Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GF3 Vs. GF4MX (nforce2 IGP)

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Computer
  • Geforce
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 8, 2005 12:19:04 PM

I recently upgraded the graphics card in my primary computer. This freed-up my original Geforce 3 card.

I currently have a second computer running with integrated geforce 4MX graphics, (nforce2 IGP).

I'm wondering if there would be a performance gain if I were to stick the old GF3 card in the nforce 2 motherboard? Any experience appreciated.

Aster

More about : gf3 gf4mx nforce2 igp

February 8, 2005 3:36:42 PM

The Geforce 3 is much more powerful than the Geforce4 MX; and the integrated Geforce4 MX on your Nforce4 board is weaker than a regular Geforce 4 MX.

So, yeah... the Geforce3 would definitely kick it up a notch.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Cleeve on 02/08/05 12:38 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 8, 2005 5:47:52 PM

Yep, it should be. My Geforce 3 gained 1200 points in 3Dmark03. Geforce 3 is much closer to Ti4200 than you would think and it does run well on Doom 3.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2005 9:02:08 PM

The GeForce4 MX is based on the GeForce2 GTS. In spite of it's newer name, it's a DirectX 7 solution. Putting it onboard also hampers its memory performance, so that a GeForce2 GTS would be faster than a GeForce4 MX onboard (IGP).

The GeForce3 is barely faster than the GeForce2 GTS, but offers increased features, including a full array of DirectX 8 features to enhance your games. Compared to the IGP, I'd expect around 200% performance improvements (3x the performance) in some 3D applications, and a minimum of 50% improvement (1.5x the performance) in other 3D apps.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
February 9, 2005 2:08:29 AM

thanks for responses very helpful
February 9, 2005 2:58:56 AM

GeForce4 MX is actually based on GeForce2 MX, which not only has half memory bandwidth of GeForce2 GTS, but also half number of pixel pipelines (GTS has 4, MX has 2).

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
February 9, 2005 4:25:27 AM

Are you sure about that spitfire?

As I recall, the Geforce2MX 200 had a 64-bit memory interface, the geforce2 MX 400 and plain MX had a 128-bit memory interface...

With the geforce4 MX's, I believe the 420 had 64-bit, while the 440 and 460 MX's had 128-bit.

Are you sure they had half the pipelines? I believe a Geforce4 MX 440 and 460 could beat a Geforce2 GTS...

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>
February 9, 2005 4:57:17 AM

I'm sure that GeForce2 and GeForce4 MX series had 2 pixel pipelines, 2 TMU per pipe. GeForce4 MX440 is clocked at 275 MHz, and has 1100 MTexel/s theoritical max. fillrate, that's 275x2x2. GeForce2 MX400 has 400 MPixel/s and 800 MTexel/s fillrate (200x2x2). You're correct about memory specs. GeForce4 MX440 has 6.4 GB/s and MX460 has 8.8 GB/s memory bandwidth.

GeForce4 MX series uses memory bandwidth more efficiently (IIRC, like GeForce4 Ti series, what Nvidia tells "LMA-II"), that's why it performs much better than GeForce2 MX series and MX440 outperforms even GeForce2 GTS series.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2005 6:22:32 AM

Actually the GeForce4 MX440 is a hotted up GeForce2 GTS. Really. The MX/MX400 had either an SDR 128-bit memory interface or a DDR 64-bit memory interface, at the discretion of the manufacturer (I think Creative was the only company to use 64-bit DDR, but I didn't keep track).

The main disadvantage of the MX/MX400 was its paired-down memory interface. The MX200 was paired down even more. The MX440 didn't have that handicap, therefor it was more closely related to the GTS.

Of course the MX/MX400 had something the GTS didn't have: full dual-monitor support. And the 4-MX had that too, so if you want to use that as your excuse to call the MX440 a revised MX400, be my guest, but it's the memory interface that's most relavent IMO.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2005 11:44:51 AM

Good place for GF4MX specs, and also performance tests: <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles/gf4mx/" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles/gf4mx/&lt;/A>

Performance wise Fastest to slowest, I always believed it was:
GF2 Ultra
GF2 TI
GF2 Pro
GF2 GTS
GF2 MX400
GF2 MX
GF2 MX200

Not real sure, but I had thought that The GF4MX 460 beat out the GF2 Ultra, the GF4 MX440 was better than a GF2Ti, and the MX420 was below the GF2 GTS. Like you said, all depending on what ram the manufacturer used.


Edit, just looked back at Tom's VGA charts 1 & 2. It would seem I underestimated the GF4 MX440 as it too is usually faster than the GF2 Ultra. Not totally sure still on the MX420 and would need to also fit in the IGP version also, but here is a revised list fastest to slowest. Any comments/changes?

GF3Ti500 (DX8)
GF3 (DX8)
GF4 MX460
GF3 Ti200 (DX8)
GF4 MX440
GF2 Ultra
GF2 Ti
GF2 Pro
GF4 MX420 (DDR)
GF2 GTS
GF2 MX400
GF2 MX
GF2 MX200

Weird, but maybe because I have used so many of these cards (except GF4MX), but I find this blast from the past to be alot of fun. :eek: 

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A> <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 02/09/05 09:33 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 9, 2005 4:14:55 PM

Theoritically, GeForce2 MX vs. GeForce2 GTS = Radeon 9700 (non-Pro) vs. Radeon 9500 (non-Pro)

The performance difference between GF2 MX and GF2 GTS wasn't that big, maybe because GTS didn't have a decent memory controller to take advantage of 2x more fillrate.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
!