First of all, you need to stop rating a card by MB vs MB.
Then I'm saying why GeForce3 will be superior.
1) It's DirectX 8 compliant, has pixel and vetrex shader. Pixel shader will result in better visual effects and vertrex shader will minimize CPU usage. GeForce4 MX440 has none of them, so it's not DX8 compliant
2) GeForce4 MX440's fillrate is very poor. GeForce3 has better fillrate, so it will do better in higher resolutions.
3) GeForce3 is faster (fps wise) than GeForce4 MX440 in every gaming benchmark.
4) GeForce3 will be able to run 3 game tests in new 3DMark2003, and GeForce4 MX440 will be able to run only one game test, this shows technically how bad GeForce4 MX is. This is one reason of nVidia's bad words about 3DMark2003
4) 128 MB will make 0% difference in games with a GeForce4 MX440
As Spitfire has so eloquently put it, this card is just trading under the GF4 banner and dresses itself up by having 128MB. If the architecture isn't in place, then all the RAM in the world isn't gonna do jack....
I've said it before and I'll say it again... You can put lipstick on a pig, but hey, it's still a pig!
Heh... Oh yeah... One more thing... Could you guys double-check my procedure for installing the new card? Pretty paranoid about screwing up my PC! =Þ
1. Switch to Standard Display Adapter (VGA)
[or Standard PCI Display Adapter (VGA)?]
2. Get rid of old drivers (DetonatorDestroyer?)
3. Insert new graphics card (and take the old one out!)
4. Install new drivers
5. Keep fingers crossed (Plug 'n Pray, after all...)
I have a Gf3 and it has been a very good card. However, it is starting to show its age now. On new games you will not be able to turn on FSAA or ansiotropic filtering and still get good detail levels. I know this is a very general statement, but for the mostpart its true. But what these guys said was absolutly true about the GF4 MX...I have no clue why Nvidia even bothered with these cards.
The only way France is going in is if we tell them we've discovered truffles in Iraq. -Dennis Miller