|
|||||||
| Notices |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
Dec 25, 2002, 05:30 PM
|
#1 |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Heerlen (NL)
Posts: 85
 |
Gf3Ti200 Vs Gf440 MX
Just wondering with one is faster?
Got a m8 how changed his Mx for the Ti and he sas it slower. Is this alright? |
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2002, 05:36 PM
|
#2 |
|
Freedom is a feature.
|
Ti200 is more feature filled. MX440 is actually GeForce 2.5.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2002, 07:41 PM
|
#3 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: In clothing
Posts: 3,510
|
Well the gf3ti200 is no doubt a better card, it has hardware shaders, imo the are some of the best things to happen to videocards. i think that the gf3ti should be faster then the gf4mx as well in most cases. Its like a comparing a celron 1.1GHz to a pIII 1GHz.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2002, 11:29 AM
|
#4 |
|
Elite Bastard
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Confederacy
Posts: 841
|
The GF4MX series are DX7-compliant whereas the GF3s are DX8. The Ti200 should be MUCH faster even if you don't look at the extra features. I'd say the Ti200 would be around 10% faster until you overclock it
 |
|
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2002, 12:09 PM
|
#5 |
|
Colour Commentator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 5,619
|
GF3 ti200
Period. Your friend must have a problem with his system's set-up or installed the card wrong. There's just about no way that a GF4 MX could take a GF3 ti. Almost no way!!! (I put in the "almost" 'cause I'm pretty sure I could rig the set-ups intentionally to let the GF4 MX win...but I'd be crippling the GF3 to do it.
 ) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2002, 11:49 PM
|
#6 |
|
The quest continues
|
I would go with the GeForce 3 Ti card any day over the GF4 MX. I had an MSI GeForce 3 Ti200 and is was a nice card, until I popped in a GF4 Ti4200
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2003, 12:24 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Colour Commentator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 5,619
|
Quote:
What did ya think of it when you got it? How were your benchies & games? |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2003, 12:39 AM
|
#8 |
|
The quest continues
|
I noticed an apreciable difference for sure. Image quality and performance wise. Make sure you get a 64 Meg not the 128 Meg version if you want faster ram.
Depending on your CPU speed the difference may not be as noticable  |
|
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2003, 02:00 AM
|
#9 |
|
Just One Sick-Lizard
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 503
|
Go for Gf4 4200 if your budget constrained, Don't bother with Gf4 MX's I've played with a few but to put it into perspective!
GF4200 = 9604 3d marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4847152 Gf3 Ti200 = 7561 3d marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=3957033 GF4MX440 = 5373 3dmarks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4380397 GF2Ultra = 4921 3dmarks (cpu is clocked1.4@1.54) http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5477844 Seems silly to go for GF4MX's when the difference in price is so little & you get so much more power from 4200's. Was setting one up the other night, and its so nice been able to turn all the eye candy on! it made some my old faves like CS look like a different game!!!droool if only i could afford one! Didn't have chance to bench the one I was working so picked simlar spec on orb database..have done same for Gf3Ti200, the rest are me own benchies! |
|
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2003, 04:07 PM
|
#10 |
|
Flash Banner Hater
|
A fairer test would be 3dMark 2000 - a DX7 based test, as that would show if there was a raw DX7 speed advantage - I bet the GF4 MX460 would blow away the GF3 Ti200 on raw DX7 performance - not sure if the 440 is quick enough to.
Another example is the Radeon 9000 - probably the lowest DX8 card there is, and a decent DX7 accelerator will blow it away on DX7, but it'll beat the hell out of software-emulated or missing DX8 features. |
|
|
|
