anti aliasing.

Alternatively, all of the Radeon cards have very usable anisotropic filtering. However, until the R300 GPU, ATI's anisotropic was rather low quality. A trade off to make it much less costly to implement while being speedy.

The GF3's Quincunx AA mode gives the best performance/quality tradeoff, but everything on the screen will be blurred like crazy. GF4 improved the algorithm though so it doesn't blur as much, along with improved overall AA performance. But compared to other cards at the time, GF3 offered the best overall AA performance (though the 4xS mode really slows it down due to use of supersampling, which really hindered AA performance on pre-GF3 cards).

A 933 MHz PIII is reasonable with a GF3, but a P4 (at least 1.8 GHz) or Athlon XP would be more reasonable to max. out its performance.

I was never a fan of the look of Quincunx. The bigger issue though is how the hell do you pronounce it??? 🤣

Pronouncing it a certain way could definitely land you in a lot of trouble, that's for sure.