What role does this model play in the current hardware landscape?
What role does this model play in the current hardware landscape?
I've received this card back in 2001 on a machine with the following specifications:
Operating Systems:
- Windows 98 SE
- Windows 2000 Professional
- RedHat Linux 7.3
*
CPU: Intel Celeron Tualatin @ 1.3 GHz
*
RAM: 256MB
*
GPU: GeForce2 MX 400 with 64MB dedicated memory
*
HDD: 40GB
Would you consider that system a high-end setup from 2001? The year I acquired it was brand new.
Now, regarding the main question:
If we look at the selection of video cards from 2001, how would the GeForce2 MX 400 (64MB) rank compared to today's options?
Would it be comparable to models like the RTX 5060 or the newer RTX 5070/5080?
Your thoughts are welcome; this comparison is quite intriguing when examining hardware across different generations in the context of modern performance.
Interesting observation!
It’s surprising to consider how far things have come since 2005 when the Pentium 4 era was at its peak. People were discussing systems with around 128 or 256 MB of RAM, CPUs clocking just under 1 GHz. Even then, Core 2 Duos and Quads boasted 2 GB of memory. It seems that during those years (2005-2010), the latest technologies didn’t quickly match the needs of regular users—they remained a niche for advanced enthusiasts only.
It’s even more clear that in 2005 anything below 1 GB of RAM wouldn’t run newer programs or games smoothly.
Back then, owning a computer was simply about having one. Many individuals were acquiring their first machines at that time, which didn’t always align with the capabilities of the most advanced hardware available.
After 2011-2012, it appears more people started feeling stuck by the rapid changes in hardware, and this shift likely helped bring the average user closer to the newest, most powerful systems than ever before.
I recall conducting a benchmark using a spinning globe of the world and found that the GF2 MX 400 64 MB achieved around 8 FPS, whereas the GF6200 TC reached about 24 FPS (roughly three times higher). The GF2 MX 400 was largely unusable on YouTube, except at low resolutions like 240p or 144p. It didn’t perform well overall. The GF6200 TC handled 720p YouTube videos smoothly on Windows XP and even allowed me to play 1080p YT videos on Linux without issues.
Thanks for your feedback! It's fascinating how these graphics managed to run smoothly at high framerates in the past. Those visuals were impressive considering the card's demands.
Yes, it was the budget card during the GeForce 2 era and it supported at least DirectX7. In the earlier GeForce 256 line, the low-end model was the DX6 TNT2 M64 from the prior generation, which performed much worse. The top-tier GeForce2 MX 400 models were the 128-bit wide SDR or 64-bit DDR variants, both offering identical memory bandwidth. There was also a 64-bit SDR version that was significantly slower.
I wouldn't label it as a top-tier setup, it was more of a mid-range option, but it wasn't terrible. I was quite satisfied using it. Actually, I thought so—I owned an AMD Thunderbird 1100 and a GeForce 2 MX 400 during that time. The GeForce 2 MX 400 was the very first card I purchased with my own funds (refurbished under $60 on Newegg), and I still kept it as an overkill in my DOS, 95, and 98 systems paired with a K6 - III+ 450 running at 550Mhz.
The main distinction between the Celeron Tualatin and Pentium 3 Tualatin was the bus speed; the P3 operated at 133Mhz while the Celeron ran at 100 Mhz. There was also the Pentium 3-S Tualatin which increased the L2 Cache from 256KB to 512KB.
The GeForce 2 MX 400 essentially rebranded the GeForce 2 MX, offering performance very close to the original Geforce models. The Geforce 2 Ultra, Geforce 3 TI 500, and Radeon 8500 all came out between late 2000 and early 2001 and represented a significant leap, roughly doubling the performance.
A quick reminder: this is why I'm upset they removed Anandtech's archives—so much of this information was readily accessible from their tests.