GF4 MX440 is slower than my GF3 Ti200.

[EMAN]

Benchmarks show that mx440 is slower than gf3ti200. I don't know why your launching.

You even overclocked your geforce ti 200 and that makes more faster than geforce mx 440.

Get a clue.

 

[TapTap]

Must be nice to have nothing more important to do than benchmark new cards (that have already been categorized and benchmarked on the web) and then return them because they are not up to "your snuff"

 

[rockhard]

TapTap - you almost make me feel guilty at not having anything better to do than lounge about in these forums 😛 😉

 

[Conscript]

Lets just settle this "education/degree/who's smarter" debate between the two of you. I am the smartest person in these forums, the best looking, the strongest, and most pimping... 😀






















edit: and also the most full of sh*t... 😉

 

[Gog]

I know you are but what am I?

 

[spanky]

this is quickly becoming a nef-fest 😛

oh... since i am not a nef... geforce4 ti4600 is a cool 😎

 

[TechDaddy]

<< Rockhard, the 460 comes with 325/650 MHz memory.

Just nitpicking a bit 😉 >>



Yeah! Great! But ... all these "big numbers" don't change the Gf2(enh) Core into a Gf3 or Gf4 .... all these MX are *not* capable of many functions Gf3 and Gf4 offer. That's the reason why they are as cheap - if you want to do real hardcore-gaming keep your poes off the MX's!! They are good for online porn viewers and so on, but even that works better on a GF3/4.

 

[chizow]

<< Lets just settle this "education/degree/who's smarter" debate between the two of you. I am the smartest person in these forums, the best looking, the strongest, and most pimping... 😀

Maybe, but my dad is stronger than your dad! 😛

Chiz




















edit: and also the most full of sh*t... 😉 >>

 

[colonel]

people like to shop, you are one of them, if you said you read the review. why?

 

[Piper1]

Here's some numbers on a Leadtek Winfast A170 I just installed. Not too bad for a $120 card It's in a system I'm building for a friend. So far it runs stable at 310/470Mhz with no other tweaks. (benchmarks are at 300/450MHz)

3DMark2001

 

[scoobydooby]

<< Not too bad for a $120 card >>


Well, yeah I'd consider that bad for a $120 card. A Geforce3 Ti 200 on a similar setup will give you over 6000 marks without any tweaking/overclocking. And I believe there's a Ti 200 at newegg for $136.
Scoob

 

[nRollo]

Rimshaker:
"Let's not compare education or degrees here cause i'd leave you in the dust"
Only if you have a Masters or Doctorate, I have a BA and a BS.

Which I don't need to know what you are doing is cheesy...

 

[jfunk]

<<

<< Uh, did you not do any research before you bought the card? The MX440 is slower across the board than the Ti200 plus it doesn't have a lot of the DirectX 8.0 features that the Ti200 has. In short it's a totally inferior card. >>



I DID do the reading and research on the gf4 line. I was just assuming the performance difference would've been a little closer than what the benchmarks told me. i've pretty much learned now that any card labeled MX is just too inferior. I'm sticking with the Ti labels. can't wait to get my hands on that Ti4600.... >>



If you DID do the research, why did you think the GF4 would be faster? Why didn't you know why all the 3DMark tests wouldn't run (DX8).

Obviously you DIDN'T do any research, or you would not have felt the need to post a thread stating what EVERY OTHER DECSRIPTION OF THE GF4MX'S HAS ALREADY STATED.

j

 

[ss284]

Can we end this thread? Rimshaker didnt do his research. Big deal, leave him be.
We all know the gf4 MX is a piece of crap. All the benchmarks show this. A geforce ti 200 is an infinitely better choice, unless you need the dual head features(which I do).
Yet im still not boing to buy a gf4 mx because its slow.

-Steve

 

[rimshaker]

Rollo:
Yes.... i do have beyond bachelors, but who cares. What i'm doing may be cheesy to a point.. but it's ultimately harmless. Let's get rid of this thread.