The main difference between GeForce 2 and 3 is some effects features, none that will even be noticable until some games start taking advantage of the new features. Depending on how long you can wait, I would advise to wait for the GeForce 4 or 5. Or just wait until the 3 drops down in price.
Excellent points. I would say that a GF2 MX would be a good bet for a card that is only planning on living in a system until the next major release. They're good performers and easily attainable for under $100.
If he's not planning on using Win2k, then I would recommend an ATI Radeon instead. Visual quality is much better, performance is on par with a GF2 GTS, and the DVD decoding is almost as good as a dedicated decoder.
*WARNING* The above doesn't apply to Win2k because there is a significant performance dropoff under Win2k that isn't present under Win9x.
Though you mentioned that 3dfx is having problems, that really isn't the case. They are out of the video card business altogether. All of their intellectual property was purchased by Nvidia, who has already shown that they're not interested in supporting 3dfx cards, including releasing new drivers. Given that scenario, I would avoid 3dfx cards at all costs.
------------------ Alien Soup Folding@Home Team Leader
Are <u>You</u> Folding@Home for Team Alien Soup?
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ~ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´·.¸¸ Diesel Dan ¸¸.·`»
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ ~ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)
Finity, if your parents are footing the bill and money isn't a real concern, go for the GeForce3. Otherwise, you can't go wrong with a GeForce-2. Don't bother with the Geforce-2 MX, go for the more powerful bigger brother card [GeForce 2]. Games in the future will require more fillrate, which the GeForce-2 provides. But the GeForce-2 MX is a great budget card for one who doesn't play games as often.
Although if it's for college, I'd suggest you wait until the fall when college starts up to build the system. By then, everything will be cheaper, faster, and better.
The only reason I wouldn't recommend the GF3 is because it's so **** expensive.
The Radeon is on par, performance-wise with the GF2 GTS, but at lower cost with more features. However, it does suffer a performance loss under Win2k.
If I were to limit myself to an Nvidia card, I would say the best bang-for-the-buck card would be a GF2 GTS. The Ultra is still a bit pricey, and the MX is, as BRiT said, a budget card. It still performs well, but for $40-50 more, you could have the extra power boost of the GTS.
------------------ Alien Soup Folding@Home Team Leader
Are <u>You</u> Folding@Home for Team Alien Soup?
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ~ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´·.¸¸ Diesel Dan ¸¸.·`»
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ ~ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)
