Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GF3 Ti200 vs. GF4 MX440

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2002 5:04:31 AM

Just wondering. For a VERY light gamer (GTA3 and Tiger Woods 2002), which cards is better? I'm looking to keep costs as low as possible. I can get the GF4 MX 440 (64 meg, w/ TV-out) for $170 CDN, taxes inc. The GF3 Ti200 (64 MB, w/ TV-out) is over $210 or so.
For my applications of light gaming, a TON of office and desktop work, and internet surfing, which card is better?

System specs:
AMD Athlon 1.2 GHz
AGP 4x slot
60 gig Quantum HD (7200 rpm)
384 MB PC-133 RAM
SB Live! Value soundcard
Windows XP Professional

That's all that's relevant.

I hear that the GF 4 MX series is only a GF 2 chip with boosted specs? What's the low-down on this exactly, and how will it affect me? What advantages/disadvantages does the GF3 have over the GF4, and vice versa?

Thanks for any help, and sorry for the LONG post. :) 

More about : gf3 ti200 gf4 mx440

May 30, 2002 5:32:35 AM

I would say that the G4 MX would be fine for you. No point in spending more money on a the GF3 Ti200, since you said you're a light gamer. I think the G4 would play Tiger Woods more than good enough for ya. I'm not a real expert, but that's just my opinion. I just thought I'd chime in since it's late and I may the the only person posting right now besides you. Go with the G4.

AMD Athlon XP 1900+, Asus A7V333, 512mb DDR RAM
PNY Geforce4 Ti4400, Win2k
May 30, 2002 9:42:52 AM

The gf3 ti200 is much better, the cost is only slightly more, get the ti200.

Why waste money on an inferior solution?

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
Related resources
May 30, 2002 10:42:40 AM

It's true that the GF4MX can handle with no problems your Office and your games. I don't know if you plan to keep your system for some time, but as plain and easy as can explain:

- GF4MX is a powered version of GF2MX, especially because has higher frecuency Mhz in GPU and memory. Think about it like a car with more power because the cilinders (is it correct in english?) are bigger.

- GF3Ti200 has higher frecuency in Mhz in GPU and memoey than GF2MX, but not as much as GF4MX. In fact, it can deliver the same results or even better, because some new design and arquitecture has been introduced. In our car example, the cilinders aren't as big as the new car, but it has, let's say, electronic injection and other technological modifications so you take more profit of the fuel you use.

What it's clear it that GF3Ti200 has some advanced features that GF4MX doesn't, and probably they are gona be used in next generation games. For example, GF4Ti series has this features more powered.

I hope I am not confusion you more than making it clear. You can also check some articles here in THG or other websites to understand the differences.

My recomendation is: buy a GF3, don't mind if it's the standard, the Ti200 or the Ti500. If you are a little bit lucky, the Ti200 or the good old standard shuold cost about the same as the GF4MX.

Hope that I help. Good luck!

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
May 30, 2002 11:16:16 AM

if u want to get a gf4mx. get the mx440 or mx460.
May 30, 2002 2:23:31 PM

GF 3 TI 200 wins over any GF 4 MX 8 days of the week, hands down, guaranteed.

The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the empires state building, along came goblin, wiped the spider out
May 30, 2002 3:09:52 PM

I'm not questioning that the GF3 Ti wins over GF4 MX. I just thought since he said he was a very light gamer, there wasn't much use in spending that more on the GF3. If you want the better card, go with the GF3. If you want to save a few bucks, go with the GF4. If the extra $40 is not a problem for you, then by all means go with the GF3.

AMD Athlon XP 1900+, Asus A7V333, 512mb DDR RAM
PNY Geforce4 Ti4400, Win2k
May 30, 2002 4:25:17 PM

but the gf3 ti 200 is as cheap...
May 30, 2002 4:53:37 PM

He said it was a $40 price difference.

The GF4 MX has some advantages over a GF3. It is faster in many of the older (DX7) games, and isn't too horid in newer games. It also has a TV out in this case, and native 2 monitor support (usualy with 2 outputs on the card.)

I'd save the money and go with the GF4 MX in your case. Especialy with your lack of gaming. As a gaming card, the GF3 will last a bit longer with it's full DX8 support, but not long enough to truely worry about.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
May 30, 2002 6:09:20 PM

We're basically debating whether a 25% price difference is worth the benefits that you would receive with your limited gaming. It's actually a close call. The GF4 MX's really showcase with faster CPU's, so in that context the G3 might be the more qualified selection for your config. BUT...

First thing, you can't go wrong either way because they're both great cards for the money. I would say MX, because you don't need the advanced features of the G3 and there would be no true performance gain or loss to compensate for 25% price, because you'll never see a difference in the games you play! Go with the MX and you'll be more than happy, plus you can spend the extra doe on alcohol.

Life's a hole...dig it. - Joe Dirt
June 3, 2002 11:11:41 PM

Just a thought... Why don't you purchase a Ti4200 card. This card is, for all intents & purposes, the same as the much more expensive Ti4400 and Ti4600 cards but clocked a lower 250/500 Mhz. The Ti4200 is listed on PriceWatch as low as $152.00 for the 64 MB version and as low as $185.00 for the 128 MB version.

Just thought, you might want to check this out before you limit your options.
June 4, 2002 1:45:28 AM

GF4 MX will be good enought but make sure the image quality of the card is good.
June 4, 2002 9:26:30 AM

As has been mentioned above, the GF 3 Ti 200 is designed better. True light speed memory architecture (the GF 4 MX has mock up "LMA"), pixel shading, nFiniteX GPU, etc....

The MX line of GF cards are, put plainly, are just a good solution for a cheap card to run desktop aps and casual gaming (don't expect to be able to play games coming out a month from now in 1024x768 without major breakup). They can get high resolutions, good still image quality, dual monitor display, and other things - but they are not designed for performance (framerate), they are designed as more of a multimedia display piece.

If a big company was going to order a bunch of computers for its office (for business work mostly), they might outfit them with the MX 420's (not the 460's) Rather than buying the cheapest piece of junk out there, or relying on a motherboard with integrated video.

It will work well as a display piece, but it will not be able to perform well with good image quality in current games (like Morrowind for example).

Of course you're playing Tiger Woods, but if you ever pick up a game in the future, it will probably not run well.
June 4, 2002 1:38:29 PM

Just to throw a wrench in the monkey.

You could go with a Matrox Millenium G450. Best card for 2d applications. Dual monitor support. Good enough for light gaming.

The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the empires state building, along came goblin, wiped the spider out
June 5, 2002 10:48:48 AM

i would go for the geforce3 ti200.
in the long run u will be able to keep it for longer... gotta think long term, gotta be able to handle the games you get in the future.

i hate how they call it a geforce4... its really nothing more than a glorified geforce2!!!

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol: 
June 5, 2002 11:40:47 AM


True light speed memory architecture (the GF 4 MX has mock up "LMA"),/quote]

Actually, the GF4MX has superior LMA than the TI200.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink: