Due to the dual pipeline in the MX, it theoretically has half the
power of the GF2 GTS. Though the original GF 256 had a quad-pipeline,
it could only handle one texture per pipeline, per clock. So the MX
with the dual-pipeline that can handle dual textures per pipeline,
per clock, should be an in-expensive way of matching or passing the
original GF 256 SDR. The standard GF2 MX which is clocked at 175MHz
is well behind the High-end 200MHz GF2 GTS or the 250MHz Ultra, which
both have quad-pipeline and dual-textures per pipeline, per clock.
In single texture games the GF256 clocked at 120MHz default, will
be faster than the GF2 MX with 480 megatexels/sec over the 350 megatexels/sec
of the MX. But when it comes to multi-texture games the theoretical
specification and core speeds aim the GF2 MX to be faster than the
GF 256, with 700 megapixels/sec for the MX versus 480 megapixels/sec
for the GF256.
(Megapixels/sec=clock rate* No. Of pipe lines
Megatexels/sec=megapixels/sec*No.
Of textures per pipeline)
Though having 2 pipelines less than the
GTS the rest of the 3D features of the chip are unchanged. But since
the MX is clocked lower than the GTS the T&L engine can only handle
up to 20 million triangles/sec. (GF2 GTS 25 million/sec)
