Advantage of GF4Ti over GF4MX in UT2003 ?

[galt]

The only (relavant) difference between the two cards is the missing NFiniteFXII engine on the MD card. So theoretically, a game that doesn't use pixel/vertex shaders should see no big difference when running on the two cards. Now, does UT2k3 use such technology? And if it does, how big is the performance gain??

Specifics: Talking about Geforce4 Ti 4200 and Geforce4 MX 440 64MB

 

[Lonyo]

?!?!?!?!?

Monster performance gain.

Your "only missing NFiniteFXII" engine thing is a load of bullcrap.
The MX series of cards is horrible, and the Ti will probably be something like twice as fast.

Don't touch the freaking MX, ever.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Well, you could always look at this TomsHardware chart to see that the ti4200 is twice the speed of the mx440 in UT2k3 at 1024x768 (100 fps vs 50 fps).

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
?!?!?!?!?

Monster performance gain.

Your "only missing NFiniteFXII" engine thing is a load of bullcrap.
The MX series of cards is horrible, and the Ti will probably be something like twice as fast.

Don't touch the freaking MX, ever.

that's blunt, but it's true.. the MX is something like a decked out GeForce2.. it's pretty ghetto.
the Ti series is much better.

 

[Mingon]

the biggest difference is in the pipeline 4x2 vs 2x2 hence the ti4200 has twice the fillrate

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Well, you could always look at this TomsHardware chart to see that the ti4200 is twice the speed of the mx440 in UT2k3 at 1024x768 (100 fps vs 50 fps).

Although that is true for the flyby benchmark (as used in the THG review above) the real game is much more cpu demanding so there is less of a difference between a gf4 mx440 and a gf4 ti4200. To see the real difference you need to run one of the botmatch demos or play the game for real.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: Lonyo
?!?!?!?!?

Monster performance gain.

Your "only missing NFiniteFXII" engine thing is a load of bullcrap.
The MX series of cards is horrible, and the Ti will probably be something like twice as fast.

Don't touch the freaking MX, ever.

that's blunt, but it's true.. the MX is something like a decked out GeForce2.. it's pretty ghetto.
the Ti series is much better.

 

[TheCorm]

Originally posted by: McArra

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: Lonyo
?!?!?!?!?

Monster performance gain.

Your "only missing NFiniteFXII" engine thing is a load of bullcrap.
The MX series of cards is horrible, and the Ti will probably be something like twice as fast.

Don't touch the freaking MX, ever.

that's blunt, but it's true.. the MX is something like a decked out GeForce2.. it's pretty ghetto.
the Ti series is much better.

Hardcore Gamer:

GF4 MX = Crap
GF4 Ti = Good

Realistic Average PC User

GF4 MX = Good
GF4 Ti = Superb

 

[AnarchyInTheUS]

I would rather have a GeForce 3 Ti rather than a GeForce 4 MX.

 

[Vernor]

Hardcore Gamer:

GF4 MX = Crap
GF4 Ti = Good

Realistic Average PC User

GF4 MX = Good
GF4 Ti = Superb

I'd agree, except that shaders aren't a novelty anymore, and a card without them is going to seem crippled eventually.

 

[Jeff7181]

Any GeForce card with MX in it's name is a castrated value card. Anyone who has done their research would be completely stupid to buy a $60 GeForce4 MX instead of an $80 GeForce4 Ti4200 64 MB.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

u even do so much as look at a GF 4 MX n i'll burn ur eyes out with acid.

these cards are utter tripe, ok ok i have had one myself, but once i found out what i'd been sold i sold it for 40 quid (which by the way is about 1000% more than its worth) to some unsuspecting idiot. its basically a geforce 2 chip with a few tweaks. the TI 4200 will grant u 10,000 ish 3d mark 2001 point, where as the mx 420 will struggle to crack 5000. oh dear that seems to be a massive performance difference for cards with the same name.

the Ti's are NV25-28 chips the MX's are NV18 which is basically stolen from the old old old gf 2.

why they gave it the abillity to do FSAA and Anisotropic filtering i dont know, these cards simply cant hack it!

 

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by: AnarchyInTheUS
I would rather have a GeForce 3 Ti rather than a GeForce 4 MX.

100% agree.

 

[Tret]

pixel shaders

 

[BFG10K]

The Ti series will slap the MX series around like there's no tomorrow. They have a totally superior memory bandwidth and fillrate.

 

[galt]

Originally posted by: Vernor

Hardcore Gamer:

GF4 MX = Crap
GF4 Ti = Good

Realistic Average PC User

GF4 MX = Good
GF4 Ti = Superb

I'd agree, except that shaders aren't a novelty anymore, and a card without them is going to seem crippled eventually.

Yours seems to be the most eloquent response.

And for the record, I know the differences between a GF4MX and a Ti card. I know about the pipelines, core/mem operating frequency difference, and the missing shaders. I was just curious because theoretically, a game that doesn't use shaders shouldn't see a difference between the two cards (discount the pipeline distinction). I did check the VGA Charts, and the Ti gets about twice the framerate of the MX. And then some more reading revealed that UT2k3 uses shaders. So using that game as an example wasn't a good idea. Thanks though.