GF4 MX vs GF2 MX

kali

Can someone tell the differences in real world/real time performances between the GF4 MX and the GF2 MX on the same machine (say, a 933 MHz tower)?



Is the GF4 MX (not the titanium) able to do realtime antialiasing (AA) in games like Quake3 ?



What are the FPS cost in Quake, at full quality and details, when using AA with the GF4 MX ?



Any Quake3 benchmarks on the 933 MHz ?



Thanks.

powerdoc

[quote]Originally posted by Kali:

<strong>Can someone tell the differences in real world/real time performances between the GF4 MX and the GF2 MX on the same machine (say, a 933 MHz tower)?



Is the GF4 MX (not the titanium) able to do realtime antialiasing (AA) in games like Quake3 ?



What are the FPS cost in Quake, at full quality and details, when using AA with the GF4 MX ?



Any Quake3 benchmarks on the 933 MHz ?



Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have seen recently the benchmarks of the GF4 mx and titanium compared to radeon 7500 and GF3.

in many way the GF4 mx is far better than the GF2 mx, especially concerning the AA where the GF4 Mx is better than a GF3 (in other features he is less performant because of the lack of vertex rendering unit of the mx version)

I am going to try to find you this link.

torifile

I saw a tech tv piece on the new nVidia cards and the rep said that their method for naming basically involves comparing performance for a new card to the one directly preceding it in that lineup. He said that the GeForce4 cards all have 2-3x the performance of the previous model. That means that the GF4MX has 2-3 times the performance of the GF2MX because there was no GF3MX. Seems a little cheap to me because the GF4MX should technically be 4-9x the performance but they just skipped the GF3MX all together. Take that for what it's worth...