My reasons for dissing the MX range in the GeForce 4 is that I find that the historical value of it is not honestly represented.
Understand that I am not saying the card is not good, I'm saying it does not live up to its name.
Reason : nVidia first introduced the MX moniker with the GeForce 2. At the time, the GTS and Ultra were quite expensive, like the 4 TI is now. nVidia wanted, and rightly so, a card that would do as an entry-level card based on the GF2 platform. What they did is they took the core GF2 and cut out half the processing pipelines, effectively dividing performance by two, but not affecting any other of the characteristics of the chip. A GF2 MX 400 was still a GF2 card, just downsized and less expensive.
So you had the option, pay full price and get the full performance, or pay much less and get less performance.
Now, you are tempted to reply that it is the same with the GeForce 4 line and the MX and TI versions, but you are unfortunately wrong.
TI is a moniker that came with the GeForce 3. The GF3 started as vanilla GF3, and evolved into TI200 and TI500. The TI200 was slightly less performing than the vanilla 3, and the TI500 was better and, of course more expensive. None of them had any differences in the core technology. As for the GeForce 2, all different versions could do the same things, just at (slightly) different speeds.
Enter the GeForce 4, straightaway declined in MX and TI versions. The TI versions, as per GF3, have the same technical specifications and vary slightly in performance. The MX versions, however, are NOT scaled-down versions of the TI core. Not only do the MX versions have less processing pipelines, they also lack DX8 support and a few other things.
That means that if you buy a GF4 MX, you are NOT getting 4TI technology with lesser power. It is not the same product at all. All MX versions have their merits and possibilities, but they are not little-brother versions of TI cards and will not be able to perform the same things but just slower.
That is why I do not like this. I cannot accept that nVidia tries to make people believe that GF4 MX are actually GF4 technology. They are not.
Aside from that, I have no problems with the MX versions of the GF4. They are a valuable upgrade for someone coming from GF2 territory and will give better performance for the same games.
Contrary to the GF2 MX/GTS versions though, a GF4 MX will never be able to play the same modern games a 4TI can, since they lack DX8 compatibility.
They should have called it something else.
![[pc2]](/data/assets/smilies/pc2.gif "[pc2] [pc2]")