00M-187 Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 From what I understand you only need the TI if you are doing like 3d rendering and stuff, for gaming any Gforce4 should do right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 GF 4 MX is slower than GF 3 Ti. Get a GF 4 Ti. Look it up at: http://www.anandtech.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00M-187 Posted September 20, 2002 Author Share Posted September 20, 2002 I know a 3 is slower then a 4 I was refering to does it matter if you have a GF4ti vs GF4MX for gaming purposes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 If it is just games you want the card for, I would go all out and get the TI...I just got an MX for my 2.5 ghz comp, and it works fine with games and good with video capture programs. If it's only games you want it for, Ti is your best deal, even if it is a lot, but the MX is great all round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 That's not what I said. I said a GF 4 MX is slower than a GF 3 Ti. Get a GF 4 Ti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Look at the benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=7 http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8 The GF 4 MX sucks for gaming. At 800x600 it's even slower than GF 3. The GF 4 Ti is the fastest of the Geforces. The GF 4 MX has a lot of limitations: http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=geforce4 The GF 4 Ti has nfiniteFX II: http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=feature_nfinitefxii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Also: "The GeForce4 MX 460 is tied with the GeForce3 Ti 200, which perfectly echoes Carmack's statements that the GeForce3 or Radeon 8500 will be better performers than the GeForce4 MX for Doom 3; the same is definitely true for Unreal Tournament 2003." http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=8 Be sure to read their final words: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00M-187 Posted September 20, 2002 Author Share Posted September 20, 2002 Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Antalus) 1280x1024 High Detail Settings NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600 (128MB) NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400 (128MB) NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 (64MB) -(WHY IS THIS ONE BETTER???, less ram???????????????????? NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 (128MB) (youd think this one would be better) ATI Radeon 8500 (128MB) ATI Radeon 8500 (64MB) NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500 (64MB) Matrox Parhelia (128MB) ATI Radeon 8500LE (128MB) NVIDIA GeForce3 (64MB) NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 460 (64MB) NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200 (64MB) ATI Radeon 7500 (64MB) NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440 (64MB) ST Micro Kyro II (64MB) NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra (64MB) NVIDIA GeForce2 Pro (64MB) NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 400 (32MB) NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 200 (32MB) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 First of all Absurd, I have a GF4 MX 420, and it doesn't suck with games...if you haven't seen it run yourself then don't make assumptions like that...plus if you're on a low budget the MX may be your only option...but go with Ti for games. btw Absurd...triple post??? tut tut... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Originally posted by 00M-187 NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 (64MB) -(WHY IS THIS ONE BETTER???, less ram???????????????????? NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 (128MB) (youd think this one would be better) Actually,the reason why the 64mb one is better is becuase it used DDR memory instead of the 128,whihc makes it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Originally posted by Darklighter First of all Absurd, I have a GF4 MX 420, and it doesn't suck with games...if you haven't seen it run yourself then don't make assumptions like that...plus if you're on a low budget the MX may be your only option...but go with Ti for games. i agree with my man darky, i have a gf4 mx 440 and it doesn't suck, far from it. i run JO on the higestest settings and it runs seamlessly. for value, you can't go wrong with a mx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Originally posted by SivyB i agree with my man darky, i have a gf4 mx 440 and it doesn't suck, far from it. i run JO on the higestest settings and it runs seamlessly. for value, you can't go wrong with a mx. Exactly, thank you Sivy:)the GF4 MX cards are great for games...it's not worth going all out and buying a $300+ card if it's just for games...come on, at the low price it is the MX is good enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 the gf4 MX cards are an extension of the GF2 line, while the GF4 Ti's are and extension of the GF3 line. im not saying that the GF4 MX sucks, it just that the deal may not be as sweet asyou think. im pretty sure that the GF4mx's dont support DX 8.1... i would have to say the best bet for value is the GF4 Ti 4200... benchmarks reflect this too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Originally posted by acdcfanbill im pretty sure that the GF4mx's dont support DX 8.1 mine does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 well, partial support they have, but the GF3 Ti's have full DX 8.x support... Still, none of the GeForce4 MX cards has full DirectX 8.x support, because of its lack of vertex and pixel shaders. This weighs heavily when you remember the lowest priced offering out of the GeForce4 Ti bunch of cards. It's only $20 more than GeForce4 MX460. from tomshardware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reb Starblazer Posted September 20, 2002 Share Posted September 20, 2002 Well, I hear that the G4 mx's aren't as bad as everyone says they are. Sure, they aren't as good as the Ti's, but that doesn't mean that they suck. I'm looking at a site right now, comparing prices. Chaintech Geforce IV MX440 64mb w/TV Out AGP Price 145 LeadTek WinFast MX440 NVIDIA GeforceIV 440 64mb DDR w/TV Out AGP Retail Box Price 155 Chaintech Geforce IV Titanium 4200 128mb w/TV Out Retail Box Price 299 LeadTek WinFast A250 NVIDIA GeforceIV Ti4400 128mb DDR w/TV Out AGP Retail Box Price 444 LeadTek WinFast A250U NVIDIA Geforce IV Ti4600 128mb DDR w/TV Out AGP Retail Box Price 540 Looking at the prices compared to what I get for the price, I'd definitely lean towards an MX, more than a Ti. If I did get a Ti at all, it'd be the 4200, but then again, by the time I'm actually going to get a new video card, Ti's will probably(read: hopefully) have dropped in price considerably. Right now, my GeForce 2 mx 400 works perfect, I haven't come across a game I want to play, that I'm unable to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.