Gf3Ti200 Vs Gf440 MX

konjini · Dec 25, 2002, 10:30 PM

Just wondering with one is faster?
Got a m8 how changed his Mx for the Ti and he sas it slower.
Is this alright?

RIV@NVX · Dec 25, 2002, 10:36 PM

Ti200 is more feature filled. MX440 is actually GeForce 2.5.

~~craig588~~ · Dec 26, 2002, 12:41 AM

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.

Zarathustra · Dec 26, 2002, 04:29 PM

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

digitalwanderer · Dec 26, 2002, 05:09 PM

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.

)

Chaos · Jan 1, 2003, 04:49 AM

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

digitalwanderer · Jan 1, 2003, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos
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

Hey, could you take a second and give me a subjective opinion on your upgrade from the GF3 to GF4? I know it ain't supposed to be a major jump, but I've been seeing a lot of good GF4 ti4200 deals lately and me GF3 is seeming to be getting a tad long-o-tooth...

What did ya think of it when you got it? How were your benchies & games?

Chaos · Jan 1, 2003, 05:39 AM

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

Louie6666 · Jan 1, 2003, 07:00 AM

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!

Matth · Jan 1, 2003, 09:07 PM

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.

Dec 25, 2002, 10:30 PM	#1
konjini DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Heerlen (NL) Posts: 85 Rep Power: 0	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? __________________ iMMortal Clan (WA) Sponsored by: www.extremegameservers.net

Dec 25, 2002, 10:36 PM	#2
RIV@NVX Freedom is a feature. Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Croatia, Rijeka Posts: 4,476 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Ti200 is more feature filled. MX440 is actually GeForce 2.5. __________________ -- Vedran

Dec 26, 2002, 05:09 PM	#5
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,619 Rep Power: 0	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. ) __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?

Jan 1, 2003, 04:49 AM	#6
Chaos Number Nine Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 5,268 Rep Power: 167 System Specs	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, 05:39 AM	#8
Chaos Number Nine Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 5,268 Rep Power: 167 System Specs	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 __________________

Dec 26, 2002, 12:41 AM	#3
~~craig588~~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: In clothing Posts: 3,510 Rep Power: 0	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, 04:29 PM	#4
Zarathustra Elite Bastard Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Confederacy Posts: 841 Rep Power: 0	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

Jan 1, 2003, 07:00 AM	#9
Louie6666 Just One Sick-Lizard Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 501 Rep Power: 0	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, 09:07 PM	#10
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	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.