GeForce Question


Recommended Posts

just a little ;)

you would probably notice a huge difference. With an MX the TnL engine is offloaded to the CPU, so in turn makes the cpu work harder on things it shouldn't. Wait for the geforce 4 4200. That may be a better buy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, if you have a 500 Celeron you won't see much diffrence at all, especially if you use resolutions of 1024x768 or less, but if you have a fast cpu and use higher resolutions you'll see some diffrence yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, that's hard to say, depends on your resolution. Of course, higher resolution you will see much definite difference.

Maybe you should surf around the web and look at benchmark results, etc. That'll give you better idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now here me: geforce 4 mx is a crap....better buy a geforce 3 ti, it's way better and almost the same price.

the geforce 4 mx isn' actually so much of a geforce 4, it's way different than the geforce 4 4200

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by nomis_nehc  

mariusu: Which version of the MX do you have? I thought the highest one is suppose to be comparble to a GF3, if not surpasses it in some aspects.

i don't have a geforce 4 at the moment, but i was looking forward buying a new graphics card next days, so i checked the benchmarks and articles and technical specs from some sites (also nvidias). the problem is that the geforce 4 mx isn't actually the "little" brother of the geforce 4. they don't have the same chip on it. and the the t&l engine is, as far as i understood that not so performant as a engine from a geforce 4 or even geforce 3 ti. also, the pixel shader are not so easy to configure and not so good (that'S for the developers) so that you, as a user will notice a difference between the power of the cards.

finally it's your decision what you're buying:D

now, the highest on of the geforce 4 mx is sure comparable to a geforce 3 ti....but i think it's also a bit pricy...for a mx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to your post: GF4 lacks pixel and vertex shader, which dramatically improves today's games in performance. As for T&L and other techniques, well, actually, it is better than the GF3. As far as I see it, GF4 MX loses to GF3 in some parts is because of the stated above: no pixel or vertex shader. And if I am not wrong, the highest end of GF4 MX is still less than $200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D I thought I knew my stuff. You had me scared, I thought I am not a nerd no more. (Jus kidding, hehe)

Anyways, I would think that GF4 MX is a good solution with people that's still using the GF2 MX or below, but people that's already using Geforce 2 GTS or above, upgrade to a Geforce 4 Ti [don't have to be the 4600, 4400 will do ;)] will be a smarter idea.

Personally I am saving to get a Geforce 4 Ti 4400. I am sure [more like I wish] I can clock the 4400 to a 4600, haha. :cheeky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what would you say: i'm still using a geforce 2 mx 400 and want to upgrade soon. should i get a geforce 4 mx 460 from gainward for 220? or stick with a geforce 4 mx 440 for 180?. or just make it and buy a geforce 3 ti 200 for 250?. since i saw you know your job i was wondering what would you advise me...pesronally, i was thinkin to choose between the geforce 4 mx 460 and geforce 3 ti 200

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[saint dark]: What is your system specs? Tho a MX, at 1024 and 16bits, it is still impressive if you are getting 80+ FPS.

In some games you won't really notice the difference between 16bits or 32bits. It really depends on the... err, engine of the game I guess. For example, in Quake III, the sky looks like sh1t if you are using 16bits. That is the same with a couple shooters out there. ('Cause they are using Quake 3's engine, hehe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not going to notice a huge diffrence, like I said before, your cpu is the bottleneck. You'd get a better deal if you went out and got a new motherboard and an AthlonXP.

Here are some 3dMark 2001 Stats:

A Celeron 766 with a GeForce 3 TI 200 @ 1024x768 32 gets a 4226

An Athlon XP 1500 with a GeForce 2MX 400 @ 1024x768 32 gets a 4263

As you can see the Athlon wins, not by much but it wins. Overall however your entire system will be faster, disk performance, games, etc.

Now a setup like that with a GeForce 3 TI 200 gets a 9717.

Just some numbers for you to toss around in your head, good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by nomis_nehc  

For example, in Quake III, the sky looks like sh1t if you are using 16bits.

And if you bother to look up at the sky while playing Q3 it's your ass, so who cares ?

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.