Is a nVidia GeForce4 MX 440 same as Radeon 9200?

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: DannyBoy

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Wait -- isn't HW T&L required as part of being a "DX8.1-compliant card", according to MS? If not, I'm confused (and wrong about the TNT2, which wasn't terribly important anyway). But my point remains that NVIDIA claims (and nobody that I've ever seen has disagreed) that the GF4MX *is* a DX8.1-compliant card. If it isn't, then what games is it not compatible with? Or are there *NO* DX8.1-only games on the market?

ffs people like you really bug me, despite being told by a selection of different users you still insist you are correct.

Harsh. I insisted I was correct because I found an NVIDIA document that said the card was DX8.1-compliant, and I know it plays DX8.1 games properly. I feel like NVIDIA probably knows their cards better than the average Anandtech reader (which may have been a flawed assumption!)

This has been discussed many times, the GF4MX will run an 8.1 dx game, but the HARDWARE itself is based on a dxSEVEN core.

If you want to get cocky, then we can both head over to the reference designs of the NVIDIA NV cores.

I wasn't even arguing that! It works in DX8.1 games (although apparently without pixel and vertex shader capability) despite any limitations on the hardware, which is what I was trying to get at. Chill out, dude.

Thank you for correcting my mistake -- apparently "DX8.1-compliant" from MS/NVIDIA doesn't mean what you would logically think it does. So we all learned something today.

So, I guess, to answer the original question:

Yes, there is a difference -- the 9200 can do pixel and vertex shaders, while the GF4MX cannot. Will this have much bearing on the games you play? I don't know. The 9200 is probably a bit faster in general, but the GF4MX is probably cheaper now.

 

[dguy6789]

You are clearly mistaken. The only reason the gf4/2 works in dx8 and 9 games is because the games dumb themselves down when they detect the non 8 compliance. Here are 2 facts. halo is dx7 8 8.1 and 9. And the 9200's halo looks MILES and LIGHTYEARS ahead of what it looks like on a gf4 in the same detail settings. and for more, the gf4 and gf2 would be able to run all 3dmark 01 tests, and more then 1 3dmark 03 test(which is all a gf4/2 mx can do). So do you understand now? Just about all cards support dx8 and 9, but gf4/2 mx do NOT have the features. and the 9000 non pro is way faster then a gf4mx440, so a 9200 would be as well. never go for a gf4mx as they suck. 9200 is a much better choice. I hope i made this clear by now.

 

[DannyBoy]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
I feel like NVIDIA probably knows their cards better than the average Anandtech reader (which may have been a flawed assumption!)

You would be amazed...

 

[Sk8rdd00]

from newegg.com, seems like they're getting it right


Aopen Geforce4 MX440 8X 64MB DDR with TV-Out - Retail Box
Support 3D API: DirectX®7.1 and OpenGL®1.3


VGA APOLLO GF4 MX440 8X 64MB DDR W/TV Retail
Support 3D API: DirectX®7.1 and OpenGL®1.3


Prolink MX 440 8X AGP 64MBTV-out 64bit Retail
Support 3D API: Microsoft®DirectX®7,OpenGL?1.3


EVGA GeForce4 MX440-8X 64MB DDR 8X AGP, Model 064-A8-NV90-TX -
Support 3D API: DirectX® 7.1 and OpenGL®


and it goes on like this, the only gf4mx card on newegg advertised as dx8 is the

Albatron Geforce4 MX440-8X, AGP-8X, 64MB DDR, VGA+DVI+TV MODEL
Support 3D API: DirectX®8.1 and OpenGL®1.3

and its clearly wrong