1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

GeForce 4 MX 440 vs GeForce 3 Ti 200

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by Guest, Aug 6, 2003.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hi all

    I upgrraded?! to a GF MX440 a few months back and have found serious degrade
    in games performance since. Allied Assault runs poorly even with default
    settings, but crank it up to trilinear filtering and the game becomes
    unplayable. Battlefield 1942 is completely unplayable on even the lowest
    settings available but I know this game is reputed to be poorly coded to I
    see that one as a double whammy.

    Would I be advised to get back my Ti200 adn replace the MX or is this some
    other issue?

    My rig is

    P4 1.7
    512MB SDRAM
    GeForce 4 MX440 64MB DDR
    1x80Gb 1x40Gb HDD
    Soundblaster Live 5.1
    Cambridge Soundworks 2200 5.1 Speakers
    15" TFT Monitor

    Regards


    Daniel Yates
     
    Guest, Aug 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Wanderer Guest

    The GF4MX was a *DOWNGRADE* from your GF3!!!!! You made a
    HUUUUUUUUUUGE mistake. Remember, the GF4MX is just a GF2MX with a
    faster memory controller. That's it! It's only a DX7 compliant card.
    Your GF3 is a DX8 compliant card. You went from a fairly powerful
    card to a castrated card that nvidia slapped the GF4 name on just to
    sell it.
     
    Wanderer, Aug 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. "Chalk" this up as a learning experience. Now days, you need
    to read the reviews before jumping on something. The GF3 Ti200 is a
    DX8 supported card while the GF4MX line is a DX7 supported card. They
    are just GF2 cards that Nvidia overclocked a little, and slapped a GF4
    lable on them. That GF3 Ti200 will stomp all over any MX series card.
    The GF3 Ti200 is as good as a 128bit memory bus FX5200, and
    stomps all over the FX5200 when overclocked. I'd go back to the Ti200,
    or try, and move upto at least an FX5600.
     
    Larry Roberts, Aug 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Guest

    Biz Guest

    it's in teh subject line............^^^^^^
     
    Biz, Aug 6, 2003
    #4
  5. Well ... I now read the subject and found you were talking about Geforce
    3 Ti 200.

    I have some bad news for you. GF4 MX440 isn't quite GeForce 4 card. It's
    more like a tuned GF2 MX card. So you have just downgraded. The MX card
    is DX7 card while Ti200 is a DX8 card. Ti200 should be faster than any
    MX card and I think it's even comparable to a FX5200 in some aspects.

    I did a quick search on Futuremark to see 3dmark03 scores and found my
    not clocked at all Asus V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128 MB card) gave scores
    compairable to GF3 Ti200. Both show same scores when OC-d ...

    So I'd recommend to return the MX card and use your Ti200 as it's a lot
    more powerful card.

    Mario
     
    Mario Kadastik, Aug 6, 2003
    #5
  6. Biz wrote:
    Got it already... Replied to my own reply in 1 min ;) Might not have
    gotten to you by the time you read the first post ;) I see quite a lot
    replies first and then the original post so out of date messages are
    quite ok ;)

    Mario
     
    Mario Kadastik, Aug 6, 2003
    #6
  7. Guest

    MheAd Guest

    Like people already explained for you, you made a huge mistake, as GF 3
    Ti200 is much faster then GF 4 MX440.
    But, there is some other thing that wories me even more. You are describing
    Medal Of Honor and BF1942 as being *unplayable* on GF4 MX. Something is
    wrong with your cards drivers or something. I have more or less same system
    as you do, and with GF4 MX, I was able to get both game run smoothly in
    1024*768 resoulution with all details set at MAX.
    So you should check your graphic drivers out.
     
    MheAd, Aug 7, 2003
    #7
  8. Guest

    Ron Merts Guest

    Bit late I suppose, but the GF3 Ti200 will probably beat your MX 440,
    especially if you got one of the 64Mb SE models with SDRAM rather than DDR
    memory. The big gripe against the MX cards was their mediocre performance.
    I have seen post after post about how the FX 5200 and FX 5200 Ultra gets
    beat by the MX 440 cards, and to be honest on a Pentium 4 2.4-3.06 (or
    2.4C-3.0C) CPU and the AMD Athlon XP 2600+ with Windows XP Pro or Home with
    SP1 and 512Mb of Memory it just is not true; the FX 5200 is a little faster
    (10-20%) than every MX 440 DDR memory card I have tested (Albatron, ASUS,
    MSI, eVGA, ABit, Gainward MX 440 4X or 8X AGP with 64Mb DDR vs. Daytona
    GeForce FX 5200 non-Ultra with 128Mb of DDR and 128 bit datapath) and the
    5200 Ultra (eVGA FX 5200 Ultra) beats the same MX 440 cards by nearly 45% or
    more. I'm not talking about overclocking this or tweaking that to make
    anything faster; just pull it out of the box, use the same drivers on the
    same system(s) and look at the numbers for yourself.

    Ron

     
    Ron Merts, Aug 10, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.