GeForce4 MX benchmarks

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Is it just me or do these benchmarks suck. I'm guessing it's not the GF4s fault.



«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 86
    sebseb Posts: 676member
    115 FPS sucks?



    whatever.



    I (rarely)play games and only get about 35 FPS and don't have any problem. I can't imagine complaining about 115FPS.



    You ever played a game at 115 fps Scott? Was it unacceptable? Or are just doing the general "troll" thing?



    AFAIK, the Gamecube, Xbox, and PS2 don't get more than 60fps and I think people are considering them to be worthwhile gaming machines. They're being sold in droves anyways.



    I don't know why I even bothered responding to this...
  • Reply 1 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>Is it just me or do these benchmarks suck. I'm guessing it's not the GF4s fault.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's just you
  • Reply 1 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>Is it just me or do these benchmarks suck. I'm guessing it's not the GF4s fault.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm not complaining.



    I'd be interested to know how Quake 3 runs on a Dual 1Ghz G4 with GeForce 4 MX and a cinema display at 1600 x 1024 x 32 with all settings at maximum. Whoever gets this set-up, please let me know what your FPS are.
  • Reply 4 of 86
    gnomgnom Posts: 85member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>I'm guessing it's not the GF4s fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    it kinda is, but then again it´s not. The GeForce 4MX has not much to do with the real thing (GeForce 4). While the MX is based on the NV 17 chipset wich is more like the GeForce 2 the real thing is based on NV 25 chipset.

    It´s kind of a hoax.





    bye.
  • Reply 5 of 86
    My OLD and useless Athlon 700 with a GF2 [email protected]/210 get at least 99 fps in CounterStrike which is based on the QIII engine so these benchmarks are poor... <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
  • Reply 6 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    Counterstrike is based on the Q2 engine I believe, not Q3.



    For everyone saying that 115fps is "fine", you're missing out on a crucial point: it's a benchmark. Quake 3 is years old now, and it's being used just to test systems so people can get an idea of how the newer games might perform. Just because the G4 gets 115 fps in Q3 @ 1024 x 768 doesn't mean it will get the same performance in say, RTCW or the upcoming Q4 or DNF.







    This is with a Pentium 2GHz Williamatte.



    Notice how even with a Radeon 7500 or a GF2 Pro the Pentium can beat Apple's dual 1GHz systems?
  • Reply 7 of 86
    Maybe I should have made it more clear up front that PeeCees get higher frame rates. It's important when the game bogs down with many players and bullets flying everywhere. Typicaly you need about 60 fps so as not to notice the frames.



    I just thought a GF4 would do a lot better than the GF3 in PeeCee land. I'm off to find some benchmarks.
  • Reply 8 of 86
    sebseb Posts: 676member
    Ah, now I see. People don't care how well it performs for them, they care how it performs against someone else's PC.



    Does it matter, really? Isn't the point to shoot the other guy more times? Or blow him up more times or whatever?



    I guess when Macs are getting 200+ fps, and the PCs are getting 300+ fps you still won't be happy?
  • Reply 10 of 86
    gnomgnom Posts: 85member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>I just thought a GF4 would do a lot better</strong><hr></blockquote>



    it would if it were a GeForce 4, what it is in reality is just a blownup GeForce 2 wich is pretty close to the benchmarks MacAddict posted.





    bye.
  • Reply 11 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    seb, when you're paying over $2500 for the latest and greatest Apple system, you'd probably like it to be at least slightly competitive with PCs that can be had for hundreds of dollars cheaper.



    At 640 x 480, Pentium 4s are already hitting hard into the 300fps+ range. With GF4s, this will only get higher.



    People are also easily overclocking P4s to 3GHz and beyond...and Apple just hit the 1GHz barrier.



    What Scott H is saying is that he can't see why people will want to pay so much for a system that is only so fast.
  • Reply 13 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by seb:

    <strong>Ah, now I see. People don't care how well it performs for them, they care how it performs against someone else's PC.



    Does it matter, really? Isn't the point to shoot the other guy more times? Or blow him up more times or whatever?



    I guess when Macs are getting 200+ fps, and the PCs are getting 300+ fps you still won't be happy?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    As always the mac users misses the point. Why spend top money for the latest Mac with the latest $$$ graphics card when yesterdays tech on a PeeCee is faster and cheaper. Aren't you worried? You should be because these poor numbers are going to help sink Apple.
  • Reply 14 of 86
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    Double trouble. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: MacAddict ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 86
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
  • Reply 16 of 86
    gnomgnom Posts: 85member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>perhaps you don't understand that...this card seem "slow" or "average".</strong><hr></blockquote>





    perhaps you don´t understand, but this card IS slow and average.









    bye.



    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: GnOm ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 86
    [quote]Originally posted by MacAddict:

    <strong>At 640 x 480, Pentium 4s are already hitting hard into the 300fps+ range. With GF4s, this will only get higher.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Look at the specs: The new PowerMacs don't have a GF4, they have a GF4MX, and there's a HUGE difference. Both are nowhere as related as the name implies.





    [quote]<strong>People are also easily overclocking P4s to 3GHz and beyond...and Apple just hit the 1GHz barrier.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Interesting, how easy is it? If most P4s easily (and reliably) run at those speeds, why does Intel only sell them up to 2.2GHz?





    [quote]<strong>

    What Scott H is saying is that he can't see why people will want to pay so much for a system that is only so fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, maybe because there's more to computing than just gaming?



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 18 of 86
    are you really going to spend the big bucks for an apple tower to play GAMES????? apple tower is for photoshop, FCP...it is a working mans pro machine....games are an afterthought at best...real gamers should have two computers...an apple for work and fun, a pc for games....or better yet, an apple for work, fun and an occasional game, and a game box that hooks to your tv to play games....g
  • Reply 19 of 86
    x704x704 Posts: 276member
    I think it's also important to point out that in no way is the Mac version of quake anywhere close to as optimized as the PC version. So from the start, the PC's have an advantage.



    Additionally, I think we can all agree that these new PM's are simply a "Stop Gap". I personally will be extremely surprised if we don't see G5's with DDR by MWNY.



    If fps is the only thing that matters to you then why do you have a mac? Never in recent times have they been better for games; If though, you want a good allround system that has good (not exception) gameplay then the macs for you ... hardcore gamers will always be dissappointed. This is unlikely to ever change. Either get over it, get a PC or get a console (that's what I did, NGC all the way!).
  • Reply 20 of 86
    Gaming shaming.



    Do you all think Maya will screem on this machine over a PeeCee? No it wont.



    What's the diff between MX and non MX? What does the MX mean?
Sign In or Register to comment.