Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GF3 Ti200 or GF4 MX460? And where is the 4200?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 25, 2002 4:22:53 PM

Need help to decide. Should I go for the GF3 Ti200 or the GF4 MX460? And what happened to the GF4 4200? It's nowhere to be seen.

//mikey

-----------------
Michael Rozenberg
mikey@herosoft.se
March 25, 2002 4:45:04 PM

Avoid the GF4 MX series. They aren't fully DX8 compatable.

I'd advise the Radeon 8500, as it's about the same price as the GF3 Ti200, and performs better than a Ti500.

The 4200 has been slow in appearing. It likely won't appear till most the GF3s have filtered out of the market (Probably another 2 months)

Bad trolls Bad trolls... Whacha gonna do... Whacha gonna do when they post here too...
March 25, 2002 4:53:20 PM

But the 4200 in not even mentioned at nVidia. Mayby it's been dropped.

-----------------
so you lived to play another day... sigh
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 25, 2002 5:04:04 PM

I havn't seen any 4200's yet..for most people i agree with Bront, forget the MX series its not cost effective for serious gamers, if you enjoy 2d games (like rts) or older DX7.1 games like Diablo 2 etc...then the MX will kick but. For newer games though you need a Radeon or a 4400/4600 model Geforce.

edit: oh yea, if your not a gamer a MX 420 would work just fine for 100 bucks...

"OOOOO Shiny things. I can make powerful equipment with shiny things!" - The imp Butler from BGII<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 03/25/02 02:05 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 25, 2002 7:31:50 PM

The GF4 4200 is behind the GF3 Ti500 cards in the shelfs :wink: - so most/all GF3 Ti500 will have to be sold before the 4200 appears.

The GF3 is better than the GF4 MX.

How terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise
March 25, 2002 7:53:14 PM

No, the 4200 is still in the waiting. They don't want to kill the GF3s they still have in stock however, so they are waiting on it.

The other issue they may have is the 4200 specs might have it down as slow as a GF3 500, depending on how far they drop it.

People are willing to spend the extra $100+ for the 4400 and 4600 at the moment anyway, so Nvidia may decide to ignore it and take the money they can.

The under $200 catagory is still the realm of the 8500 though. Its fast, cheep, stable, and still has plenty of potential. It also might be some of why Nvidia isn't releasing it's 4200. They may have speced the chip down far enough that the 8500 catches it in performance.

I would like to see the GF4 4400, 4600, ti-500, and the 8500 64 and 128 square off against eachother using the latest drivers available (whatever the detonators are, and the ATI 6052 drivers). In several OpenGL apps, as well as D3D apps, the 8500 should do much better than in previous reviews, and it would give everyone a good idea of the difference between the top 3 cards (4600, 4400, 8500)

Bad trolls Bad trolls... Whacha gonna do... Whacha gonna do when they post here too...
March 27, 2002 1:55:22 AM

put it this way, in Australia a GF3 Ti 200 is $370. A Geforce4 Mx 440 is $240. (can't find the 460) Thats a pretty big saving for a card that is only a little slower in terms of FPS. Of course you don't get the pixel shaders but who gives a shieet. You're saving $130.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 28, 2002 11:40:34 PM

Your better off buying a geforce 2 than a geforce 4 mx, I "accidentally impulse purchased" a GF4 mx, and to my dismay my GF2 beat it in all bench marks, I took the damn thing back and got a GF3 Ti 200, Now I'm happy
!