Abit Siluro MX400 Review - PAGE 2Daryl Grant - Thursday, December 6th, 2001
Impressions
Since the Geforce2 and its derivatives is an omnipresent force (no pun intended) throughout the video card industry, there is little surprise in using one from the other. One thing that can be said about this card in particular is that with a name like ABIT behind it, you can rely on it being a quality and stable component on your system.
Test System
| Operating systems: |
Windows 98SE (v4.10.2222 A) Windows 2000 (v5.00.2195 w/ SP1) |
| Hardware: |
| CPU: | Intel Pentium III 800EB / AMD Duron 700MHz |
| Mobo(s): | unknown |
| RAM: | 128MB Micron PC133 RAM |
| Video Card: | Visiontek Geforce2 Ultra (Detonator drivers v6.50) |
| HDD: | 30Gb IBM Deskstar 75GXP 7200rpm, Ultra ATA-100 |
| CD-ROM: | Creative 52X CD-ROM |
Benchmarks
The benchmarks I used were 3Dmark2000, QuakeIII (demo001), the MDK2 demo, and SPECviewperf 6.1.2. Each test was run 5 times with the highest and lowest scores removed leaving 3 scores which were averaged for the final total. Each benchmark was run with the highest possible quality settings, other than the variables being tested. Tests using 16bit colour depth used 16bit textures and tests using a 32bit colour depth used 32bit textures. FSAA and vertical sync were disabled for all of the tests.
| Detonator Drivers: |
| v12.41 (except where noted) |
| 3Dmark2000 - Global Settings: |
Z-buffer Depth: 16bit (@16bit colour depth) or 24bit (@32bit colour depth) Frame Buffer: Triple Hardware T&L |
| QuakeIII (demo001) - Global Settings: |
Lighting: Lightmap Geometric Detail: High Texture Detail: Highest Texture Filters: Trilinear Full Screen: On |
| MDK2 Demo - Global Settings: |
Colour Depth: 32bit Texture Quality: Highest Filtering: Trilinear Mipmap on Full screen on Hardware T&L on |
| SPECviewperf 6.1.2: |
Resolution: 800x600@32bit Runall.bat |
Benchmark Results
This benchmark sets the theme for the rest - at lower resolutions, the Geforce2 MX400 performs roughly on par with the plain old MX (as represented by the Gigabyte GF-1280), but as the resolution increases, so does the size of the gap between these two cards. Not by much mind you, but enough to be noted here. In fact, this slight difference could also be attributed to the newer drivers used for the MX 400 (v12.41 vs. v6.50 for the GF-1280 and Geforce2 Ultra). I no longer have the GF-1280 nor the Geforce2 Ultra so they could not be retested with the new drivers.
  |
| 3DMarks2000 Win98 & Win2K |
Again, the increase in performance over the older MX here can be attributed to the newer drivers. It is really good to finally see Windows 2000 performance on par with that of Windows 98. The true power users are finally able to use Windows 2000 for all of their computing needs :p
  |
| Quake III Timedemo Win98 & Win2K |
 |
| MDK2 Demo Win98 |
 |
| SPECviewperf 6.1.2 |
The modifications to the Geforce2 MX (as well as the extra 32MB of RAM) don’t seem to make much difference in the “professional” 3D rendering performance numbers of SPECviewperf.
Conclusion
While the slightly updated Geforce2 MX400 doesn’t make a huge difference in performance, it does make a little improvement. It is still hampered (whether intentionally or otherwise) by a severe lack of memory bandwidth.
With a name like ABIT the Siluro MX400 is certainly a reliable purchase if you are in the market for a Geforce2 MX level video card. The Siluro is cheaper than the competition as well which makes it a good buy. All told, a great card.
Bottom Line
| Box Contents: | 85% |
| Features: | 80% |
| Stability: | 92% |
| Performance: | 85% |
| Price: | 93% |
Overall Score: 88%