It's a shame that over at MadOnion, there are so many cheaters claiming high scores in 3DMark2000. It makes you think whether the results you see are accurate.

3DMark2000

3DMark2001

Again, the MX is last, but that's expected. Overclocking brings it close to GeForce2 GTS speeds!

Here is Vulpine's GLMark, it's a synthetic like the 2 3DMark's, but this is for OpenGL.

Asus V7700 Deluxe GeForce2 GTS	MSI StarForce 822 GeForce3	PixelView GeForce2 MX	PixelView GeForce2 MX (oc'ed)
43.2 fps	79.2 fps	27.7 fps	31.2 fps

GLMark isn't as kind to the MX400 as the 3DMark's. Here, the MX400 trails by quite a bit and even when it's overclocked it doesn't seem to help much.

Enough with the synthetics, let's take a look at some real world games. Next up is Serious Sam

Serious Sam

	Asus V7700 Deluxe GeForce2 GTS	MSI StarForce 822 GeForce3	PixelView GeForce2 MX	PixelView GeForce2 MX (oc'ed)
Normal 640x480 Suburbs Demo	160.2 fps	167 fps	102.1 fps	110.3 fps
Normal 640x480 Dunes Demo	187.7 fps	210.8 fps	127.4 fps	132.1 fps

Serious Sam backs up with earlier benchmarks says. Let's turn up the resolution a bit and see how things fair...

	Asus V7700 Deluxe GeForce2 GTS	MSI StarForce 822 GeForce3	PixelView GeForce2 MX	PixelView GeForce2 MX (oc'ed)
Quality 800x600 Dunes Demo	107.5 fps	157.9 fps	74.2 fps	79.6 fps
Quality 800x600 Suburbs Demo	87.5 fps	123.7 fps	54.2 fps	61.7 fps
Quality 1024x768 Dunes Demo	79 fps	141.2 fps	49.1 fps	54.2 fps
Quality 1024x768 Suburbs Demo	59 fps	97.1 fps	36.1 fps	42.7 fps

That's as far as I'm willing to push the MX. Any settings higher and all we'd accomplish is to embarrass it.

Let's get some Quake III action!

	Asus V7700 Deluxe GeForce2 GTS	MSI StarForce 822 GeForce3	PixelView GeForce2 MX	PixelView GeForce2 MX (oc'ed)
Fastest demo001	287.4 fps	303.9 fps	286.4 fps	286.7 fps
Fastest nv15demo	85.7 fps	90.7 fps	87.6 fps	86.9 fps

All CPU limted here. Let's crank up the resolution...

Obviously the MX is dead last, but by quite a margin too! Unfortunately the MX just doesn't have enough horsepower to keep up with the big boys.

Next up it's Return to Castle Wolfenstein which is based on the Quake III engine, so the results should be similar.

	Asus V7700 Deluxe GeForce2 GTS	MSI StarForce 822 GeForce3	PixelView GeForce2 MX	PixelView GeForce2 MX (oc'ed)
MAX 640x480 atdemo6	60.7 fps	63.9 fps	58.4 fps	59.6 fps
MAX 640x480 atdemo8	161.2 fps	175.3 fps	140.8 fps	152.7 fps

As we can see, the MX card just can't keep up with its' more powerful brothers. The MX performs like... well, an MX card should. It's not that bad, it can play any game at 800x600-32bit no problem, however it just doesn't have the power to compete with more powerful (and expensive) cards like the GTS and GF3. Even when it's overclocked, it's no where close to being as fast as the GTS. Still, it does have it's appeal, which is mainly the dual display capabilities.

Even the closest competitor, ATI's RadeonVE is quite a bit more expensive then Prolink's PixelView GeForce2 MX. If Prolink would also package a DVI to analog converter, things would be even better for the PixelView MX Twin.

If you're a gamer then you already know you should be staying away from the MX lineup. They are not well positioned to play most of today's high-end games, and I'd hate to see how they fair with tomorrow's! For non-gamers looking around in the value market for a decent video card the Pixelview does offer the dual display features many might find attractive, especially if you want to transition to a DVI-based flat screen display.