Is the Geforce4 MX 420 just a lousy card?

[Nicholson]

I picked up a Dell pc last week and went with the $20 upgrade to the Nvidia 64MB DDR Geforce 4 MX 420 with TV out. I don't game but did really like the pc/dvd playback quality on my 17" LCD with my old card, an Nvidia 32MB Riva TNT2. It really looked great, rarely any artifacts. Now, with the MX 420, the in monitor view for dvds is incredibly bad, loaded with artifacts. Shouldn't this new card out-perform the TNT2? Would there be any setting that can be changed that might reduce the artifacts? I've tried playback with Powerdvd xp and WinDVD 3.0 and with both my old card blows away the new one.

 

[Jugernot]

Try downloading new drivers from nvidia.

 

[spanky]

if u r not much of a gamer and dvd playback was a priority... i think an ati solution might have been better. i am not sure if dell offers the mid level ati cards tho. and the gf4mx 420 agp is a crappy card.... the pci version is alright (since it is arguably the fastest pci card).

 

[Nicholson]

Thanks for the info, I tried the latest drivers but it still looks pretty bad, I guesss the MX420 just blows. spankyOO7, I wish Dell had offered an ATI, but now that it looks like I'll just buy a new card I might go with the Matrox G550, good 2D is really important to me, I just hope the in monitor DVD playback looks good and that the TV out of the Matrox works well and can be adjusted to eliminate TV overscan.

 

[Intelman07]

I got the 420 and like it. I play dvd with it!

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well all GF4MX cards should come with full MPEG2 DVD hw to decode the signal and should give excellent results, certainly far better than TNT2! In any case, any DVD should play back fine with a decent CPU above 500mhz, you shouldn't even need hw MPEG2 decoders to achieve perfect results.

Anyway, GF4MX cards basicly break down 3D perf-wise like this; GF4MX420=GF2MX400, GF4MX440=GF2TI, GF4MX460=slightly faster than GF2TI BUT way slower than a GF3TI200. The GF4MX cards however do have some advantages over GF2, namely better '2D' image quality, AA, TVout and dual monitor support.

If gaming is of little importance then any Matrox card, even G200/400 will give you excellent '2D' IQ and should be bargains 2nd hand. Radeons also offer excellent '2D' IQ (esp true 'built by ATI' cards), and Rad7500 is near enough GF4MX440 for 3D perf (minus the AA). Of course GF4TI cards offer great '2D' IQ too, but if you don't need their excellent 3D perf then your cash can be better spent elsewhere.

So essentially YES, the GF4MX420 is a bit lousy, but '2D' IQ and DVD playback should not be its weakest points at all.

 

[Nicholson]

The MX 420 does do a fine job with in monitor dvd playback on my CRT, but it's on my LCD where the TNT2 is much better, that's what has me confused, I'm using a P4 2GHz.

 

[AnAndAustin]

That is REALLY odd, your 2ghz CPU is FAR more than capable of decoding MPEG2 for DVDs without any hw aid, very odd indeed. Do you use a DVI connection for LCD, perhaps the GF4MX DVI output is faulty or something? I can't see it being a matter of TNT2 having relatively poor '2D' image quality (and thus being quite blurry) vs the GF4MX pretty good '2D' IQ which shows a truer representation of the MPEG2 artifacts, esp if you use DVI ... but then stranger things have happened.

Just as a side-note, I know gaming has little importance to you, but do be aware that P4 2.53ghz with GF4MX420 will be considerably worse for gaming than Duron1ghz with GF4TI4200 or an Athlon1.4ghz with Rad8500!

 

[AnAndAustin]

Wow, what a difference ...

3Dmark2001SE in standard 1024x768x32 (CPU & gfx card: total marks, games1-4 high detail FPS):

P4 2.53ghz & GF4MX420: 4000, 36, 35, 38, na (can't run Game4 as lacks DX8 hw funcs)
Duron1ghz & GF4TI4200: 7500, 32, 81, 44, 42
Athlon1.4ghz & Rad8500: 9000, 45, 85, 58, 53

Even a Duron1ghz with Rad7500 beats it: 4100, 24, 36, 31, na

 

[Nicholson]

No DVI on my LCD, I guess it could be a faulty card, maybe I'll call Dell for a replacement before buying a new card.

 

[hans007]

i personally use a geforce 4 mx420 right now as well.


its not a bad card, it does is job well, and can play most of the games out there quite acceptably. i cant even tell the difference between my old geforce 3 ti200 and the mx420 in warcraft3.


i run it with a p4 1.5 , sis650 chipset and 256mb ram. my computer doesnt seem slow at all compared to how it used to be configed (p4 1.6a @ 2.13, 512mb ddr, geforce 3 ti200) and for most people an mx420 is great.

i got mine on ebay for $35 shipped. cant really beat that with a stick.

 

[spanky]

i got mine on ebay for $35 shipped. cant really beat that with a stick.

:Q

 

[hans007]

also a gf4mx420 is a lot faster than an gf2mx400.


its probably around gf2gts-v speed, sometimes faster sometimes slower. xbitlabs.com had a good comparison.

 

[Jugernot]

I got my 420 MX from the Dell deal to overclock to monsterous levels (5ns Samsung memory)... default is 250/333 my overclock 350/520. My 3d mark 2001 went from 3900 to over 5500.

Great little cards, quite a bit faster than my GF2 32meg DDR GTS.

Jugs

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: hans007
i personally use a geforce 4 mx420 right now as well.


its not a bad card, it does is job well, and can play most of the games out there quite acceptably. i cant even tell the difference between my old geforce 3 ti200 and the mx420 in warcraft3.


i run it with a p4 1.5 , sis650 chipset and 256mb ram. my computer doesnt seem slow at all compared to how it used to be configed (p4 1.6a @ 2.13, 512mb ddr, geforce 3 ti200) and for most people an mx420 is great.

i got mine on ebay for $35 shipped. cant really beat that with a stick.

Question: why would you downgrade from a GF3 to a GF4 MX?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Other than marketing, the GF4MX460 (MUCH faster than GF4MX420) is still far inferior to even the slowest GF3, the GF3TI200. Okay, the GF4MX420 should have better '2D' image quality, marginally better TVout, better dual monitor support, but it can't do any DX8 hw funcs and will be less than half the speed of a GF3TI200 (and that's before you clock the GF3TI200 to TI500 type speeds). The GF4MX line is only just better than the GF2 line, certainly inferior to the GF3 line.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: hans007
i personally use a geforce 4 mx420 right now as well.


its not a bad card, it does is job well, and can play most of the games out there quite acceptably. i cant even tell the difference between my old geforce 3 ti200 and the mx420 in warcraft3.


i run it with a p4 1.5 , sis650 chipset and 256mb ram. my computer doesnt seem slow at all compared to how it used to be configed (p4 1.6a @ 2.13, 512mb ddr, geforce 3 ti200) and for most people an mx420 is great.

i got mine on ebay for $35 shipped. cant really beat that with a stick.

Question: why would you downgrade from a GF3 to a GF4 MX?

i dont play any games, and i needed the money. i play warcraft 3 occasionally and thats basically it for me gaming wise and well i cant really tell the difference, so i figured i'd rather have the $40 difference.