Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 28sweep on July 22, 2002, 12:55:45 PM
-
I got a GeForce2 Mx and I can no longer play AH w/my PIII900. I want to upgrade and buy a GeForce4 MX but I have been told that the Mx video cards are garbage. Any experts out there and what does Mx actually mean????
-
MX roughly means stripped down version.
Imagine a Honda Civic. They got DX for base model, EX, LX, etc... mean they get added neat features.
Now imagine a GF4 Ti4200 as the base model. The Ti4400(or whatever) is the souped up model. The MX would be like putting bald tires, an engine with 2 less cylinders, no power brakes, no power steering, but you do got power windows and a CD player!
-SW
-
I have a GF4 MX. It works fine.
-
The MX line also doesn't take advantage of some of the Direct X 8.1 features.
Go with the Ti line. :)
-
Originally posted by 28sweep
I got a GeForce2 Mx and I can no longer play AH w/my PIII900. I want to upgrade and buy a GeForce4 MX but I have been told that the Mx video cards are garbage. Any experts out there and what does Mx actually mean????
To start, the GeForce 4 MX line does not use the same chipset you find in the normal GeForce 4 Ti cards. The MX versions use an older chipset than the normal GeForce 4 Ti cards, think they use the NV17 while the G4 Ti cards use the NV20 chipset. You'd be better off spending the extra $$$ on a G4 Ti or if your strapped for $$$ then maybe looking at one of the G3 Ti cards. I was able to pick up a G3 Ti200 128meg card for only $120 through PriceWatch (http://www.pricewatch.com).
Another reason to stay away from the G4 MX cards is that it doesn't support the full features of DirectX 8.x.
Ack-Ack
-
I have a GeForce 2 MX 400 in my wife's machine. Good frame rates, very playable, at 800x600 32bit.
-
you should have no problem with a mx400...I'm curious what your frame rates are with the 200. Anything over about 30 fps isn't really needed. A PIII 900 should be able to do that even with a 200. I was running an older card on a PIII 800 and getting about 55fps. Even when it "bogged down" JABOing I'd usually be 35 or so. I'm not a "techie" but I'd hope someone can help you trouble shoot. I'd start by looking at your drivers and memory.
-
My framerates drop to single digits when furballing.....like 8 or so. BTW, I got 128 meg of ram too. Ok, I want to buy a Geforce4 Ti from Pricewatch.com but I don't know if I can trust some of those web sites. Any good sites out there that are good priced and trust worthy???????
-
Gf4MX (NV17) is using old, modified Gf2 core while Gf4Ti series are using new, "Real" Gf4 core NV25.
Gf4Ti4200 has about same price than some MX cards and it sure is better card.
I just played Il-2 with 1600*1200 resolution with 32bit colors and full details with 1,4GHz AMD TB and I couldn't see any framerate drops :)
FW-190 cockpit in 1600*1200 etc... 200kB (http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/fw190_cockpit.jpg)
Check also this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58403)
-
If you've only got 128Mb of RAM, then you're operating on the bare minimum required to run Windows. I'd suggest you look into adding more memory while you're upgrading the video card, since you'll have the case off anyway.
-
The geforce4 MX is really just a beefed up geforce2. It's a working card, but it's not a gf4.
-
Go with a GeForce4 Ti4200. That's you're best bang per buck card right now.
And get at least another 128mb of RAM.
-
its all about $$ sweep.
Do you play anything else besides AH?
I do, and woops I use a gf4 mx on an XP1900+, It runs everything i play problem free, offering 100+ fps in AH, and even permits me to run details to the max in games like SOF2 and MOHAA.
On a system like yours.. I wouldn't bother going any more than a GF3 Ti200 or GF4 Ti4200. and if $$ were a concern I'd go for a gf4mx until such time as you upgrade the whole system, which it looks like you will be due for in the not too distant future.
128mb of ram is the minimum these days. Hell even 256 is becoming borderline
SKurj
-
you should not buy GF4 TI ...why ?
ATI just released its newest videocard and its about twice as fast as the fastest GF4 card, has way better price/quality value (advice price is about $400) and is couple years ahead of its time.
read the test here (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1656&p=1)
some people might say that ati sux becouse of its drivers but thats not true, it was only the case with some older models of ati cards....8500 models work with no problems .
but first upgrade your ram 128Mb is not enough for games nowdays :D
-
ok heres one for you ......
if you had a GF2MX and wanted a significant boost in fps what would you buy
A GF4 MX or a GF3/2Ti card for around the same cost?
do you go with new but stripped down or older but now cheaper top of the line(only few months ago) versions?
Im leaning toward buying a GF4 MX version rather than older Ti versions...am i wrong to do that?
btw also i have 900Mhz Athlon TB
-
Go here: http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/index.html
You'll find that the regular GeForce 3 (non-Ti) far outperforms a GeForce 4 MX at nearly the same prices. I bought my GeForce 3 for $100.
-
I noticed my p-3 with a gf2 400 on a 56k connect runs teriable in the main 10-35fps. it gets 35 -55fps in a h2h room.
At home on my DSL connection my 1ghz AMD w/ GF2 mx 400 never goes below 35fps and usually runs around 55-60 +
Bolth machines have 265 in ram . Im not shure if the differences in machines causes this or the connect speed.
-
Raly its true ...I was looking for some benchmarks too ...
GeForce 4 Ti versus GeForce 4 MX
read here (http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/index.html)
Radeon 8500 versus GeForce 3 Ti500
read here (http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q4/011107/index.html)
Geforce 3 Ti 200 versus GeForce 4 MX 440
read here (http://www.tbreak.com/hard/grfx/msi_gf4mx440/page1.html) and here (http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=articles/gf4mx_roundup/mx440_1.html)
conclusion: go for GF3 Ti or Radeon 8500 ;)
-
Im leaning toward buying a GF4 MX version rather than older Ti versions...am i wrong to do that?
Yes, yes you are.
-
Heres the breakdown on GeForce cards. There's ones that aren't worth buying and some that are worth saving for :)
I'm runnin a GeForce Pro that is more than enough to run this game, IL-2 and WWII Online. With a 1.2 T-bird with 512 of 2100 DDR ram. If your upgrading it's really worth spending the bucks. As you can see some of the new cards really aren't a "step up". Sorta a side shuffle ;) As you can see with the MX460-440-and 420.
Jeez the MX420 doesn't beat the GeForce 2 MX400 by much :confused: The MX 400 is HOW OLD ???
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid26/p7802dfb98509653f5d5ab7da08b952c5/fd80244b.jpg)
Chart taken from a poster at AGW, WB'ers NEED to stay on top of this kind of stuff :D
-
Unless you have ton of cash for a new Radeon or top flight GF4, get a GF3 Ti 200 - by far the best card for the money. I've got mine overclocked to Ti500 levels and it runs great.
-
The hardiest FR test I have come up with, for AH. Is to go offline, ndisles arena, switch to knight CV, wait until there is a lot of smoke from flack fireing at the drones, set on the deck with motor ideling, fire guns when there are 2 drones on the screen.
At this lowest FR point, I drop down to 33 FPS., with a GeForce 4 MMX 440. Its very playable.
-
1024x768, 32 bit, 4XS FSAA
1GHZ AMD Athlon
256 mb DDR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In flight it produces a steady 75 FPS, on the runway usually in the 50's, heavy smoke at fields drops it into the 30's.
In some hardware reviews, depending on the software used for benchmarking it has proven to be a better performer than the GF3 Ti200 cards, particulary at high desktop resolutions/color depth due to the cards memory architecture.
It's basically a "perfected" GF2 chipset combined with the improved GF4 memory architecture.
-----3DMark 2001-----
GF4 MX440 vs GF2 MX400
4978-----------------2664
Hard to beat for a sub $80.00 video card. ;)
-
By far the best bang for the buck is the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 64 MB cards. If you can find the 64MB Ti 4200 card made by MSI it has faster ram than the others which can be overclocked within their specs to between 4400 and 4600 speeds. You also get dual monitor support and TV out (RCA and S-Video). They run about $160 - $180.
If you don't have that much to spend, the GeForce 3 Ti 200 cards would be my pick over the GeForce 4 MX series. These should be near $100.
Anandtech has a really good GPU comparison using the upcoming Unreal Tournament 2003 engine which shows how the cards stack up. :)
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647
-
I am running the Gforce 3 Ti 200 and get a steady framerate of 75 in gv in the air or elsewhere. I had a G force 2 mx before and used to get 20-30 fps before. No matter if it is Gforce 2,3, or 4 Ti is always a better product in my opinion.
System AMD XP2000
1.00 Gb of DDr ramm
G-force 3 Ti200 64mb ddr
Windows Xp home edition
-
Originally posted by Targo
Raly its true ...I was looking for some benchmarks too ...
GeForce 4 Ti versus GeForce 4 MX
read here (http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/index.html)
Radeon 8500 versus GeForce 3 Ti500
read here (http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q4/011107/index.html)
Geforce 3 Ti 200 versus GeForce 4 MX 440
read here (http://www.tbreak.com/hard/grfx/msi_gf4mx440/page1.html) and here (http://www.octools.com/index.cgi?caller=articles/gf4mx_roundup/mx440_1.html)
conclusion: go for GF3 Ti or Radeon 8500 ;)
For $120 bucks, he can buy a GeForce 3 Ti200 128meg card.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by akak
To start, the GeForce 4 MX line does not use the same chipset you find in the normal GeForce 4 Ti cards. The MX versions use an older chipset than the normal GeForce 4 Ti cards, think they use the NV17 while the G4 Ti cards use the NV20 chipset. You'd be better off spending the extra $$$ on a G4 Ti or if your strapped for $$$ then maybe looking at one of the G3 Ti cards. I was able to pick up a G3 Ti200 128meg card for only $120 through PriceWatch (http://www.pricewatch.com).
Another reason to stay away from the G4 MX cards is that it doesn't support the full features of DirectX 8.x.
Ack-Ack
I have found GF4 4200 for 138.
Let me find the link.
-
http://avlogic.com/product.cgi?code=11028833
Sorry, $136.
Four page list of Vid cards. the above is on page four.
http://avlogic.com/pc/productlist.cgi?page=1
-
thats a good deal! to bad I dont need a new card or I would snatch that one!
-
dude, before you get a 200 buck vid card get some more ram, at least 256mb, ram is dirt cheap now. im on a ge force 2 card and get fine fps with 256mb, slows up at large furballing but not to single frame rates.
we had about 6-7 squddies up the other niggt (cant remer if you was up then or not) all in B17 x 3 WOO HOOO look so cool, takeing off and flying was fine, though it did get down to 10 fps initally on the floor at start, but we also had hangers buring smoke then too and that really attacks the FPS.
So go for another 256mb min and see how that slaps ya fps
-
NV20 = Gf3Ti
NV25 = Gf4Ti
And now:
As you can see GF4Ti4200 (130-140$ in http://www.pricewatch.com) can be overclocked to give stock GF4Ti4600 a pretty good fight. Just be sure if you're gonna buy GF4Ti4200 card it's having fast mem-chips like MSI I'm using (3,6ns Hynix memory). Card runs stable at 300MHz core/600MHz memory when Ti4600 usually has 300MHz core and 650MHz mem-chips.
Last days I've been playing MB-Truck Racing, Rallye Trophy and Il-2 with full details , 1600x1200 resolution and 32bit colors with AMD 1,4GHz Thunderbird and I haven't seen any framerate drops yet...
You just CAN'T go wrong with MSI GF4Ti4200 card (No; I don't have their stocks ;) )
-
btw 64mb versions are cheaper and faster than 128mb versions.
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw 64mb versions are cheaper and faster than 128mb versions.
Depends on the game really, since the game has to be programmed to take advantage of the additional 64megs. Most games that are coming out now do take advantage of video cards with more than 64 megs. AH isn't one of these games so you'll probably see the same performance between a 64meg card and a 128 meg card.
Ack-Ack