Author Topic: GeForce preformance chart???  (Read 2882 times)

Xalthar

  • Forum Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 2121
  • Tisfjæsing.
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2003, 01:29:55 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by eL_Qadsawi
Well its a good advice Kluger ...

Well for your case a mx440 is great for linux ... And btw. It does support dx v.8 .. (I have a 32mb card that has it ...) so I\'m not only sure I\'m certain that it supports dx 8.0  ...

But for me I LOVE Games .. Infact I\'m addicted to games and thats why I love to program .... werid but true .. The only reason I learn all these languages and learn how to use them is to help me with my game programming ...

 So when you tell me that mx440 has a better value than 9700 and your also telling me that I WON\'T be able to play HALF LIFE 2 on it .. I\'ll just buy the one I can play HL2 on ....


You being certain doesn\'t really change the fact that Geforce mx440 DOESN\'T Support directx 8 since its hardware doesn\'t support the nfiniteFX engine or Directx T&L... (http://www.techspot.com/reviews/hardware/evga_gf4mx440/index.shtml)
And if you didn\'t already know, the geforce4mx series isn\'t even a geforce 4, it\'s a pumped up geforce2 gpu with nothing more than the extra mhz and a few new instructions added to give it that little extra speed...


 
Quote
I\'m getting the GF4MX440, and it\'ll give me around 130 frames per second in UT2003.
Yes, that may very well be on a linux system that has encoded the unreal.exe to run specifically on your system configuration. But that\'s not with ALL details set to \"Very High\" in a high resolution like 1280x1024x32, nor is it running with 16x anisotropic filtering samples... As most gamers out there are windows users and most like their games to look good (not counting all those who play counterstrike or other fps games at a \"professionel\" (ugh) level (mid-lvl-res, no texture detail and bright colors on the opponents block model)), they won\'t have good looking games @ 130 fps in UT2k3, or in any other game newer than 2000, with the gf4mx. They\'ll have games running in mid-res\'es and medium to low detail lvls.
The geforce4mx series is a crappy range of graphics cards that no gamer should ever lay his hands on. Any regular desktop user who doesn\'t play games shouldn\'t really get one either as there are far better 2d cards with tv-out (if you want that) out there at better prices.

DON\'T buy gf4mx! it\'s a total and utter waste of money.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2003, 01:30:43 pm by Xalthar »

Caldazar

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1413
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2003, 01:48:01 pm »
I agree, get a gf4 titanium or an Radeon 9600 pro.
Browsing the forums when I\'m bored, nothing more.

Kluger

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2003, 06:36:45 pm »
\"umm, I can find all sorts of Tom\'s VGA Charts with Radeon 9700 Pro, but I can\'t find any of the GeForce FX chips in the charts. anyone know where I can find that?

anyone find anything? Rogue was looking for basically the same info I\'m looking for, and I\'m totally stumped...\"

oh well.  :-p
« Last Edit: July 14, 2003, 06:37:11 pm by Kluger »
Read my Say\'s Law paper on my homepage!
I\'m here to test Linux PS and maybe find a friend or even a girlfriend, and jump from rooftop to rooftop.  ;-)
\"Despised and rejected, acquainted with grief, He bore the sins of the world.  He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.\"

kyp14

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 380
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2003, 01:10:13 am »
Quote
So when you tell me that mx440 has a better value than 9700 and your also telling me that I WON\'T be able to play HALF LIFE 2 on it .. I\'ll just buy the one I can play HL2 on ....


on the topic of HL2 the engine is apparatley scalable so while if you do own a 2ghz radeon 9800 pro the games gonna look mighty damn sexy but if you have as low as say a p3 700 with a ge force 2 you\'ll still be able to play quiet well it just won\'t look half as good as it does on the faster comuter but don\'t worry its gameplay that makes a game

Maskedtiger

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2003, 06:32:37 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Kluger

  ATi has never intended to be high performance chips but good chips truly worth getting, like the video input/output, DVD decoders (a while ago), etc.



  What is he smoking and can I get some?   Oh wait this is comming from a guy who buys a geforcemx440 in year 2003.   ATI has always intended on being the best doesn\'t every company? ATI has owned Nvida for almost a full year just with the 9700pro if your trying to tell me Nvida had anything that coould even challange that card your just plain retarded the card was the Best for gaming the best visial quality and the fastest card on on the highest AA settings.  ATI has its flagship and then a really decent middle card then it has its Good value chip that is worth getting.    Nvida has one halfway decent chip with shitty visual quality that is fast go figure... Then it has two shitty cards not even worth anyones time because they are so much worse than the flagship... AKA 5800ultra - 5600ultra - 5200 ultra.... not inculding non ultra versions of course witch are worth no ones time.

Kluger

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2003, 08:05:01 pm »
there seems to be some animosity in the air on this forum.  it\'s like being in middle school again.  people aren\'t that way in the game at all...

regardless, I\'ll defend my statement. :)

Quote
What is he smoking and can I get some? Oh wait this is comming from a guy who buys a geforcemx440 in year 2003.


coincidentally, I also have a pallet of 9700 pros.  I\'m just not a gamer myself...

Quote
ATI has always intended on being the best doesn\'t every company? ATI has owned Nvida for almost a full year just with the 9700pro if your trying to tell me Nvida had anything that coould even challange that card your just plain retarded the card was the Best for gaming the best visial quality and the fastest card on on the highest AA settings.


ATi\'s primary concern has always been achieving the highest market share, where nVidia\'s concern has been a little more towards achieving recognition.  ATi has always been the leader in business solutions.  In fact, their entry into 3D gaming, the 3D Rage II was still basically used as a DVD player.  ATi made a serious effort to enter 3D gaming with its Rage 128, which it claimed to be the fastest 3D chip.  I don\'t believe that to be true, since Tom\'s Hardware Guide tested its prototype, and the TNT was found to be faster.

Here\'s Tom\'s comparison of the Rage 128 versus the nVidia TNT:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/19990105/

Other Tom\'s VGA Charts show that nVidia has held the lead in quality, performance, and price for 3D GPUs until, as you said, about a year ago.

Of course, nobody debates that nVidia has had the lead until only very recently.  ATi, who I am in fact praising, never really tried to hold the 3D market.  When Matrox beat ATi in video editing, it seems as though ATi didn\'t make any more major attempts to keep that position and instead focused on the very quickly growing 3D gaming market.  Needless to say, the juggernaut was turned towards widening their technology again and 3D processing was one of the side effects.

Just imagine what would happen if ATi actually focused on 3D like nVidia does.  (Well, of course for clarity, nVidia also makes chipsets, so it\'s not like they\'re completely devoted to 3D.)

On the topic of nVidia, though, they stand to make major gains, too.  All in one motherboard now include nForce chipsets and GF4MX440 GPUs (as opposed to the truly worthless Trident Blade 3D which had been the onboard 3D chip of choice immediately prior).  Where ATi has the most powerful cards, in slightly older cards from all companies, nVidia had the lead in power, quality, and price, so naturally they still hold the value market.

(And please watch the language.  This board has rules on that.)
Read my Say\'s Law paper on my homepage!
I\'m here to test Linux PS and maybe find a friend or even a girlfriend, and jump from rooftop to rooftop.  ;-)
\"Despised and rejected, acquainted with grief, He bore the sins of the world.  He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.\"

Antity

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2003, 08:11:02 pm »
I just love these flame wars :)

(btw I own a radeon 8500, and was pretty happy to own a Geforce1 DDr before that)

The golden rule says :

\"There is no better company, there are only better cards\"

stop fighting over ati and nvidia, just compare the cards :)
How should I know how it works?That\'s what developers are for.  I only tried it.

Kluger

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2003, 08:36:31 pm »
in a sense very well put, and in a sense point already taken...

Anagram time:

Animosity = Is no amity
Read my Say\'s Law paper on my homepage!
I\'m here to test Linux PS and maybe find a friend or even a girlfriend, and jump from rooftop to rooftop.  ;-)
\"Despised and rejected, acquainted with grief, He bore the sins of the world.  He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.\"

Maskedtiger

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2003, 12:14:45 am »
Kluger, you have to realize that the Rage 128 chipset is 32 bit while the TNT was only 16 bit.    Those charts only compared the 16 bit features ATI did infact have the fastest most advanced chip for its time.  The rage 128 chipset still can run current game\'s today because unlike the Radeon family, it is a true 32 bit while the radeons convert 32 bit to True 24 bit that causes a lost of 8bit\'s but at 16X AA the Quality is made up for easily an beats The FX series without much loss in speed.  Try running Vice city on a TNT it will not run then try a RAge 128 and see what happens.   the AGP Rage 128 32mb was regarded as the best solution at the time for 3d gaming and like you said multi media.  I myself have 3 of the all-in-wonder rage 128 AGP GL 4x 32mb.

Kluger

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2003, 01:51:45 am »
Yeah, that\'s true.  The statistics are a matter of how you\'re measurement.  It\'s generally written that there were only two times when ATi\'s top of the line beat nVidia\'s top of the line, and those times were during the R128 Pro and the present...

I just got my shipment.  Yay!  Time to plug in my modest $35.95 GF4MX440SE DDR 64MB with dual VGA...
Read my Say\'s Law paper on my homepage!
I\'m here to test Linux PS and maybe find a friend or even a girlfriend, and jump from rooftop to rooftop.  ;-)
\"Despised and rejected, acquainted with grief, He bore the sins of the world.  He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.\"

Maskedtiger

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2003, 07:25:53 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Kluger
Yeah, that\'s true.  The statistics are a matter of how you\'re measurement.  It\'s generally written that there were only two times when ATi\'s top of the line beat nVidia\'s top of the line, and those times were during the R128 Pro and the present...

I just got my shipment.  Yay!  Time to plug in my modest $35.95 GF4MX440SE DDR 64MB with dual VGA...


Sorry If I come off as a know it all but to put it bluntly, I DO know it all.  Good luck with the new card btw for the price it has to be better than what you had.   But I would have rather spent the money on a cheap hooker, hell I might of got a STD but thats more than the GF4MX440SE has to offer.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2003, 07:28:27 am by Maskedtiger »

Kluger

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2003, 08:32:34 am »
well, for anyone interested, I got the GF4MX440SE today, and I\'m pretty happy with it.  it has lots of new effects, and UT2003 is loads more fun.  it gave me the more than doubling in speed (over the GF2MX200) that the various reviews promised as well as much better picture quality.  the dual-VGA is a neat feature that I\'ll never use.  :-p

even some very feature intensive screensavers run fine at over 100fps.  I have yet to try 3D Mark 2001 (as I don\'t have Windows on this system), but I would expect to have just what the reviews tell me...

surely I don\'t have the most powerful card, but considering that everything I have runs plenty fast and with beautiful picture, I\'d say that this $35.95 card was just the quick fix my computer needed.  I don\'t feel the buyer\'s regret that I usually feel when I make a major upgrade to my computer.  in fact, it feels pretty good.  ^_^  around here, cheap hookers cost much more than GF4MX440\'s, so I have to get my feel-good from a video card instead.  I also have a GF4 Ti 4200, and I notice no difference.  I also tried a Radeon 9700 Pro before sticking it in a customer\'s computer.  (shh, don\'t tell anyone.  ;-)  I didn\'t notice any difference there, either.  the matter is not that the cards aren\'t faster, since we all know they\'re much faster than my GF4MX440.  the matter is that I don\'t have a slower system that could benefit from a fast card, and the software I run already runs at top speed, so going above and beyond makes no difference for me...

my only beef is that they really really ought to have come up with a different designation for this card so that people aren\'t confused into thinking that the GF3 is slower...
Read my Say\'s Law paper on my homepage!
I\'m here to test Linux PS and maybe find a friend or even a girlfriend, and jump from rooftop to rooftop.  ;-)
\"Despised and rejected, acquainted with grief, He bore the sins of the world.  He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.\"

Kluger

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2003, 08:51:59 am »
Aha!  I finally found the data we\'ve been looking for!

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030311/geforcefx-5600-5200-10.html
Read my Say\'s Law paper on my homepage!
I\'m here to test Linux PS and maybe find a friend or even a girlfriend, and jump from rooftop to rooftop.  ;-)
\"Despised and rejected, acquainted with grief, He bore the sins of the world.  He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.\"

Kluger

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2003, 08:54:32 am »
Read my Say\'s Law paper on my homepage!
I\'m here to test Linux PS and maybe find a friend or even a girlfriend, and jump from rooftop to rooftop.  ;-)
\"Despised and rejected, acquainted with grief, He bore the sins of the world.  He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.\"

chrischoo

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2003, 08:15:18 am »
I\'m a user of a GF4MX440 myself and find that it is the best card offered for the price it is pegged at. I\'m not an intense gamer so as long as the graphics look ok and is not too laggy the GF4MX440 rocks my boat. The point I think Kluger is trying to make is that for that price (US$35?) there is no better video card you can get than an MX440. Comparatively the 420s, which are still bundled by Dell in reasonably high end systems, and other offerings from various manufacturers don\'t match up.

I can understand when you guys want to turn on all the effects - Hell if you\'ve looked at the Crystal Space screenshots for Planeshift it looks much better than what I see on my screen... But our opinion differs here because I don\'t feel like paying 4 times the cost of the GF4MX440 just so I can see nice pixel-shaded graphics. I just find that I can do without it, and also considering that I\'m still on a dinky Duron 1.2G, it\'s probably the cheapest rig around that can at least still play some games decently (our definitions of decent certainly aren\'t the same).

Prior to this I was running on a GF2MX, and the speed boost offered by the GF4MX440 was significantly noticeable and yet not much more expensive. I\'ve seen GeForce4 Tis running on faster systems and the graphics certainly look better, but I tell myself that if I gotta squint to see the improved rendering effects then it\'s not worth my dough.

I agree the naming conventions by nVidia have been extremely confusing for the layman, esp with cards such as the GF4MX being somewhat equivalent to a GF2 Ultra, and a GeForceFX 5200 being significantly slower than the GeForce4 Tis. For the value card anyway it looks like the GF4MX has its heart in the right place - The FX 5200 certainly has all/most of the features of a true FX but performs miserably. And if you\'re going to turn off the high quality features you might as well have not purchased the card, hence I think the MX440 still has the best bang for the buck.