GeForce 4 MX 460

[Zinan]

Hi all, i am new around here, just wanna ask a simple question.

I am planning to upgrade my Geforce2 MX. Do you know any brands that use the Geforce 4 MX460 chip, it is listed in nVidia's site but i couldnt find any on the market.

 

[Mingon]

Gainward have a nice golden sample version, but in all honesty its not worth the money. Get a ti200/radeon8500le/ti4200 instead much better performers. All your getting is a faster core / lma1 / some hsr features / hardware dvd and more bandwidth.

 

[nemesismk2]

I agree with Mingon, it makes little sense getting a video card which doesn't support hardware pixel/vertex shaders. If your not a heavy gamer and want something cheap then a gf4 mx440 would be a better purchase than a MX460. The MX440 is very cheap and can be easily overclocked to near MX460 speeds, however a more future proof choice would be the suggestions Mingon mentioned.

 

[Goi]

The GeForce4 MX460's market, based on price, is completely eclipsed by the GeForce3 Ti200. Performance and features wise, it completely outclasses and outperforms the GeForce4 MX460(despite being an older product), while costing around the same price. If your budget is that of an MX460, I strongly suggest you consider the GeForce3 Ti200 instead. If you're strapped on cash, then go for the GeForce4 MX440 instead. At its price point, it cannot be beat, but it lacks full DX8 compatibility, so while it may be able to play older games properly, newer and future games won't do that well. Also, while the MX440 core is largely overclockable to and beyond MX460 speeds, the 4ns memory probably won't hack it at 550MHz. I have mine up to a max of 490 before it crapped out and rebooted my system.

 

[AnAndAustin]

As said the GF4MX460 just plain sucks and is just about the worst modern thing you could replace your GF2 card with.

GF4MX cards can't handle DX8 enhanced functions which are becoming very important. GF4TI, GF3, Radeon8500 (inc 8500LE), Matrox P512 and SiS Xabre cards all do DX8 functions and are ALL better purchases than the GF4MX460.

Heck, you should be able to get a GF4TI4200 for near enough the same price as a GF4MX460 and the 4200 blows everything else out of the water! Fantastic perf, great price, excellent image quality, great dual-view ability and great drivers.

I wouldn't be concerned with manu of any cards except to get a true ATI if you choose Radeons as non-ATI cards (eg Hercules) are clocked lower and use cheap RAM. For nVidia cards manu makes no real diff at all, shop by price and features (DVI, VIVO, sw etc).

 

[Goi]

The GF4MX cards aren't the worst cards in nvidia's history, but the MX460's price point makes you wonder what they're thinking about. Its an average of $50 more than the MX440, which puts them in the GF4 Ti4200 and GF3 Ti500 territory, and both cards handily outperform them while providing much more features. Its price also makes it quite a bit more expensive than the GF3 Ti200, ATI Radeon 8500, and Radeon 8500LE, all of which also outperform it while providing more features. If there's 1 nvidia card to stay away from it'll be the MX460(unless you can get it as cheap as the MX440, which would make it a good deal).

The MX440 however, serves its purpose as a bargain basement product. Its less than $100, less than all the above mentioned cards, and plays most of today's games satisfactorily. Its meant to replace the aging GF2MX card, which it does admirably well. Its even faster in most cases than GF2 Ultra cards, which will serve as a reasonable bottom line for video cards.

 

[Mingon]

The mx 440/460 if cheaper enough to make an excellent card if you have a lan gaming system, directx7 based games have excellent performance on these cards.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Goi
The GeForce4 MX460's market, based on price, is completely eclipsed by the GeForce3 Ti200. Performance and features wise, it completely outclasses and outperforms the GeForce4 MX460(despite being an older product), while costing around the same price. If your budget is that of an MX460, I strongly suggest you consider the GeForce3 Ti200 instead. If you're strapped on cash, then go for the GeForce4 MX440 instead. At its price point, it cannot be beat, but it lacks full DX8 compatibility, so while it may be able to play older games properly, newer and future games won't do that well. Also, while the MX440 core is largely overclockable to and beyond MX460 speeds, the 4ns memory probably won't hack it at 550MHz. I have mine up to a max of 490 before it crapped out and rebooted my system.

I suggest a Radeon 8500LE instead of a GF3 Ti200, the 8500LE like the GF4 has better image quality which is obviously really important and anyway the GF3 Ti200 is obsolete rubbish.

 

[spanky]

but in all honesty its not worth the money. Get a ti200/radeon8500le/ti4200 instead

 

[McCarthy]

Ok, I admit, I'm REALLY confused by all these GeForce variations. Heck last night I read a post where someone was saying a GeForce 1 (in some fast variation) was as fast as a GF4MX.

HUH??

Several times have seen GF3ti being better than GF4MX. I guess the integer number (2, 3, 4) with nvidia products is a lot less imporant than the letters after it?

Anyway, anyone have a real nice short listing of all these variations? I'm to the point I'm not even sure what I have anymore, GF2ti I think, which should be faster than a GF6MX when it comes out if I'm understanding this all right. Gack.

--Mc

 

[Goi]

The GF3 Ti200 isn't obsolete rubbish, heck its DX8 compliant, and DX8 is the latest iteration of DX! Its as good as saying an Athlon XP 1500+ is obsolete rubbish...comon, not everyone has megabucks to spend upgrading on hardware components every 3 hours. The GF3 Ti200 will do just fine with most, if not all of today's games. Hell I'm still on a Voodoo3, which at this point is obsolete, but still ain't rubbish
A quick primer on GeForce versions

GeForce256 SDR - the original GeForce(codenamed NV10) that nvidia proclaimed will "change the world". The first consumer card to have T&L support. Core clockspeed 120MHz, memory speed 166MHz. Fillrate of 480GPixels/s
GeForce256 DDR - NV10 with DDR-SDRAM
GeForce2 GTS - 2nd GeForce iteration(codenamed NV15), GTS == GigaTexel Shader. Featured nvidia's NSR(nvidia Shading Rasterizer) and per pixel shader. Core clockspeed 200MHz, memory speed 166MHz DDR. Fillrate of 800MPixels/s or 1.6GTexels/s. Memory bandwidth of 5.3GB/s
GeForce2 Ultra - GeForce2 clocked at 250MHz, memory at 230MHz DDR. Fillrate of 1GPixels/s or 2GTexels/s. Memory bandwidth of 7.36GB/s.
GeForce2 Pro - GeForce2 clocked at 200MHz, memory at 200MHz DDR. Fillrate same as GTS, memory bandwidth at 6.4GB/s.
GeForce2 Ti - Rehashed GeForce2 with a new Ti(titanium) designation. Basically a GeForce2 clocked at 250MHz, memory at 200MHz DDR. Fillrate same as Ultra, memory bandwidth same as Pro.
GeForce2 Ti200 - Exactly the same as the GF2 Ti, AFAIK. I don't know why they came up with both the Ti and the Ti200.
GeForce3 - First GPU to include pixel and vertex shaders(codenamed NV20). Featured nvidia's nfiniteFX? Engine and Lightspeed Memory Architecture(LMA) for full DX8 compatibility. Core clockspeed 200MHz, memory speed 230MHz DDR. Fillrate 3.2Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 7.36GB/s
GeForce3 Ti200 - First GeForce3 with Ti designation.Core clockspeed 175MHz, memory speed 200MHz DDR. Fillrate 2.8Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 6.4GB/s
GeForce3 Ti500 - GeForce3 Ti clocked at 240MHz, memory speed 250MHz DDR. Fillrate 3.84Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 8GB/s
GeForce4 Ti4200 - Latest iteration of the GeForce family(codenamed NV25). Features nfiniteFX? II Engine, Accuview Antialiasing? techniques and LMA II. Includes dual vertex shaders. Core clockspeed 250MHz, memory speed 250MHz. Fillrate 4Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 8GB/s
GeForce4 Ti4400 - GeForce4 clocked at 275MHz, memory speed 275MHz. Fillrate 4.4Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 8.8GB/s.
GeForce4 Ti4600 - GeForce4 clocked at 300MHz, memory speed 325MHz. Fillrate 4.8Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 10.4GB/s.
GeForce2 MX SDR/DDR- First GF2MX iteration(codenamed NV11). Essentially a GF2 with half the pixel pipelines and memory bandwidth. DDR memory implementation was only 64bit. Core clockspeed 175MHz, memory speed 166MHz SDR/DDR. Fillrate of 350Mpixels/s or 700Mtexels/s. Memory bandwidth of 2.7GB/s.
GeForce2 MX200 - An even more crippled GF2 MX with the same core/memory clockspeed, but using 64bit SDR memory, effectively halving its already anemic memory bandwidth to 1.3GB/s
GeForce2 MX400 - A slightly higher clocked GF2 MX. Core clockspeed 200MHz, memory speed same as GF2 MX. Fillrate of 400Mpixels/s or 800Mtexels/s, memory bandwidth same as GF2 MX.
GeForce4 MX420 - New GeForce MX iteration(codenamed NV17). Same number of pipelines, but higher clockspeed(250MHz core, 166MHz SDR memory). Featured nview, LMA II and Accuview AA, but lacked pixel/vertex shaders of the nfiniteFX? Engine(still uses NSR of the GF2 era)
GeForce4 MX440 - GeForce4 MX clocked at 275MHz core, memory at 200MHz DDR.
GeForce4 MX460 - GeForce4 MX clocked at 300MHz core, memory at 275MHz DDR.

Then there's the GeForce Go mobile GPUs and Quadro workstation GPUs that I won't go into...

 

[McCarthy]

Thanks Goi!

Er, I think

--Mc

 

[blade2]

"GeForce3 Ti200 - First GeForce3 with Ti designation.Core clockspeed MHz, memory speed 250MHz DDR. Fillrate 3.84Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 8GB/s
GeForce3 Ti500 - GeForce3 Ti clocked at 240MHz, memory speed 200MHz DDR. Fillrate 2.8Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 6.4GB/s"

are you sure about those stats Goi? i would of thought that the Ti500 would be the better model-it is in fact not and the Ti200 is the faster to the Ti500?

im just checkin and not underminin ur authority btw (lol)

 

[Goi]

That turned out to be a little longer than expected eh?

 

[blade2]

 

[blade2]

oops i dont know how to edit that post above but the Ti 500 is defo the better card than the Ti 200 so there

 

[Goi]

Oops, you're absolutely right Blade2...haha, I was handtyping that in the middle of the night, so please excuse any errors that may have occured. The correct specs are the other way round:

GeForce3 Ti200 - First GeForce3 with Ti designation.Core clockspeed 175MHz, memory speed 200MHz DDR. Fillrate 2.8Bsamples/s, memory bandwidth 6.4GB/s
GeForce3 Ti500 - GeForce3 Ti clocked at 240MHz, memory speed 250MHz DDR. Fillrate 3.84samples/s, memory bandwidth 8GB/s

I'll edit my original post to avoid any further confusion...

 

[Zinan]

Thanks for all the effort guys. I bought my self an asus mx440 last weekend based on the suggestions. In about 34 years i may get an another upgrade : )

 

[SuperCyrix]

wow, they should really lock this thread at the top

So the GeforceMX 200 runs at 175/166?
My Gainword/Visiontek defaults at 175/143 mhz. did they use crappy ram or is it safe for me to clock it higher?

 

[Confused]

Wow Goi! Nice

Can i suggest you put them in speed order (IE the MX range in its right place speed wise) cos it can be a bit confusing if you're trying to find which one is faster than another!

Thanks

Confused

 

[Goi]

Confused: It's harder than it seems to put them in speed order, as some of them use different cores and run at different core and memory speeds and have various other different parameters that all affect performance. Some applications might like vertex/pixel shaders more than a high clock speed. Others might prefer a high memory speed/architecture to HSR optimizations. Also, AA performance at different resolutions differ too, so if I were to put up a sorted list from fastest to slowest, I'd probably get refuted by someone else claiming that that's incorrect based on Game A at resolution B at nxFSAA with m-tap anistropic filtering. There's no hard and fast rule. However in general, the MX's are slower than the normal GeForce3's and GeForce 4's, and the also usually the higher the model number the faster it is.

 

[Confused]

OK then Goi

Thanks for the list as it is then, i'm gonna bookmark this page

Confused