GeForce3 Ti200 -vs- GeForce4 MX440

WOFTG,

If your plans are for DX8 games, the Ti is optimized better for it than the MX. If you're into Open GL games, the difference is very slim. Look at this benchmark on "Jedi Knight" for both cards & you'll see the difference is 0.7FPS : http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgacharts-04.html

[Look at that 460MX, better than a Ti500! ]

I'd opt for the Ti so that you have good graphics/FPS on either DX8 or Open GL.

Hope this helps,

The GF4 MX line is a sad and pathetic excuse for a video card

Click to expand...

Although im not too keen on them myself i would have to disagree with that! You can get one for about half the price of a GF3, and so they are aimed at budget consumers, and for the price they do a very good job

They're barely better than the GF2 MX line.

Click to expand...

Again i would disagree, a 200% increase in 3DMark score is not exactly barely better! And that would give a decent performance in all games + what games are out, and people are interested in, that use programmable pixel shaders?
200% Increase In 3DMark

So yes i would go for the GF3 Ti.200, but dont make the GF4 MX sound so utterlly rubbish!:dead:

Cucumber

The MX line has always been "budget" minded. What do you expect?

Search Feature is Your Friend

Click to expand...

Audio and Video > The GeForce4 Family
http://www.3dspotlight.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=945

Cucumber...

I said the GF4 MX line was a pathetic excuse for a video card because it's performs sooo bad for a brand new card. I know it's budget minded and everything but it SHOULD perform than the GF3 Ti200, at least It shouldn't be too much to ask, right?
Hardware wise it's not much better than the GF2 MX. Not performance wise

To me the GF4 MXes are totally rubbish...I would never buy one of them.

Cucumber,

Glad to see I'm not alone in understanding the intent of nVidia in making the MX cards. I agree with your post wholeheartedly! :grinthumb


Vehementi,

The 460MX DOES outperform the Ti200 & the Ti500 on certain games. Click on the link I provided & see. Of course the MX it isn't as good for DX8 games, but it isn't intended to be. It's intended for ppl that don't want/need the fastest/best & those that can't afford the fastest/best.

I'm grateful nVidia is trying to appeal to all consumers & not just making the Ti series of cards.

Have a good one all,

Originally posted by Cucumber

Although im not too keen on them myself i would have to disagree with that! You can get one for about half the price of a GF3, and so they are aimed at budget consumers, and for the price they do a very good job

Click to expand...

The GeForce 4 440MX isn't exactly half the price of a GeForce 3 TI200 which is what is in question here. I just looked at www.pricewatch.com and the GeForce 3 TI200 is only about 30 bucks more expensive if that in some cases. I agree that the MX series is targeted towards the budget consumer, but most of the people that come asking about this stuff want the best performance out of their system and that will be achieved by getting the GeForce 3 TI200 instead of the GeForce 4 MX card.

If the guy has the choice of which card for the same price, then the GeForce 3 TI200 is clearly the way to go in all our opinions.

Nvidia deserves the bashing simply because of the change in nomenclature makes no sense. The simple fact that a supposed "newer" Geforce 4 should be faster than the "older" Geforce3. It's quite confusing to folks who don't live and breath this stuff that in this case, the Geforce3 is faster. It simply should not be named a Geforce4. If they had named it something else, folks would not be bashing that card like they have been.
Just my .00000001

The GeForce 4 MX (well 460 anyway) will be faster than the GeForce 3 in current(ish) or older games that don't use DirectX 8 features. For games that do the GeForce 3 will prove faster & better looking.

To be honest with you, I could not care less.

My Geforce 2 Ultra 64 plays all the games I want to play. Maybe I can't run it at the resolutions some of you are... Big deal... Do you enjoy playing the game is the real question???


I am one of these people who is in big favour of turning off advanced effects to get a kick *** frame rate.....

...But unlike some of you, I am not into doing scientific tests on that frame rate.....

I will keep my maths to working out what the subnet mask should be, and what that ASCII is in binary thanks....

....My test is, "Is this game cool to play???"

And there is your answer.

Phantasm66 you have a way with the words. I swear you could be a 13 year old kid for all I know (although I seriously doubt it ). Still the way you word things puts down exactly everything I want to say, but don't know how to say it. I'm just like you, I have a GeForce 2 Pro and it plays my games just fine. I don't need 160 FPS in Quake III as opposed to 60 FPS with a "subpar" card, like anyone can tell the difference past about 60-70 anyway.

Anyway, enough rambling from me. I just wanted Phantasm66 to know I appreciate his vast knowledge and look forward to learning more from him and the rest of our members.

That's a really cool thing you have said.

Its my hope that all bright minds here join into one and help eachother out.....