Over the past few years, the rise of NVIDIA can only be described as incredible. They rose from the ashes of their initial 3D chip offering and led a charge that has made them one of the top 3D chips manufacturers in the world. The number of new 3D video chips NVIDIA released in the last year is staggering and the company wants to push every pixel in every market that exists, and even those that don't yet. From the TNT2 all the way up to the high-end GeForce2 GTS Ultra, NVIDIA has pushed the envelope and done their very best to make their top 3D chip obsolete within months of release by releasing something better.
This level of market penetration and expansion is reminiscent of the way Intel and AMD market their CPUs. Instead of producing a few models of CPU, the processor giants have split the market up into large segments by feature set and price then into very small pieces by MHz increments. This strategy is designed to ensure that just about every potential PC buyer can have a processor that suits both for their needs and their wallet.
In the 3D video card market, 3dfx tried a MHz and price based market differentiation with their Voodoo3 line-up, though judging by their current dire straits, they were not successful with it. NVIDIA has taken a strategy close to those of the processor makers and not only separated their products based on clock speed and price, but also on chip design as well. Just looking at their GeForce line-up, we see the original GeForce SDR and DDR cards, along with the high-end GeForce2 GTS and GeForce2 Ultra. On the budget-end, NVIDIA also has the TNT2 and TNT2 Ultra chips (and their variants), which have proven quite successful with OEM partners.
So where does a company with as much market penetration as NVIDIA go from here? Much like Intel did in with their Pentium III conversion to the new FC-PGA Celerons, NVIDIA is using similar technology in both their high-end and value line. NVIDIA has taken the GeForce2 technology, used two pipelines instead of the four in the GeForce2 GTS, added some fancy extras and called it the GeForce2 MX. Like Intel with their Celeron, NVIDIA is hoping this new MX video chip will power many of the value and business PCs that take up so much of the current new computer market.
GeForce2 MX Design
The MX's design essentially gives it half the theoretical power of the GeForce2 GTS. Assuming equal clock speeds, this would essentially place the GeForce2 MX at a distinct disadvantage against the GeForce2 GTS and Ultra boards, but how would it stack up against the rest of the NVIDIA lineup?
Since the GeForce2 GTS core is capable of quad-pipeline processing (dual-pipeline for the MX) and has the capability for dual-textures per pipeline, per clock, this puts a slightly different spin on it. The original GeForce 256 chip also supported a quad-pipeline, but could only handle one texture per pipeline, per clock.
The standard GeForce2 MX is clocked at 175MHz, while the default speed of the GeForce 256 is only 120MHz. Taking these core speeds into account and using their theoretical specifications, the GeForce2 MX will perform slightly faster in multi-texture games than the GeForce 256 (700 vs. 480 megapixels/sec.), while the GeForce 256's quad-pipelines will push it ahead (480 vs. 350 megatexels/sec.) in single-texture games. If these numbers seem a bit confusing, simply multiply the clock rate by the number of pipelines for megapixels/sec, then take that number and multiply it by the number of textures per pipeline for megatexels/sec.
When compared to the 200MHz GeForce2 GTS or 250MHz GeForce2 Ultra, which both support quad-pipeline and dual-texture options, GeForce2 MX performance lags behind. These two chips are designed to be the performance leaders of the NVIDIA fold and it shows in the specs. The GeForce2 GTS pumps out 800 megapixels/sec. and 1600 megatexels/sec., while the GeForce2 Ultra ups the ante a bit with a 1000 megapixels/sec. and 2000 megatexels/sec. fillrate. As such, don't expect the GeForce2 MX to compete with the big boys in terms of overall 3D performance, but as an inexpensive option with more than enough power to match, and possibly surpass, the original GeForce 256 SDR.
All of this performance is packed into a very compact chip that uses approximately 4W of power. This is a radical shift for NVIDIA and their previous power hungry products such as the GeForce 256 and GeForce2 GTS. Also, since the 3D Prophet II MX does not sport an on-board cooling fan, this lowers the potential power draw even further. It is doubtful that GeForce2 MX boards will have any of the problems the GeForce256 or GeForce2 GTS did with AGP power requirements that caused issues with certain motherboards.
GeForce2 MX Features
Other than having less pipelines than the GeForce2 GTS, the GeForce2 MX has essentially an unchanged 3D feature set. This is great news for gamers and means that new features like the second generation T&L (transform and lighting) engine, and NVIDIA's Shading Rasterizer (advanced pixel shading) are included. Due to the lower clock rate of the GeForce2 MX, its T&L engine can only handle 20 million triangle/sec. compared to the GeForce2 GTS' 25 million/sec. Basic GeForce features such as 32-bit rendering, AGP 4X/2X, texture compression and FSAA are also included with the GeForce2 MX.
Memory Support and Bandwidth
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, then the news of memory bandwidth issues with NVIDIA cards have certainly reached you. Their 3D chips are without a doubt the most powerful in the business, but the memory technology and bandwidth continue to hold their 3D chips from processing at peak levels. After all, the 3D video chip can only process data as fast as the card's memory and memory bus can provide it.
It is in the area of memory bandwidth that the GeForce2 MX design starts hit a few bumps. Since the MX is a value 3D solution, it was expected that certain corners would have to be made in order to achieve an attractive price point. The default speed of the GeForce2 MX memory is 166MHz, which is the same as the GeForce2 GTS' default speed. Unfortunately, NVIDIA has also designed the GeForce2 MX to only support standard SDR memory using the 128-bit memory bus, or SDR/DDR using a 64-bit memory bus. Although it is a faster video chip with a higher fillrate, this essentially places the GeForce2 MX in the same memory category as the original GeForce 256 SDR boards.
It is fully understandable that NVIDIA does not want to see 128-bit, DDR versions of the GeForce2 MX appearing on store shelves, thereby cutting into potential GeForce2 GTS and Ultra sales, but this might have been too deep a cut. The high-end GeForce2 cards are already suffering memory bandwidth issues, and NVIDIA has effectively cut this bandwidth in half for the MX. This should not hurt low resolution 3D gaming too much, but with higher resolution games and T&L and FSAA to boot, the GeForce2 MX may start hitting the figurative performance wall.
3D Prophet II MX Specifications
GeForce2 MX 3D Processor
GeForce2 MX engine architecture
2nd generation hardware transform engine
100% hardware triangle setup
2 dual-texturing rendering engines
4 texels-per-clock pipeline engines generate 20 million triangles per second
Incorporates NVIDIA's Shading Rasterizer, delivering per-pixel shading, seven pixel operations in a single pass (per-pixel bump mapping, color fog, ambient light…)
Supports OpenGL and DirectX 7: environmental bump mapping, vertex blending and projective textures
350MHz RAMDAC
175MHz Core Clock
32 MB SDR SDRAM
183MHz Memory Clock (OEM 166MHz)
700 MegaTexels and 350 MegaPixels per second
4X AGP with Fast Writes / AGP 2X compatible
AGP Support Only
Resolutions of up to 2048x1536 in 16 million colors
Driver Version Included
Windows 95/98 5.30
Windows NT 5.30
Windows 2000 5.30
System Requirements
Pentium II and higher or compatible
Available AGP slot, AGP 2.0 compliant
32MB RAM
10MB hard disk space
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
Microsoft Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98 or 2000
The Hercules 3D Prophet II MX
Hercules has stuck very close to the NVIDIA reference design with their 3D Prophet II MX card. The board shares the same basic PCB shape and size as the reference card, though Hercules has spiced it up a bit by using a blue PCB instead of the standard green. The heatsink colored blue to match the rest of the board. The 3D Prophet II MX is also quite a bit smaller than any previous GeForce product. In fact, its PCB is less than half that of a GeForce 256 PCB and ensures easy installation as well as exceptional case airflow.
Due to the concerns about memory bandwidth, it's nice to see that Hercules has clocked the memory on the 3D Prophet II MX a bit higher than with the reference design. While NVIDIA calls for a 166MHz memory speed, Hercules has jacked that up to 183MHz with the 3D Prophet II MX, raising the potential memory bandwidth from 2.7GB/s to approximately 2.9GB/s. Granted, it's not a huge jump in bandwidth, but every little bit helps. To ensure that this increase in memory speed would be within spec, our review card featured 32MB of 5.5ns Hyundai memory, rather than the conventional 6ns speed. Due to the design of the GeForce2 MX, this memory is of the SDR variety and runs on a 128-bit bus. It should be noted that these specs refer to the retail model of the 3D PROPHET II MX and that the OEM version only uses a 166MHz memory speed.
The Hercules 3D Prophet 2 MX is more of a standard 3D card than a pure business or multimedia solution, and tends to be more utilitarian in nature. As such, it does not support the TwinView technology of the GeForce2 MX. This is a display format that is very similar to Matrox' DualHead in that it allows the use of two displays with the same video card. If this feature is important to your overall buying decision, then the 3D Prophet II MX might not be the card for you. On the other hand, gamers are still getting all the main 3D features of the GeForce2 MX and saving a few bucks along the way.
What You Get
The Hercules 3D Prophet II MX is definitely a gamer's card, and this fact is readily apparent when you open the box. There are virtually no amenities, and the retail box only contains the 3D Prophet II MX card, a 48-page user manual and a driver CD. The user manual is in several languages so the 48-page total actually turns out to be only 15 pages in length. The driver CD includes the Hercules drivers (really just the NVIDIA reference drivers with some cosmetic enhancements), an online version of the manual, the 3Deep desktop utility and a few 3D game demos such as Thief 2, Daikatana and Rayman. Forgetting the free demos, Hercules has not included any sort of game bundle with the 3D Prophet II MX. Whether this is viewed as a positive or negative depends entirely on your point of view. New computer buyers probably will not like the fact that there are not any bundled games to try out on their new hardware, but seasoned gamers will see it as a positive, cost-saving measure.
Installation
Installing the 3D Prophet II MX is simplicity itself and with the card being so physically small, it will not likely fight with other internal components for valuable case space. The software side of the install is equally good, and NVIDIA deserves a lot of the credit for maintaining their unified drivers. Setting a NVIDIA card up on a fresh system is pretty easy, but when upgrading from one NVIDIA card to another, all you really have to do is make sure the newest drivers are installed. I've tried this with several NVIDIA boards and it worked like a dream. No more 640x480 boot screens asking to please insert the driver disk, and with such a large product line, NVIDIA's unified drivers simply make upgrading to a faster card just that much easier.
One area that did not impress me very much was the support section of the Hercules website. In trying to ascertain if the shipping drivers were indeed the newest version, I tried again and again to locate any drivers for the 3D Prophet II MX. Instead of simply have a place to find and download drivers, Hercules has grouped it all together under a Support Search page. You pick the product and the type of support question you have and it search the site for all relevant pages. After searching about 15-20 minutes for 3D Prophet II MX driver or BIOS files, I came away empty handed. In amalgamating the support search function with the driver download area, Hercules has made what used to be a simple procedure a great deal more confusing.
3D Performance
In determining the test hardware for the benchmarking, we decided it would be helpful to test the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX against current NVIDIA video cards, including the GeForce 256 SDR, GeForce 256 DDR and GeForce2 GTS. The reference systems include the low-end Celeron 600 and mid-range Pentium III 700 processors, all in order to get an adequate picture of relative 3D performance using differing levels of CPU power. In addition, the GeForce 256 SDR card we selected runs at a default clock speed of 183MHz. This will help determine the actual performance difference between the GeForce2 MX and GeForce 256, given equal memory bandwidth.
Test Systems
Test System 1
Hercules 3D Prophet II MX (175/183)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Test System 2
MSI Starforce GF 256 (120/183)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Test System 3
ELSA Erazor X2 GF256 DDR (120/333)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Test System 4
Hercules GeForce2 GTS (200/333)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Re-Volt Performance - Mid-Range
Re-Volt is a very useful benchmark that fills quite a few voids in 3D card testing. First of all, it's a Direct3D (DirectX 6) benchmark in an area dominated by OpenGL games, which gives us more of a cross-section of gaming APIs. It is also a fast-paced racing game and that is one gaming genre that has been severely lacking in previous 3D card benchmark testing.
The 16-bit scores using the Pentium III 700 show a basic performance level for all GeForce cards through the resolutions of 640x480 to 1024x768. At 1280x1024, the higher performing cards like the GeForce2 GTS and GeForce 256 DDR start to break away from the pack, and this pattern continues on to 1600x1200. The 3D Prophet II MX falls well behind the other cards at the higher resolutions, including the GeForce 256 SDR by a noticeable margin.
Moving on to 32-bit testing, we see much the same pattern as before, except the performance gap starts widening a bit sooner at 1024x768. Again the 3D Prophet II MX manages to keep up until 1024x768 is reached, but then falls back with the GeForce 256 SDR. The most interesting portion of these benchmarks is that the 3D Prophet II MX beats the GeForce 256 SDR at all of the resolutions except for 1600x1200.
*
Re-Volt Performance - Low-End
The 16-bit Re-Volt benchmarks using the Celeron 600 shows the scores bunched rather closely together all the way to a resolution of 1280x1024. This demonstrates that a lower-end CPU like the Celeron 600 simply cannot supply the muscle needed to push a card like the GeForce2 GTS. As with the Pentium III tests, the 3D Prophet II MX again finishes at the back of the pack for Re-Volt 16-bit scores.
The Re-Volt 32-bit scoring is again much the same as with the Pentium III 700, albeit with lower overall framerates. Other than at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions, all of the NVIDIA cards get pretty well the same scores. At the higher resolutions, the GeForce2 GTS and GeForce 256 DDR again speed ahead, while the 3D Prophet II MX beats the GeForce SDR at 1280x1024 but has the tables turned at 1600x1200.
Quake III Arena Performance - Mid-Range
Just by looking at the benchmarks, it is quite easy to see that, with a mid-range processor such as the Pentium III 700, the GeForce2 GTS is far and away the Quake III Arena performance leader. What is a bit more surprising is that, when using the Demo001 timedemo at lower resolutions and detail levels, the 3D Prophet II MX actually beats both the DDR and SDR GeForce 256 cards.
The High Quality and MAX settings place the GeForce 256 DDR board back in its customary second place, and the battle is really between the GeForce 256 SDR and 3D Prophet II MX. Both of these cards are were extremely equal through the High Quality and MAX testing, with the MX surging ahead at the lower resolutions and the SDR again taking the crown at 1600x1200.
Quake III Arena Performance - Mid-Range
Just by looking at the benchmarks, it is quite easy to see that, with a mid-range processor such as the Pentium III 700, the GeForce2 GTS is far and away the Quake III Arena performance leader. What is a bit more surprising is that, when using the Demo001 timedemo at lower resolutions and detail levels, the 3D Prophet II MX actually beats both the DDR and SDR GeForce 256 cards.
The High Quality and MAX settings place the GeForce 256 DDR board back in its customary second place, and the battle is really between the GeForce 256 SDR and 3D Prophet II MX. Both of these cards are were extremely equal through the High Quality and MAX testing, with the MX surging ahead at the lower resolutions and the SDR again taking the crown at 1600x1200.
When testing moved to the more demanding Quaver demo, we see the GeForce 256 SDR taking a more commanding lead, surpassing the majority of 3D Prophet II MX scores between 1024x768 to 1600x1200. As we can see from the charts, the 3D Prophet II MX is certainly a good performer, but does not quite match the GeForce SDR in more taxing Quake III Arena demos or when using higher color and texture depths.
Quake III Arena Performance - Low-End
The Celeron 600 Quake III Arena testing is again very similar to the Pentium III 700 scores, but with a closer grouping between cards. With the Normal setting, scores are similar for all cards through to 1024x768. At that point, the GeForce2 GTS explodes ahead of the pack and the GeForce 256 DDR clearly moves into second place. The 3D Prophet II MX outpaces the GeForce 256 SDR. The High Quality and MAX scores are a bit more spread out, and again we see the phenomenon of the 3D Prophet II MX beating the GeForce 256 SDR at 1024x768 and then having the having the opposite happen at 1600x1200
Quaver benchmarking again demonstrated that the GeForce2 GTS is the top performer, with the GeForce 256 DDR right behind it. At the Normal setting, the 3D Prophet II MX again gets higher scores than either the GeForce 256 boards, but is left behind once the High Quality and MAX detail settings are employed.
[IMGhttp://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/video/herculese_3d_prophet_2_mx/qcqh.gif[/IMG]
MDK 2 Performance - Mid-Range
MDK 2 represents a slightly different test than either Quake 3 or Re-Volt. While using the OpenGL API, it is a 3rd-person action game and also features T&L support to enhance performance. Using the MDK 2 standard settings with the Pentium II 700, the scores are pretty consistent at the lower resolutions, but again the GeForce2 GTS explodes ahead at 1280x1024, outpacing the 3D Prophet II MX by 40 frames per second. The GeForce 256 DDR maintains its second place standing, while the GeForce 256 SDR is just a bit faster than the 3D Prophet II MX. At the MAX setting, the situation is much the same for the GeForce2 GTS and GeForce 256 DDR, while the 3D Prophet II MX passes the GeForce 256 SDR at almost all resolutions.
MDK 2 Performance - Low-End
The Celeron 600 MDK 2 results mimicked the above scores and, other than a little more grouping due to the slower CPU, the patterns still held. The GeForce2 GTS remained the performance champ and took some commanding leads at the higher resolutions. The 3D Prophet II MX also finished behind the GeForce 256 SDR on the standard T&L setting, while beating the SDR on the more demanding MAX detail setting.
Performance Analysis
The performance benchmarks show that the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX certainly is not a competitor for the GeForce2 GTS, and in most benchmarks, even falls behind the GeForce 256 DDR as well. This is to be expected, and the GeForce2 MX chip was never intended to replace either of these NVIDIA products. Where the benchmarks start to get interesting is looking at the head-to-head scores of the 3D Prophet II MX and the GeForce 256 SDR.
Many sources have used the issue of memory bandwidth to explain away the performance discrepancies between the GeForce2 MX and other NVIDIA cards. Certainly, using SDR memory with the MX will hamper 3D game performance, but after looking over the data, that seems like only half of the story. When compared to the MSI Starforce GF256 SDR, which also runs at a 183MHz SDR memory speed, the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX also seems to suffer from the loss of two of its pixel pipelines. After all, given the exact same memory speed and type, we are really comparing a 120MHz quad pipeline GeForce 256 against the 175MHz dual-pipeline GeForce2 MX.
While the 3D Prophet does hold its own at the lower resolutions, the GeForce 256 SDR tends to take the performance lead as the resolutions and 3D features are increased. The Quake 3 MAX benchmarks illustrate this perfectly; and as we progress from Demo001 to Quaver timedemos, we see the SDR taking the lead in more and more of the tested resolutions. This is not a knock on the GeForce2 MX, but it does demonstrate that the quad-pipelines of the slower GeForce 256 can, in many instances, outperform the higher clocked, dual-pipeline GeForce2 MX.
3D Prophet II MX Overclocking
Overclocking the 3D Prophet II MX is easily done using either the included Hercules drivers or the 6.18 NVIDIA reference drivers. Under the Additional Properties section, there is an area to adjust Hardware Options, including both clock and memory speeds. Please keep in mind that the overclocking results detailed below were achieved with our retail card, and the data should not be extrapolated to mean that other cards will exhibit similar results.
There are a few things to keep in mind when overclocking the 3D Prophet II MX. The first is that the GeForce2 MX chip itself is only cooled by a basic heatsink, and while it does not get overly hot on standard settings, this can become an issue when overclocking. Second, the SDRAM is 5.5 ns, and it is already clocked at it rated specification of 183MHz. And unlike the Hercules 3D Prophet II GTS, the 3D Prophet II MX does not have any fancy bells and whistles such as heatsinks on each of the memory chips. Any further memory speed increases over the default 183MHz should be taken slowly and you should not expect to hit extremely high levels.
In our overclock testing, the first thing to determine was the actual core limit of the GeForce II MX chip. Since it is based on the same technology, why not just try it at the same 200MHz frequency of the GeForce2 GTS? That was the first step, and although the chip itself was more than up to the task, the default cooling was not. Heat buildup is a definite problem with extreme overclocking and we would recommend adding a cooling fan to the 3D Prophet 2 MX if ultra-high clock speeds are your goal.
Although the 200MHz overclock was very stable, the heat levels were starting to get a bit worrisome. The fastest speed we could attain with a reasonable comfort level was 195MHz, though with an additional cooling fan, 200MHz or higher would be a very realistic overclock. As expected, the memory speeds were a bit more finicky and while 190MHz was achieved without any issues, moving much higher for long periods of time caused texture problems in games, and even some hard locks. After some experimentation, the highest stable memory speed was determined to be 192MHz.
We have also included several Re-Volt and Quake III Arena benchmarks comparing the default 175/183 3D Prophet 2 MX to the 195/192 overclocked board. As you can see from the scores, most of the larger framerate increases happen at the higher resolutions, particularly 1024x768 and 1280x1024.
3D Prophet II MX FSB Overclocking
Previous GeForce products are well known for their ability to handle the high AGP speeds that can occur during CPU overclocking. Examples of this would be running a 66MHz CPU on the 75 or 83MHz FSB, or a 100MHz CPU on the 120-133 FSB. Of course the choice of motherboard has a lot to do with the resulting AGP bus speeds, and the Intel BX is probably the biggest offender. While newer chipsets like the VIA Apollo Pro 133A and Intel 815E support a 1/2 AGP divider that solves the 133MHz FSB problem, the BX does not. The Intel BX is still one of the top choices for performance and overclocking, but the high AGP speeds can really put a strain on the AGP 3D card.
To test the stability of the 3D Prophet II MX on overclocked bus speeds, we have used the MSI BXMaster motherboard, as well as the Celeron 566 and Pentium III 550E as test CPUs. The Celeron 566 has been tested at 75MHz (75MHz AGP), 83MHz (83MHz AGP) and at 90MHz using the 1/1 AGP divider (90MHz AGP). The Pentium III 550E has been overclocked to the 133MHz FSB, which results in an 89MHz AGP speed on the BX motherboard. These quoted AGP speeds were set using the soft BIOS setup and confirmed using SiSoft SANDRA.
Throughout the overclocked FSB testing, the 3D Prophet II MX performed like a champ. We tested stability using repeated Quake III Arena timedemos, Unreal Tournament flybys and Re-Volt tests. Special attention was placed on the Celeron 600@810 (90MHz AGP) testing and the system was used for extended periods of actual 3D gameplay with no adverse effects. Overall, the 3D Prophet II MX is yet another NVIDIA card that seems to thrive on the overclocked AGP bus.
Value
In terms of NVIDIA GeForce2 MX video cards, the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX is one of the most inexpensive models you can buy. It checks in at approximately $116 USD, and only the OEM VisionTek ($110) and 16 MB ASUS V7100 Pure ($105) are lower priced. The standard Leadtek Winfast GeForce2 MX is approximately the same price as the 3D Prophet II MX GeForce, but prices get a bit higher when we move past these models. There seems to be a wide range with pricing of some GeForce2 MX cards, and the ASUS V7100 32 MB board checks in at $139, the ELSA Gladiac MX at $150 and MSI StarForce 816 at $120.
As far as comparison pricing against the NVIDIA GeForce 256 SDR and DDR boards, the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX is definitely the value leader. GeForce 256 DDR cards such as the Creative Labs 3D Blaster Annihilator Pro, ELSA Erazor X2 and the 3D Prophet DDR are priced anywhere from $185 to $200 US. The GeForce 256 SDR cards are not much more competitive, as the ELSA Erazor X, Creative Labs 3D Blaster Annihilator and most other name brand SDR boards are priced from $145 to $160 US. Only the $130 MSI MSI Starforce GF 256 even comes close to matching the retail pricing of the 3D Prophet II MX.
Overall, the 3D Prophet II MX represents one of the best 3D video price/performance ratios yet. Although the 3D Prophet II MX' dual-pipeline architecture and SDR memory cause it to lag behind other higher-priced NVIDIA cards, its low price tag and more-than adequate performance make it a definite winner in the value department. The GeForce2 GTS and Ultra boards are still going to be the choice of the performance crowd, and if you currently own any GeForce board, it is not likely that a GeForce2 MX card will be a worthwhile upgrade. If your current 3D card is a bit lower on the totem pole, then the 3D Prophet II MX offers GeForce 256 performance levels at a much lower price.
Conclusion
With the 3D Prophet II MX, Hercules has clearly produced an excellent video card for both the performance and value markets. With this board, gamers on a budget will no longer have to suffer with low framerates again. Performance gamers who might want to save a few bucks should also give the 3D Prophet II MX a look, and it would make an absolute killer card for an inexpensive second home system or network gaming PC. NVIDIA also deserves kudos for their GeForce2 MX chip. Never before have we seen a product that performs so well at such a low comparative price point. The landscape for budget 3D video cards has just shifted, and with the 3D Prophet II MX, Hercules certainly has a prime contender in this market.
Highs
Incredible price/performance ratio
Excellent feature set
High-end clock and memory rate
Lows
No frills 3D card
Memory bandwidth limitations
No software extras
Vince Freeman
Editor
--------------------------------------------------
ChukE ( http://www.cultdeadcow.com )
This level of market penetration and expansion is reminiscent of the way Intel and AMD market their CPUs. Instead of producing a few models of CPU, the processor giants have split the market up into large segments by feature set and price then into very small pieces by MHz increments. This strategy is designed to ensure that just about every potential PC buyer can have a processor that suits both for their needs and their wallet.
In the 3D video card market, 3dfx tried a MHz and price based market differentiation with their Voodoo3 line-up, though judging by their current dire straits, they were not successful with it. NVIDIA has taken a strategy close to those of the processor makers and not only separated their products based on clock speed and price, but also on chip design as well. Just looking at their GeForce line-up, we see the original GeForce SDR and DDR cards, along with the high-end GeForce2 GTS and GeForce2 Ultra. On the budget-end, NVIDIA also has the TNT2 and TNT2 Ultra chips (and their variants), which have proven quite successful with OEM partners.
So where does a company with as much market penetration as NVIDIA go from here? Much like Intel did in with their Pentium III conversion to the new FC-PGA Celerons, NVIDIA is using similar technology in both their high-end and value line. NVIDIA has taken the GeForce2 technology, used two pipelines instead of the four in the GeForce2 GTS, added some fancy extras and called it the GeForce2 MX. Like Intel with their Celeron, NVIDIA is hoping this new MX video chip will power many of the value and business PCs that take up so much of the current new computer market.
GeForce2 MX Design
The MX's design essentially gives it half the theoretical power of the GeForce2 GTS. Assuming equal clock speeds, this would essentially place the GeForce2 MX at a distinct disadvantage against the GeForce2 GTS and Ultra boards, but how would it stack up against the rest of the NVIDIA lineup?
Since the GeForce2 GTS core is capable of quad-pipeline processing (dual-pipeline for the MX) and has the capability for dual-textures per pipeline, per clock, this puts a slightly different spin on it. The original GeForce 256 chip also supported a quad-pipeline, but could only handle one texture per pipeline, per clock.
The standard GeForce2 MX is clocked at 175MHz, while the default speed of the GeForce 256 is only 120MHz. Taking these core speeds into account and using their theoretical specifications, the GeForce2 MX will perform slightly faster in multi-texture games than the GeForce 256 (700 vs. 480 megapixels/sec.), while the GeForce 256's quad-pipelines will push it ahead (480 vs. 350 megatexels/sec.) in single-texture games. If these numbers seem a bit confusing, simply multiply the clock rate by the number of pipelines for megapixels/sec, then take that number and multiply it by the number of textures per pipeline for megatexels/sec.
When compared to the 200MHz GeForce2 GTS or 250MHz GeForce2 Ultra, which both support quad-pipeline and dual-texture options, GeForce2 MX performance lags behind. These two chips are designed to be the performance leaders of the NVIDIA fold and it shows in the specs. The GeForce2 GTS pumps out 800 megapixels/sec. and 1600 megatexels/sec., while the GeForce2 Ultra ups the ante a bit with a 1000 megapixels/sec. and 2000 megatexels/sec. fillrate. As such, don't expect the GeForce2 MX to compete with the big boys in terms of overall 3D performance, but as an inexpensive option with more than enough power to match, and possibly surpass, the original GeForce 256 SDR.
All of this performance is packed into a very compact chip that uses approximately 4W of power. This is a radical shift for NVIDIA and their previous power hungry products such as the GeForce 256 and GeForce2 GTS. Also, since the 3D Prophet II MX does not sport an on-board cooling fan, this lowers the potential power draw even further. It is doubtful that GeForce2 MX boards will have any of the problems the GeForce256 or GeForce2 GTS did with AGP power requirements that caused issues with certain motherboards.
GeForce2 MX Features
Other than having less pipelines than the GeForce2 GTS, the GeForce2 MX has essentially an unchanged 3D feature set. This is great news for gamers and means that new features like the second generation T&L (transform and lighting) engine, and NVIDIA's Shading Rasterizer (advanced pixel shading) are included. Due to the lower clock rate of the GeForce2 MX, its T&L engine can only handle 20 million triangle/sec. compared to the GeForce2 GTS' 25 million/sec. Basic GeForce features such as 32-bit rendering, AGP 4X/2X, texture compression and FSAA are also included with the GeForce2 MX.
Memory Support and Bandwidth
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, then the news of memory bandwidth issues with NVIDIA cards have certainly reached you. Their 3D chips are without a doubt the most powerful in the business, but the memory technology and bandwidth continue to hold their 3D chips from processing at peak levels. After all, the 3D video chip can only process data as fast as the card's memory and memory bus can provide it.
It is in the area of memory bandwidth that the GeForce2 MX design starts hit a few bumps. Since the MX is a value 3D solution, it was expected that certain corners would have to be made in order to achieve an attractive price point. The default speed of the GeForce2 MX memory is 166MHz, which is the same as the GeForce2 GTS' default speed. Unfortunately, NVIDIA has also designed the GeForce2 MX to only support standard SDR memory using the 128-bit memory bus, or SDR/DDR using a 64-bit memory bus. Although it is a faster video chip with a higher fillrate, this essentially places the GeForce2 MX in the same memory category as the original GeForce 256 SDR boards.
It is fully understandable that NVIDIA does not want to see 128-bit, DDR versions of the GeForce2 MX appearing on store shelves, thereby cutting into potential GeForce2 GTS and Ultra sales, but this might have been too deep a cut. The high-end GeForce2 cards are already suffering memory bandwidth issues, and NVIDIA has effectively cut this bandwidth in half for the MX. This should not hurt low resolution 3D gaming too much, but with higher resolution games and T&L and FSAA to boot, the GeForce2 MX may start hitting the figurative performance wall.
3D Prophet II MX Specifications
GeForce2 MX 3D Processor
GeForce2 MX engine architecture
2nd generation hardware transform engine
100% hardware triangle setup
2 dual-texturing rendering engines
4 texels-per-clock pipeline engines generate 20 million triangles per second
Incorporates NVIDIA's Shading Rasterizer, delivering per-pixel shading, seven pixel operations in a single pass (per-pixel bump mapping, color fog, ambient light…)
Supports OpenGL and DirectX 7: environmental bump mapping, vertex blending and projective textures
350MHz RAMDAC
175MHz Core Clock
32 MB SDR SDRAM
183MHz Memory Clock (OEM 166MHz)
700 MegaTexels and 350 MegaPixels per second
4X AGP with Fast Writes / AGP 2X compatible
AGP Support Only
Resolutions of up to 2048x1536 in 16 million colors
Driver Version Included
Windows 95/98 5.30
Windows NT 5.30
Windows 2000 5.30
System Requirements
Pentium II and higher or compatible
Available AGP slot, AGP 2.0 compliant
32MB RAM
10MB hard disk space
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
Microsoft Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98 or 2000
The Hercules 3D Prophet II MX
Hercules has stuck very close to the NVIDIA reference design with their 3D Prophet II MX card. The board shares the same basic PCB shape and size as the reference card, though Hercules has spiced it up a bit by using a blue PCB instead of the standard green. The heatsink colored blue to match the rest of the board. The 3D Prophet II MX is also quite a bit smaller than any previous GeForce product. In fact, its PCB is less than half that of a GeForce 256 PCB and ensures easy installation as well as exceptional case airflow.
Due to the concerns about memory bandwidth, it's nice to see that Hercules has clocked the memory on the 3D Prophet II MX a bit higher than with the reference design. While NVIDIA calls for a 166MHz memory speed, Hercules has jacked that up to 183MHz with the 3D Prophet II MX, raising the potential memory bandwidth from 2.7GB/s to approximately 2.9GB/s. Granted, it's not a huge jump in bandwidth, but every little bit helps. To ensure that this increase in memory speed would be within spec, our review card featured 32MB of 5.5ns Hyundai memory, rather than the conventional 6ns speed. Due to the design of the GeForce2 MX, this memory is of the SDR variety and runs on a 128-bit bus. It should be noted that these specs refer to the retail model of the 3D PROPHET II MX and that the OEM version only uses a 166MHz memory speed.
The Hercules 3D Prophet 2 MX is more of a standard 3D card than a pure business or multimedia solution, and tends to be more utilitarian in nature. As such, it does not support the TwinView technology of the GeForce2 MX. This is a display format that is very similar to Matrox' DualHead in that it allows the use of two displays with the same video card. If this feature is important to your overall buying decision, then the 3D Prophet II MX might not be the card for you. On the other hand, gamers are still getting all the main 3D features of the GeForce2 MX and saving a few bucks along the way.
What You Get
The Hercules 3D Prophet II MX is definitely a gamer's card, and this fact is readily apparent when you open the box. There are virtually no amenities, and the retail box only contains the 3D Prophet II MX card, a 48-page user manual and a driver CD. The user manual is in several languages so the 48-page total actually turns out to be only 15 pages in length. The driver CD includes the Hercules drivers (really just the NVIDIA reference drivers with some cosmetic enhancements), an online version of the manual, the 3Deep desktop utility and a few 3D game demos such as Thief 2, Daikatana and Rayman. Forgetting the free demos, Hercules has not included any sort of game bundle with the 3D Prophet II MX. Whether this is viewed as a positive or negative depends entirely on your point of view. New computer buyers probably will not like the fact that there are not any bundled games to try out on their new hardware, but seasoned gamers will see it as a positive, cost-saving measure.
Installation
Installing the 3D Prophet II MX is simplicity itself and with the card being so physically small, it will not likely fight with other internal components for valuable case space. The software side of the install is equally good, and NVIDIA deserves a lot of the credit for maintaining their unified drivers. Setting a NVIDIA card up on a fresh system is pretty easy, but when upgrading from one NVIDIA card to another, all you really have to do is make sure the newest drivers are installed. I've tried this with several NVIDIA boards and it worked like a dream. No more 640x480 boot screens asking to please insert the driver disk, and with such a large product line, NVIDIA's unified drivers simply make upgrading to a faster card just that much easier.
One area that did not impress me very much was the support section of the Hercules website. In trying to ascertain if the shipping drivers were indeed the newest version, I tried again and again to locate any drivers for the 3D Prophet II MX. Instead of simply have a place to find and download drivers, Hercules has grouped it all together under a Support Search page. You pick the product and the type of support question you have and it search the site for all relevant pages. After searching about 15-20 minutes for 3D Prophet II MX driver or BIOS files, I came away empty handed. In amalgamating the support search function with the driver download area, Hercules has made what used to be a simple procedure a great deal more confusing.
3D Performance
In determining the test hardware for the benchmarking, we decided it would be helpful to test the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX against current NVIDIA video cards, including the GeForce 256 SDR, GeForce 256 DDR and GeForce2 GTS. The reference systems include the low-end Celeron 600 and mid-range Pentium III 700 processors, all in order to get an adequate picture of relative 3D performance using differing levels of CPU power. In addition, the GeForce 256 SDR card we selected runs at a default clock speed of 183MHz. This will help determine the actual performance difference between the GeForce2 MX and GeForce 256, given equal memory bandwidth.
Test Systems
Test System 1
Hercules 3D Prophet II MX (175/183)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Test System 2
MSI Starforce GF 256 (120/183)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Test System 3
ELSA Erazor X2 GF256 DDR (120/333)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Test System 4
Hercules GeForce2 GTS (200/333)
Celeron 600, Pentium III 700
MSI BXMaster motherboard
128 MB Corsair PC133 SDRAM
Seagate Barracuda ATA 28GB 7200 RPM, ATA-66 HD
Windows 98 SE
Re-Volt Performance - Mid-Range
Re-Volt is a very useful benchmark that fills quite a few voids in 3D card testing. First of all, it's a Direct3D (DirectX 6) benchmark in an area dominated by OpenGL games, which gives us more of a cross-section of gaming APIs. It is also a fast-paced racing game and that is one gaming genre that has been severely lacking in previous 3D card benchmark testing.
The 16-bit scores using the Pentium III 700 show a basic performance level for all GeForce cards through the resolutions of 640x480 to 1024x768. At 1280x1024, the higher performing cards like the GeForce2 GTS and GeForce 256 DDR start to break away from the pack, and this pattern continues on to 1600x1200. The 3D Prophet II MX falls well behind the other cards at the higher resolutions, including the GeForce 256 SDR by a noticeable margin.
Moving on to 32-bit testing, we see much the same pattern as before, except the performance gap starts widening a bit sooner at 1024x768. Again the 3D Prophet II MX manages to keep up until 1024x768 is reached, but then falls back with the GeForce 256 SDR. The most interesting portion of these benchmarks is that the 3D Prophet II MX beats the GeForce 256 SDR at all of the resolutions except for 1600x1200.
*
Re-Volt Performance - Low-End
The 16-bit Re-Volt benchmarks using the Celeron 600 shows the scores bunched rather closely together all the way to a resolution of 1280x1024. This demonstrates that a lower-end CPU like the Celeron 600 simply cannot supply the muscle needed to push a card like the GeForce2 GTS. As with the Pentium III tests, the 3D Prophet II MX again finishes at the back of the pack for Re-Volt 16-bit scores.
The Re-Volt 32-bit scoring is again much the same as with the Pentium III 700, albeit with lower overall framerates. Other than at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions, all of the NVIDIA cards get pretty well the same scores. At the higher resolutions, the GeForce2 GTS and GeForce 256 DDR again speed ahead, while the 3D Prophet II MX beats the GeForce SDR at 1280x1024 but has the tables turned at 1600x1200.
Quake III Arena Performance - Mid-Range
Just by looking at the benchmarks, it is quite easy to see that, with a mid-range processor such as the Pentium III 700, the GeForce2 GTS is far and away the Quake III Arena performance leader. What is a bit more surprising is that, when using the Demo001 timedemo at lower resolutions and detail levels, the 3D Prophet II MX actually beats both the DDR and SDR GeForce 256 cards.
The High Quality and MAX settings place the GeForce 256 DDR board back in its customary second place, and the battle is really between the GeForce 256 SDR and 3D Prophet II MX. Both of these cards are were extremely equal through the High Quality and MAX testing, with the MX surging ahead at the lower resolutions and the SDR again taking the crown at 1600x1200.
Quake III Arena Performance - Mid-Range
Just by looking at the benchmarks, it is quite easy to see that, with a mid-range processor such as the Pentium III 700, the GeForce2 GTS is far and away the Quake III Arena performance leader. What is a bit more surprising is that, when using the Demo001 timedemo at lower resolutions and detail levels, the 3D Prophet II MX actually beats both the DDR and SDR GeForce 256 cards.
The High Quality and MAX settings place the GeForce 256 DDR board back in its customary second place, and the battle is really between the GeForce 256 SDR and 3D Prophet II MX. Both of these cards are were extremely equal through the High Quality and MAX testing, with the MX surging ahead at the lower resolutions and the SDR again taking the crown at 1600x1200.
When testing moved to the more demanding Quaver demo, we see the GeForce 256 SDR taking a more commanding lead, surpassing the majority of 3D Prophet II MX scores between 1024x768 to 1600x1200. As we can see from the charts, the 3D Prophet II MX is certainly a good performer, but does not quite match the GeForce SDR in more taxing Quake III Arena demos or when using higher color and texture depths.
Quake III Arena Performance - Low-End
The Celeron 600 Quake III Arena testing is again very similar to the Pentium III 700 scores, but with a closer grouping between cards. With the Normal setting, scores are similar for all cards through to 1024x768. At that point, the GeForce2 GTS explodes ahead of the pack and the GeForce 256 DDR clearly moves into second place. The 3D Prophet II MX outpaces the GeForce 256 SDR. The High Quality and MAX scores are a bit more spread out, and again we see the phenomenon of the 3D Prophet II MX beating the GeForce 256 SDR at 1024x768 and then having the having the opposite happen at 1600x1200
Quaver benchmarking again demonstrated that the GeForce2 GTS is the top performer, with the GeForce 256 DDR right behind it. At the Normal setting, the 3D Prophet II MX again gets higher scores than either the GeForce 256 boards, but is left behind once the High Quality and MAX detail settings are employed. [IMGhttp://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/video/herculese_3d_prophet_2_mx/qcqh.gif[/IMG]
MDK 2 Performance - Mid-Range
MDK 2 represents a slightly different test than either Quake 3 or Re-Volt. While using the OpenGL API, it is a 3rd-person action game and also features T&L support to enhance performance. Using the MDK 2 standard settings with the Pentium II 700, the scores are pretty consistent at the lower resolutions, but again the GeForce2 GTS explodes ahead at 1280x1024, outpacing the 3D Prophet II MX by 40 frames per second. The GeForce 256 DDR maintains its second place standing, while the GeForce 256 SDR is just a bit faster than the 3D Prophet II MX. At the MAX setting, the situation is much the same for the GeForce2 GTS and GeForce 256 DDR, while the 3D Prophet II MX passes the GeForce 256 SDR at almost all resolutions.
MDK 2 Performance - Low-End
The Celeron 600 MDK 2 results mimicked the above scores and, other than a little more grouping due to the slower CPU, the patterns still held. The GeForce2 GTS remained the performance champ and took some commanding leads at the higher resolutions. The 3D Prophet II MX also finished behind the GeForce 256 SDR on the standard T&L setting, while beating the SDR on the more demanding MAX detail setting.
Performance Analysis
The performance benchmarks show that the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX certainly is not a competitor for the GeForce2 GTS, and in most benchmarks, even falls behind the GeForce 256 DDR as well. This is to be expected, and the GeForce2 MX chip was never intended to replace either of these NVIDIA products. Where the benchmarks start to get interesting is looking at the head-to-head scores of the 3D Prophet II MX and the GeForce 256 SDR.
Many sources have used the issue of memory bandwidth to explain away the performance discrepancies between the GeForce2 MX and other NVIDIA cards. Certainly, using SDR memory with the MX will hamper 3D game performance, but after looking over the data, that seems like only half of the story. When compared to the MSI Starforce GF256 SDR, which also runs at a 183MHz SDR memory speed, the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX also seems to suffer from the loss of two of its pixel pipelines. After all, given the exact same memory speed and type, we are really comparing a 120MHz quad pipeline GeForce 256 against the 175MHz dual-pipeline GeForce2 MX.
While the 3D Prophet does hold its own at the lower resolutions, the GeForce 256 SDR tends to take the performance lead as the resolutions and 3D features are increased. The Quake 3 MAX benchmarks illustrate this perfectly; and as we progress from Demo001 to Quaver timedemos, we see the SDR taking the lead in more and more of the tested resolutions. This is not a knock on the GeForce2 MX, but it does demonstrate that the quad-pipelines of the slower GeForce 256 can, in many instances, outperform the higher clocked, dual-pipeline GeForce2 MX.
3D Prophet II MX Overclocking
Overclocking the 3D Prophet II MX is easily done using either the included Hercules drivers or the 6.18 NVIDIA reference drivers. Under the Additional Properties section, there is an area to adjust Hardware Options, including both clock and memory speeds. Please keep in mind that the overclocking results detailed below were achieved with our retail card, and the data should not be extrapolated to mean that other cards will exhibit similar results.
There are a few things to keep in mind when overclocking the 3D Prophet II MX. The first is that the GeForce2 MX chip itself is only cooled by a basic heatsink, and while it does not get overly hot on standard settings, this can become an issue when overclocking. Second, the SDRAM is 5.5 ns, and it is already clocked at it rated specification of 183MHz. And unlike the Hercules 3D Prophet II GTS, the 3D Prophet II MX does not have any fancy bells and whistles such as heatsinks on each of the memory chips. Any further memory speed increases over the default 183MHz should be taken slowly and you should not expect to hit extremely high levels.
In our overclock testing, the first thing to determine was the actual core limit of the GeForce II MX chip. Since it is based on the same technology, why not just try it at the same 200MHz frequency of the GeForce2 GTS? That was the first step, and although the chip itself was more than up to the task, the default cooling was not. Heat buildup is a definite problem with extreme overclocking and we would recommend adding a cooling fan to the 3D Prophet 2 MX if ultra-high clock speeds are your goal.
Although the 200MHz overclock was very stable, the heat levels were starting to get a bit worrisome. The fastest speed we could attain with a reasonable comfort level was 195MHz, though with an additional cooling fan, 200MHz or higher would be a very realistic overclock. As expected, the memory speeds were a bit more finicky and while 190MHz was achieved without any issues, moving much higher for long periods of time caused texture problems in games, and even some hard locks. After some experimentation, the highest stable memory speed was determined to be 192MHz.
We have also included several Re-Volt and Quake III Arena benchmarks comparing the default 175/183 3D Prophet 2 MX to the 195/192 overclocked board. As you can see from the scores, most of the larger framerate increases happen at the higher resolutions, particularly 1024x768 and 1280x1024.
3D Prophet II MX FSB Overclocking
Previous GeForce products are well known for their ability to handle the high AGP speeds that can occur during CPU overclocking. Examples of this would be running a 66MHz CPU on the 75 or 83MHz FSB, or a 100MHz CPU on the 120-133 FSB. Of course the choice of motherboard has a lot to do with the resulting AGP bus speeds, and the Intel BX is probably the biggest offender. While newer chipsets like the VIA Apollo Pro 133A and Intel 815E support a 1/2 AGP divider that solves the 133MHz FSB problem, the BX does not. The Intel BX is still one of the top choices for performance and overclocking, but the high AGP speeds can really put a strain on the AGP 3D card.
To test the stability of the 3D Prophet II MX on overclocked bus speeds, we have used the MSI BXMaster motherboard, as well as the Celeron 566 and Pentium III 550E as test CPUs. The Celeron 566 has been tested at 75MHz (75MHz AGP), 83MHz (83MHz AGP) and at 90MHz using the 1/1 AGP divider (90MHz AGP). The Pentium III 550E has been overclocked to the 133MHz FSB, which results in an 89MHz AGP speed on the BX motherboard. These quoted AGP speeds were set using the soft BIOS setup and confirmed using SiSoft SANDRA.
Throughout the overclocked FSB testing, the 3D Prophet II MX performed like a champ. We tested stability using repeated Quake III Arena timedemos, Unreal Tournament flybys and Re-Volt tests. Special attention was placed on the Celeron 600@810 (90MHz AGP) testing and the system was used for extended periods of actual 3D gameplay with no adverse effects. Overall, the 3D Prophet II MX is yet another NVIDIA card that seems to thrive on the overclocked AGP bus.
Value
In terms of NVIDIA GeForce2 MX video cards, the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX is one of the most inexpensive models you can buy. It checks in at approximately $116 USD, and only the OEM VisionTek ($110) and 16 MB ASUS V7100 Pure ($105) are lower priced. The standard Leadtek Winfast GeForce2 MX is approximately the same price as the 3D Prophet II MX GeForce, but prices get a bit higher when we move past these models. There seems to be a wide range with pricing of some GeForce2 MX cards, and the ASUS V7100 32 MB board checks in at $139, the ELSA Gladiac MX at $150 and MSI StarForce 816 at $120.
As far as comparison pricing against the NVIDIA GeForce 256 SDR and DDR boards, the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX is definitely the value leader. GeForce 256 DDR cards such as the Creative Labs 3D Blaster Annihilator Pro, ELSA Erazor X2 and the 3D Prophet DDR are priced anywhere from $185 to $200 US. The GeForce 256 SDR cards are not much more competitive, as the ELSA Erazor X, Creative Labs 3D Blaster Annihilator and most other name brand SDR boards are priced from $145 to $160 US. Only the $130 MSI MSI Starforce GF 256 even comes close to matching the retail pricing of the 3D Prophet II MX.
Overall, the 3D Prophet II MX represents one of the best 3D video price/performance ratios yet. Although the 3D Prophet II MX' dual-pipeline architecture and SDR memory cause it to lag behind other higher-priced NVIDIA cards, its low price tag and more-than adequate performance make it a definite winner in the value department. The GeForce2 GTS and Ultra boards are still going to be the choice of the performance crowd, and if you currently own any GeForce board, it is not likely that a GeForce2 MX card will be a worthwhile upgrade. If your current 3D card is a bit lower on the totem pole, then the 3D Prophet II MX offers GeForce 256 performance levels at a much lower price.
Conclusion
With the 3D Prophet II MX, Hercules has clearly produced an excellent video card for both the performance and value markets. With this board, gamers on a budget will no longer have to suffer with low framerates again. Performance gamers who might want to save a few bucks should also give the 3D Prophet II MX a look, and it would make an absolute killer card for an inexpensive second home system or network gaming PC. NVIDIA also deserves kudos for their GeForce2 MX chip. Never before have we seen a product that performs so well at such a low comparative price point. The landscape for budget 3D video cards has just shifted, and with the 3D Prophet II MX, Hercules certainly has a prime contender in this market.
Highs
Incredible price/performance ratio
Excellent feature set
High-end clock and memory rate
Lows
No frills 3D card
Memory bandwidth limitations
No software extras
Vince Freeman
Editor
--------------------------------------------------
ChukE ( http://www.cultdeadcow.com )
