Geforce2 Ultra or Geforce4 MX 440?
- Thread starter Aeolus
- Start date
i like this one
"For our final test with Quake III Arena we have the classic 1600 x 1200 test. When the GeForce2 Ultra was released we were amazed at its ability to run Quake III at above 60 fps at 1600 x 1200, today we have a card that is capable of running the game at that high of a resolution at more than 160 fps."
good luck!
"For our final test with Quake III Arena we have the classic 1600 x 1200 test. When the GeForce2 Ultra was released we were amazed at its ability to run Quake III at above 60 fps at 1600 x 1200, today we have a card that is capable of running the game at that high of a resolution at more than 160 fps."
good luck!
what? what are benchmarks then? what is the LAST paragraph then? please select PRINT the article. i'm going to bed
I was talking about the quote you pulled from the article, its of ZERO relivance to my question. There are lots of reviews pitting it against a GF2 TI card (essentially a GF2 Pro), but I was looking for a GF2 Ultra comparison, thats why I asked. Thankyou though uncle for wasting my time and then being a wank about it.
I have a Gainward Geforce4 MX 440 and it's performance isn't much better (worse performance in Unreal Tournament for example) than my old Videologic Kyro 2 so I imagine the performance of the Geforce2 Ultra will be much better than the MX 440.
So far I have found only 1 game which has the MX 440 ahead of my Kyro 2 by more than 20fps and that's Max Payne, IMO the MX 400 is pretty cr*p at everything and is a waste of money if you own anything above a Geforce2 MX.
The MX 440 is a good overclocker so when I get a chance I'll overclock it to see if things improve, however you shouldn't have to overclock a video card just to get decent performance IMO.
So far I have found only 1 game which has the MX 440 ahead of my Kyro 2 by more than 20fps and that's Max Payne, IMO the MX 400 is pretty cr*p at everything and is a waste of money if you own anything above a Geforce2 MX.
The MX 440 is a good overclocker so when I get a chance I'll overclock it to see if things improve, however you shouldn't have to overclock a video card just to get decent performance IMO.
I take back some of the comments from above, after alot of tweaking and overlocking I'm now getting much better frame rates!
I have Geforce 2 Ultra, with Northwood 1.6A@2.33G, 256*2 Crucial 2100 DDR, P4B266-C.
With 3DMarks2001, I got 5500 before OC, 6000 after OC. comparing to the AnandTech recent articles about Geforce 4. I would say it is around the same level with Geforce 4 MX460, a little better than 440.
With 3DMarks2001, I got 5500 before OC, 6000 after OC. comparing to the AnandTech recent articles about Geforce 4. I would say it is around the same level with Geforce 4 MX460, a little better than 440.
What gamer would buy either of these cards in today's market? Does the fact that neither has full DirectX 8.1 features mean anything?
Besides that, a quick peek at www.pricewatch.com shows that GeForce 2 Ultra cards sell for $175-$220.
That's because nobody is buying this card anymore.
If these were your only two choices, the MX440 will be the better choice. Performance will be similar, and the price/performance of the MX440 is much better than a GeForce 2 Ultra.
That said, forget both of these cards and get at least a GeForce 3 Ti200, especially if you're a gamer. You'll pay only around $30 more, and you'll get full DirectX 8.1 features. If you don't know what these features are, go back and read all about the GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 articles here on Anandtech. Then go ahead and read the benchmarks of cards on the Unreal Performance 2002 test. Especially on that test, you'll see that the GF3 Ti200 doubles the score of that pitiful MX440.
If you're not a gamer, well, just get the cheapest card. It doesn't really matter much then, does it?
Sorry this doesn't answer your question, but there's a reason there are no benchmarks showing the MX440 vs. the GF 2 Ultra: No one would even bother trying to decide between these two cards. There performance isn't too different, with a huge price difference. Your real question should be "Should I buy a GeForce 4MX series card, or spend a little more for the much better GeForce 3 or 4 Ti series?"
Besides that, a quick peek at www.pricewatch.com shows that GeForce 2 Ultra cards sell for $175-$220.
That's because nobody is buying this card anymore.
If these were your only two choices, the MX440 will be the better choice. Performance will be similar, and the price/performance of the MX440 is much better than a GeForce 2 Ultra.
That said, forget both of these cards and get at least a GeForce 3 Ti200, especially if you're a gamer. You'll pay only around $30 more, and you'll get full DirectX 8.1 features. If you don't know what these features are, go back and read all about the GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 articles here on Anandtech. Then go ahead and read the benchmarks of cards on the Unreal Performance 2002 test. Especially on that test, you'll see that the GF3 Ti200 doubles the score of that pitiful MX440.
If you're not a gamer, well, just get the cheapest card. It doesn't really matter much then, does it?
Sorry this doesn't answer your question, but there's a reason there are no benchmarks showing the MX440 vs. the GF 2 Ultra: No one would even bother trying to decide between these two cards. There performance isn't too different, with a huge price difference. Your real question should be "Should I buy a GeForce 4MX series card, or spend a little more for the much better GeForce 3 or 4 Ti series?"
If you want to compare the two for comparisons sake, then go ahead. The GF2 Ultra should be faster for games than the GF4 MX440/460 but the GF4 MX440 would be better for DVD and light gaming.
If you are thinking about buying a new vid card, don't go with a GF2 Ultra, I would go with a GF3 Ti200 minimum cause it's cheaper and will give you better results, but if someone is giving you a choice between a GF2 Ultra or a Gf4 Mx 440, then go for the ultra for games.
If you are thinking about buying a new vid card, don't go with a GF2 Ultra, I would go with a GF3 Ti200 minimum cause it's cheaper and will give you better results, but if someone is giving you a choice between a GF2 Ultra or a Gf4 Mx 440, then go for the ultra for games.
AMCRambler
Diamond Member
- Jan 23, 2001
- 7,714
- 31
- 91
For the money, I think the Geforce2 Ti is the best card on the market right now. You can pick up a Gainward Geforce2 Ti Golden Sample on pricewatch for about 100 bucks. Great performance without overclocking, and a nice increase when you do overclock. I don't have a Golden Sample, I have a Gainward Geforce2 ti450. Cost me 85 bucks and runs Unreal Tournament beautifully and is also overclockable though not guarranteed overclocking like the Golden Sample. Forget GeForce 4 for like another 6 months at least. They'll come down. As for Geforce 4 Mx? I think I'm getting better performance out of my GF2 Ti.
I read a review where a overclocked Geforce 4 MX 440 was just about equal to stock speed Geforce 3 Ti 200. I have seen many reviews where an overclocked Geforce 2 Ti or Geforce Ultra could do the same, so I would assume they are close to performance to each other. Now the Geforce Ti 200 can overclock very well and obviously beat the Geforce 4 MX 440, but pricewatch is showing a $33 difference between the two cards.
I forgot to mention that the Geforce 4 MX 440 only has 2 rendering pipelines. That cuts its fillrate by half whereas the Ultra has twice the amount of rendering pipelines.
CubicZirconia
Diamond Member
- Nov 24, 2001
- 5,193
- 0
- 71
<< the geforce3 is better, but less expensive...or is the g2 ultra better? i never understood that >>
Geforce 3's are much better for a number of reasons. As someone else said before, geforce 2 ultra cards are more expensive because no one is buying them anymore.
<< I was talking about the quote you pulled from the article, its of ZERO relivance to my question. There are lots of reviews pitting it against a GF2 TI card (essentially a GF2 Pro), but I was looking for a GF2 Ultra comparison, thats why I asked. Thankyou though uncle for wasting my time and then being a wank about it. >>
You don't need to be a total penis about it. A GF2 Ti is almost as fast as a GF2 Ultra. Just add a few FPS. He put his time and effort into posting links for you, because you were too lazy. Thank you for wasting his time, and then being a dick about it.
Thanks.
<<
<< I was talking about the quote you pulled from the article, its of ZERO relivance to my question. There are lots of reviews pitting it against a GF2 TI card (essentially a GF2 Pro), but I was looking for a GF2 Ultra comparison, thats why I asked. Thankyou though uncle for wasting my time and then being a wank about it. >>
You don't need to be a total penis about it. A GF2 Ti is almost as fast as a GF2 Ultra. Just add a few FPS. He put his time and effort into posting links for you, because you were too lazy. Thank you for wasting his time, and then being a dick about it.
Thanks. >>
I'd agree. I'm gonna remember never to help you, Aeolus. I doubt many disagree with that.
Ok, I think this may help. When you look at the benchmarks, the performance between Geforce 4MX and Geforce 2 and almost the same (Geforce 2 sometimes beats MX440) in Direct X 7, but in Direct X 8 games the Geforce 4 MX cards come ahead. This probably means that the MX440 would probably be better for you if you plan on playing newer games. If you only plan on playing older games, the Geforce 2 Ultra will be the one u want.
I'd like to see a comparison between a Kia Sephia and a Dodge Viper.
Don't give me some crap comparing a Viper and a Mustang, that's NOT WHAT I WANT.
And hurry up, you peckers.
Don't give me some crap comparing a Viper and a Mustang, that's NOT WHAT I WANT.
And hurry up, you peckers.
<< Ok, I think this may help. When you look at the benchmarks, the performance between Geforce 4MX and Geforce 2 and almost the same (Geforce 2 sometimes beats MX440) in Direct X 7, but in Direct X 8 games the Geforce 4 MX cards come ahead. This probably means that the MX440 would probably be better for you if you plan on playing newer games. If you only plan on playing older games, the Geforce 2 Ultra will be the one u want. >>
GF 4 better in DX 8 games? Did you even READ the UT Performance Test results?? Any quad-piped (read: GF2, 3, 4 non-mx) GeForce video card crushes all MX cards with the latest Unreal 2 build. It looks like for the newest games, a non-mx card would be best.
I believe that a GF2 Ultra is faster than a GF4 MX 440 in virtually everything, and for newer games it looks like the difference between the cards will only increase. The GF4 MX just isn't as powerful (having only two pixel pipelines instead of four like every non-mx card). I'd definately go for the GF2 Ultra if the prices are the same / similar. Make sure you're getting a really good deal on the Ultra if you're buying it used or whatever; if you're buying a new card I'd recommend the GF3 Ti200 instead; similar price, way faster card (and very overclockable).
At stock speeds the Ultra is faster. But when you overclock them both they are very close to equal. The MX 440 overclocks like a mofo! Even with just two rendering pipelines, the fast core speed it is able to obtain and the fact that it is a crippled Geforce 4 core, not a crippled Geforce 2 core make it a good deal for $79.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter