The GeForce 4 MX

[tbaher]

What is the geforce 4 mx good for?
it is slower than a gf3..

i hate nvidia for confusing people

then they come up with the gffx5200 which might as well be MX too

and then they have the audacity to come up with the geforce 2 MX
how slow is this card???

[Monty Burns]

MX cards are usually budget cards, just for people who wanna tell their friends: "Look I have a GF 2,4,...."

For later cards, they changed it....

Nevertheless, not everyone needs a high end card, so it is good, they exist.

[DABhand]

I have a machine with a Geforce FX5200 256MB, and my games work well, but mine is from XFX (pine) which is a division of Nvidia, so not a 3rd party GFX card.

[tbaher]

we did a speed test on a DX8.1 game .. GF4Ti vs GeforceFX5200 .. both 128MB..
the geforce4 won..

the geforce4 is not capable of dx9 .. so the GFFX5200 wins by default..

I dunno .. people i know who had gf4s bought the fx5200.. (just cause it's the next gen.)

[puppeteer666]

The Geforce 4 mx is good for doom 1,unreal1,solitaire and excellent desktop clarity otherwise no P.S no new games the geforce4 mx is not even faster than a geforce 2 ultra.

[DABhand]

Not entirely true, a Geforce 4 MX440 is relatively like a 5200/5500 but without pixel shading and other useful hardware options.

[tbaher]

Back in the day.. my first 3D card was a Matrox Mystique.. it might have accelerated stuff .. but it didn't support "alpha" in textures.. in other words: explosion and dust sprites looked like big squares.. (dust like in need for speed)
GLQuake was around around a year or 2 later and that's when I heard about VOODOO!! .. colored LIGHTING .. WOW..

but yeah .. in this day and age.. mx = the devil ..

[Play]

Originally Posted by puppeteer666

The Geforce 4 mx is good for doom 1,unreal1,solitaire and excellent desktop clarity otherwise no P.S no new games the geforce4 mx is not even faster than a geforce 2 ultra.

You are wrong! Oh boy, you are wrong like hell. Let me tell you something:
I have GF4 MX440. I haven't got the money to buy a better one, but I don't need to: I think they labeled my card wrong !
Guess what? I play with UT2004, KOTOR2, and I tried Doom3 too, and all these games run like a dream on my comp. A little stuttering here and there in doom3, and no pixel shading or other DX9 stuff, BUT GF4 DOES IT'S JOB!!!
We use to play UT2004, CS:CZ and other games in LAN Partys and my PC beats all my friends's. I think I can see from where they scrached off the NASA sign from my card I know what you think. you think I'm crazy for praising GF4 but I can't do anything. See, I'm not that well funded to buy a better card, I never was. I alway valued long lasting good performance against short term high quality. When prices drop to a level I can afford a better card like GFFX, I will buy one. Until then, I'm happy I got this card. It runs all games, though not high quality, but I like the good gameplay, not the shiny graphics. If a game is good, it is good at medium or low quality. If only the look is good in a game, it is busted.
I think you got my point...

[Luciel]

oh man tbaher... the memories...

My first was an Ati Rage pro 2mb and had the same deal as you, then i got quake and as a bday pressie i got a voodoo 2 3dfx 12mb OMG i was soo wowed for days/months quake looked so cool with it, and then sega rally 2 with the dust effects ^.^

[coffin filler]

Back in the day

Yeah i remember those times. I also remember owning Atari2600,ZX spectrum 48k. I remember when it all went high tech with the Amiga 500 (which could be upgraded to 1M and it was a "massive" silver metal type thing you inserted in the bottom of your Amiga Keyboard (which is wear everything lived). Ohhh the memorys
When i was a lad i remember what we called cutting edge. Now look @ cutting edge graphics,game-play etc. (not to mention the internet. The nearest thing to that was the telephone). Opps im going all nostalgic or something Now back on topic.....

I had a MX440 in one of my older rigs and i have to say i was impressed when i looked @ price against performance. It ran every game @ the time and ran them pretty well. (obviously not high detail etc).

[puppeteer666]

Ain't saying go buy a $600 card just back when the mx came out the Ti's were quite affordable.
And I know mx can't even play topspin on the pc. Doom3?

[acal3000]

Man old times my first system was a 386/16 MHZ with a Oak Technlogies VGA videocard I doubt that manufactarer stills exist after I had a HP Vectra 486 with a Cirrus Logic video card (when they still made video) with less than 1 mb of memmory later I had a pentium 3 500 MHz with an Sis 620 8Mb video card and 8 Mb of memmory I couldnt run games very well on that computer due to the lack of 3d support on the card Now I have a Compaq Pentium IV 1.5 with a Geforce MX 4000 (upgraded from a Vanta 16 Mb) This computer is old but still plays most of the games and I agree without pixel & shader is difficult to get some games to work. I had problem with Men of Valor because of this the soldiers loos like crucified due to that but another game that requires pixel shades tribes vengeance runs fine is a little strange I hope I can get a new computer soon but this time I will continue stuck with this one

[tbaher]

@Play

"running it well" is very subjective ... to me it means that at the default settings in a game .. it runs with 30-40fps.. that means that you can up the detail all the way to max and still not drop below 20..
but it's not an FPS issue .. it's a graphics issue as well..
a pentium 2 can "accelerate" quake1 to the point where it's over 30fps..
so .. theoretically .. my CPU in software mode can run doom3 ..

i'm not even getting into FSAA and ASF .. bump maps and "out of focus" effects...

rationalize your MX to yourself all you wish .. it's still an MX ..
i'm glad you like it..

@Everyone else:
Since I have a 1-up attitude right now.. and you mentioned the amiga500.. here's my first computer experience: the IBM PC 8088 (XT) transportable..
yes it was an IBM .. and yes it was transportable.. that means that one person (unassisted) could lift it around..
it was an old computer that had a built in screen.. and yes we upgraded from 256k ram to 640k ram..
it cost around the price of a car..
it didn't have 8" floppy drives built in because everyone was using 5.25" and 8" was obsolete.. DOUBLE DENSITY was the bomb..
the whole thing turned into a suitcase looking item when the keyboard was closed..

UGH

[Luciel]

ooh well my first "portable" surely wasnt that old,

it was a viglen 486 laptop (anyone remember viglen!!!?) and it had a 6" screen (the rest of the screen space was simply plastic) and it run on dos and windows 3.1 and lets face it, for the price it costed u couldve gotten the top of the range pc of the time and then some, it was more a "show off" accesorie, then again it wasnt tottally mine, it was my dads but he never used it so yeah.

[DABhand]

My a500 had 4mb Ram and a 100mb HD :P