geforce 3 or 4?

[mad3329]

Im building a new computer so far i have an asus mobo w/256 mb of ddr ram, and and a thunderbird 1.4 gig processor..and and an 80gb hard drive....the next thing on my list is a video card....i dont have a very big budget so i cant go after the big geforce ti 4600, but i was looking at the smaller 4400....but theres only about 20 dollars difference in the geforce 4 ti 4400 and the geforce 3 ti 500.....which one would you recommend????

 

[Jakespeare]

4

Why buy LAST YEARS technology ?
I have been installing the GeForce4 MX 440's in customers computers lately, and I have had a chance to run them through the paces...... and test them hands on.


> My computer: Pentium 4 - 2 GHz Northwood
* GeForce 3 Pro (full version, the card below the Ti500 and above the Ti200) a ~$200 video card. It smokes still.
3DMark 2000 score - Win 98 SE = 10,400

** Customers GeForce4 MX 440 (at $120)
Athlon XP 1800+
256 DDR RAM
* 3DMark 2000 = 9400

Heh. So, if a punk GF4 will do 9400, think what a GeForce4 4400 will do ?

You would be crazy and foolish to buy a GeForce3 for $20 less,,,,,,,,
besides, the GF4 comes with *128 MB's* of RAM. That is your $20 right there.

*Last: Be SURE and buy a name brand card. Don't get a eVGA or a PNY. Buy a CardExpert / Asus / MSI / LeadTek, etc.

 

[dakota81]

Just because something is "last year's" technology does not mean much, though.

With some games, a GeForce4 MX440 performs _slower_ than even a GeForce2 Ti. Check out Tom's Hardware Guide if you don't believe me.

I don't know the answers to how the nVidia chipsets break down in terms of speed comparisons, as I'm utterly baffled by it all (I'm buying ATI my next video card, much better display quality).

If someone here knows how the multitudes of GeForce chips compare to each other, I would sure like to know, and I'm sure others would to.

 

[cdogg]

OK, sit back and hold on tight...

Nvidia used some real lame naming convention for their new line of GeForce4 cards. GeForce4 and GeForce4 MX are very different in terms of 3D capabilities. While GeForce4 MX cards do have 128 MB of DDR RAM, and use the latest core architecture of the TI version, the MX doesn't include "vertex shader engines". A vertex shader enables a programmer to specify their own code to render 3D images. Without it, it's like writing code for the GeForce2.

So in reality, the GeForce4 MX is pre-GeForce3 technology, though it should be faster than a GeForce2. If you're debating on getting a GeForce4 MX over a GeForce3, don't do it. You won't have compatibility with the latest Direct8X games (sequel to DOOM and Unreal which are soon to be released, for example).

The Geforce4 Ti version however, has 2 vertex shaders where the GeForce3 Ti only has one. Also, it has twice the memory, improved core architecture, improved Z-buffering, and a slightly faster core.

Here's the line of succession:

1) GeForce4 Ti 4800 (not yet released)
2) GeForce4 Ti 4600
3) Geforce4 Ti 4400
4) Geforce3 Ti cards
5) GeForce3 (standard)
6) Toss-up between Geforce2 Ultra and GeForce4 MX

Read more about it in the April issue of MaximumPC which also shows benchmarks, screen shots, etc.

Hope that helps...
~cdogg

 

[cdogg]

I apologize for the typo above. The GeForce4 Ti cards are:

Geforce4 Ti 4600 (325MHz core clock)
Geforce4 Ti 4400 (275MHz " " )
Geforce4 Ti 4200 (250MHz " " )

Also forgot to mention that the biggest speed improvement you will notice about a GeForce4 over a GeForce3 will be when using FSAA, or anti-aliasing. The GeForce4 has a specific engine on the GPU ("Multisample Antialiasing&quot that is optimized to enhance FSAA. The GeForce3 can be as much as 40% slower without this customized engine.

**For those of you who aren't familiar with FSAA, it's a whole new experience playing a game with it enabled. It gets rid of choppy lines that don't quite connect at certain points (also called "jaggies&quot. When using 2x FSAA, each pixel on-screen is actually a combo of two pixels resulting in smoother shapes.


~cdogg