Geforce 2 differences v GF4 MX

[moosey]

Whats the difference between the GF2 ULTRA, TI, PRO, and GTS-V ? Which is better, more recently released?
AND
how do these relate to the GF4 MX line?

 

[Looney1a]

The GF2 are all the same except in clock speeds. The ultra is the fastest, ti, pro then GTS. The GTS was the first to hit the market, then the ultra, pro, ti. The GF4 MX line is just a remake of the GF2. They are much the same, don't really support any new features and don't really go any faster. If your look for a budget card your better off going with the ati radeon 8500 series or the 9000. They go faster and support technology which will be needed in the future.

But if you MUST go nVidia i guess a GF4 MX 440 or 460 can run most of TODAY'S games, don't know about the future though.

Hope this helps.

Looney

 

[moosey]

whats the gts-V, and are the GF4 MX really much faster than the old GF2 (especially the GF2 ULTRA and TI)?

 

[Rand]

The GF4 MX s based on the GF2 core architecture.
At heart it's essentially a GF2 with half the pixel rendering pipelines, it does however posess the memory subsystem of the GF3, and the Quincunx iantialiasing implementation of the GF4.
It also has a MUCH better DVD playback implementation then any other nVidia graphics card, including the high end GF4 Ti4600.

The GF2 GTS, GTS-V, Ti, Ti-VX, Pro and Ultra differ only in clockspeed.

GTS-V 175/286.
GTS: 200/333
Ti-VX: 250/366
Pro: 200/400
Ti: 250/400
Ultra: 250/460

As for performance, the MX420 is a touch slower then the GF2 GTS, and incrementally faster then the GTS-V.
The GF4 MX440 offers performance very slightly faster then the GF2 Ultra.
The GF4 MX460 is solidly faster then the Ultra or MX440.
The GF4 MX440 is also available in AGP 8X capable versions, the AGP 8X version is clocked higher then the reg. MX440 and hence performs better but not as well as the MX460.

This is only in general however, there are occasional exceptions in which the MX420 can offer GF2 Ti performance levels whereas there are other areas in which the GF2 Pro can outperform the GF4 MX460. It all depends upon the individual requirements of the application being run, but the above should give you a basic idea of the usual performance.

 

[Tequila]

There's lots of good articles at anandtech.com about the architectural differences. Here's also an interesting link with most of the GF 2/3/4 cards and their performance with the new generation games like UT2003: GPU Showdown

I would avoid all the GF2s and MX vareity considering they aren't much cheaper than a Radeon 8500 or even a GF3 Ti200 nowadays.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Yeah if you're in the market for a card in that price segment Rad9000 is by far the best bet. Rad9000 should be about 20% slower than Rad9000PRO but it should o/c very well. Rad9000PRO is nearly always slower than Rad8500LE which in turn is 10% slower than Rad8500. All Rad8500/9000 cards offer full DX8 hw which is well worth having as well as much better perf than GF2 or GF4MX cards.

In terms of where the GF3 cards slot in, GF3TI200 is way down at defaults but o/c's to about GF3TI500 speeds and that's why they're so popular. GF3TI200 at deafult tends to be a tad slower than Rad8500LE while Rad8500 usually falls just behind GF3TI500, the perf of all these cards are very close and ALL support full DX8 hw unlike the GF2, GF4MX and Rad7500 which are all DX7 card technology from a few years ago.

Regarding things other than raw perf, GF3 cards only advantage is possessing good AA, Rad8500/9000 cards are hugely better with image quality, TVout, dual display (depending upon manu) and DVD playback. This is why nVidia revised GF3 technology with the GF4TI cards which enhanced 3D perf, AA, image quality, dual display and ability to really take advantage of the fastest CPUs. In terms of o/c'ing each model GF4TI tend to o/c to the level of the one above it, 4200=4400, 4400=4600 but 4600 being the top tends just gets +5%.

nVidia brought in the GF4MX cards for much the same reasons as the GF4TI cards, to fill in the gaps where Radeons hurt them the most. GF4MX cards are all essentially enhanced but largely unchanged technology (ie DX7). The enhancements are significant as they really improve 3D perf, image quality, TVout, dual display and DVD playback but you're still getting technology from a couple of years ago. 3D perf is still way slower than GF3TI200, Rand covered the GF2 and GF4MX cards' perf so check out that ... but really the Rad9000 is the lowest card you should consider with the Rad8500, 8500LE, 9000PRO all costing little more and really being where you should aim. GF3 cards are fine alternatives esp if priced lower and you do gain AA but at the expense of the things outlined above.

EDIT:

Toms VGA Charts

Tech-Report Rad9000PRO

AnAndTech Rad9000PRO

X-Bit Labs GF4MX cards (Note: Rad7500 is SDR rather than the usual DDR)