Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
3Dmark2001 (gfx card: total, games1-3 high detail FPS):
GF4MX420: 4300, 34, 35, 40
GF2MX400: 4000, 32, 33, 36
GF4MX440: 5600, 40, 47, 47
GF2TI/Pro: 5400, 40, 42, 49
GF4MX460: 6000, 39, 51, 47
GF3TI200: 8100, 46, 66, 60
I don't have to be careful when I know what I'm talking about, respect. The LMA and AA does help the GF4MX cards, but the diff is minimal (5%ish), essentially the GF4MX420 is nothing more than a slightly enhanced GF2MX400, and the same for GF4MX440 vs GF2TI.
I'm going to have to agree with Nemesismk2 on this one, the GF4 MX420 is definitely superior to the GF2 MX400, and LMA is nothing to laugh at. In my experience most real world benchmarks put the GF4 MX420 performs barely reasonably similarly to the GF2 GTS-V which is essentially an underclocked GF2 GTS.
I think in this case your putting way to much faith in 3DMark as an accurate reproduction of real world gaming performance... though even still, in my own experience the GF4 MX420 usually beats the GF2 MX400 by a larger amount then that in 3DM2001 if not quite as much as the rather respectable difference in real world games.
On average, I've found the GF4 MX420 to be a good 20% faster then the GF2 MX400... which is no small performance difference.
In any case, the GF2 Pro is certainly faster then the GF4 MX420 in 99% of cases.