[n0estoy]

I've got both, and don't know which to put into the second computer... :eyes:

 

[Adair]

I always thought the TNT2 64 had 64Mb, but I guess that doesn't make sense because my TNT2 ultra has 32Mb.
I guess my vote is for the TNT2, but I have no idea what the other card is like so I'm not really voting.

 

[bobotns]

The ATi rage 128 GL is comparable with the TNT1-Cards.
TNT2-Cards are better anyway

 

[Pizza_maker]

My brother had an ATI rage card in his computer.
It sucks, don't even think about it.

TNT-2 is pretty good though (if ye haven't got any better )

 

[Guest]

The TNT2 M64 is severely bandwidth-limited, worse than a vanillla TNT2, or a TNT2 Ultra.

It's performance is still better than the Rage, however.

 

[n0estoy]

thanks for the responses guys. the tnt2 m64 was the one i put in, but i just wanted to be sure. thanx again.

 

[mr2000jp]

if you want my opinion the ati rage 128 is a 128 bit card (processor is 128 bits of band width but the tnt2 is 64 bit width so i think that the ati must be more powerful than the tnt2 at least a little bit .

 

[campaign2016]

i have the ati rage 128 but with 32 Mb of ram
It runs just fine although if i had the money, i would have gotten a geforce2 or some other high end card.

I have never seen a tnt2 64 running so i have no comparison

although since you have both, the best way to find out is to test them both and see wich one runs better

 

[SimonMallion]

Why dont you benchmark your system with both cards (one at a time) with 3dMark2000? This will give you a performance benchmark and you can also see the picture quality of each as compared to a reference image.

 

[Xenomorph]

Yeah that's a good idea... try using Matrox-G100 (4Mb) with the 2000 version...
aaaah! nice transpatterny! nice speed! AAAAARRRRGGHH!

 

[n0estoy]

good idea, i think i'll try it out.