Geforce 2 Ti 64mb vs. Geforce4 MX440 64mb

[mricks86]

Hey all,
I have a Geforce 2 Ti 64mb and was looking at picking up a Geforce4 MX440 64mb but was wondering if I am really going to see any definitive increase in performance? I believe I currently have DDR Ram and the Geforce4 would be SDR. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[LucJoe]

No way, upgrading that would give you little or NO performance gain. In general, all MX cards are no good, but don't take my word on it, look at the benchmarks.

 

[EdipisReks]

there is absolutely no reason to go from a geforce2 ti to a geforce4 mx.

 

[nick1985]

i would disagree. go to that tomshardware link above. a gefroce mx isnt a huge pile of crap like everyone thinks. sure its not very good, but for 50-60(newegg) you can get a card VERY much better than the geforce 2 40-50(newegg)

 

[Mingon]

the 2 card are effectively the same except for the mx440 has the geforce 3/4 hsr technology and the lma memory architecture. Not a very worthwhile upgrade - a little moe on a ti4200 would make a big difference

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: LucJoe
No way, upgrading that would give you little or NO performance gain. In general, all MX cards are no good, but don't take my word on it, look at the benchmarks.

LOL, I guess it's all how you read it. I'm not sticking up for the Geforce4 MX, I just find it funny that people post links to the most convienent graphs to prove their point. I guess that makes sense, but it leave out much of the picture.

In most benchmarks (including the other three in the article linked to above), the GF4MX is about 5-30% faster than the GF2 Ti 500. In addition, the GF4MX core offers nView and improved AA (which probably won't be utilized based on performance, but it's there).

So to sum up... yes, of course, if you have a GF2 there isn't much reason to buy a GF4MX. Look into GF4 4200 or ATI Radeon 8500LE for reasonably priced upgrades.

If you are looking to buy a card for $50ish the GF4 MX is a viable option.

 

[EdipisReks]

why can't people just answer the question asked? the man has a geforce2 ti. there is no reason to go from a geforce2 ti to a geforce4 mx. that doesn't mean that the geforce4mx isn't a worthwhile card on its own, it simply means that there is no reason to go from a geforce2 ti to a geforce4 mx. better options than the geforce4mx are available for similar amounts of money, if he definitely wants to switch to a new card. the question of whether the geforce4mx was a worthwhile card at all was never asked, yet people answered it anyway. people need to stop proselytizing.

 

[Mingon]

thought i did

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
why can't people just answer the question asked? the man has a geforce2 ti. there is no reason to go from a geforce2 ti to a geforce4 mx. that doesn't mean that the geforce4mx isn't a worthwhile card on its own, it simply means that there is no reason to go from a geforce2 ti to a geforce4 mx. better options than the geforce4mx are available for similar amounts of money, if he definitely wants to switch to a new card. the question of whether the geforce4mx was a worthwhile card at all was never asked, yet people answered it anyway. people need to stop proselytizing.

LOL, who pee'd in yer cheerio's?

Of the 5 people who responded, 4 of us clearly said that it's not a worthwhile upgrade. You want we should make a billboard or something?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You'd be better off going with a GF3 or Radeon 8500 or 9000. None of those cost much more than a GF4MX and all have much better performance.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Mingon
thought i did

it wasn't aimed at you. i was just pissed off for some reason.

 

[Mingon]

Not to worry, I get the same way. sometimes.

 

[glugglug]

Your GeForce 2 Ti can cache some textures in the GPU itself, while a GF4 MX cannot. This results in a HUGE performance disadvantage for the MX particularly when large textures or transparency is used it seems (nView). I would say GF2 Ti -> GF4 MX is a downgrade

 

[Mingon]

Your GeForce 2 Ti can cache some textures in the GPU itself, while a GF4 MX cannot. This results in a HUGE performance disadvantage for the MX particularly when large textures or transparency is used it seems (nView). I would say GF2 Ti -> GF4 MX is a downgrade

Really are you sure digit-life monthly digest say otherwise - my personal experience says otherwise as well - I have a 440mx pci which is giving me the same performance as my old gts ultra

 

[TheCorm]

Take a look at the specs:

Fill Rate

GF2TI = 1 Billion Texels/Second
GF4MX440 = 1.1 Billion Texels/Second

Memory Bandwith

GF2TI = 6.4GB/s
GF4MX440 = 6.4GB/Sec.

Triangles Per Second

GF2TI = 31 Million
GF4MX440 = 34 Million

So there isn't much in it, I noticed a marginal performence difference when going from my GF2 GTS to the MX440 but I think your performence would hardly change at all, like others have said.

The old MX rant can be a bit annoying....it's like someone moaning on that their McDonalds burger is not the same quality as Prime Fillet steak.....it is what it is, a value card....and considering that the GF4 MX440 can outperform the once king of the hill GTS....I'm not complaining.

Corm

 

[Jeff7]

You can probably pick up a Geforce4 Ti4200 on the FS forum for around $100. You'll definitely notice an increase.

 

[Derick]

The GF4 MX440 is a bit faster overall, but not enough to make it a worth while up grade. The Radeon 9000 is atleast on par and faster in a lot of things (sometimes a whole lot faster) and has the benefit of DirectX 8. But if you really want a worth while upgrade then I would go with the Radeon 8500LE. It is a bit more money, but it would be worth it.