did we really need to upgrade?

I'm a student living in a house with two of my mates. We all have PC's, the
house is littered with them. One guy plays UT at a good framerate with
average-ish settings on a TNT2. I play UT with a good frame rate on close to
max settings on a GF4 MX440. My other friend plays UT2003 with Max detail,
4xAA and 8xAF at great frame-rates on a Radeon9700Pro.

I think that speaks for itself.
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

The MX460 is the best MX that Nvidia ever made. I'm not surprised that it
is OK for you. Did you get Halo to run ok on the GF1? I have never tried
Postal so I don't know hard it is on a card.

As long as you are satisfied with the MX then stay with it. It is missing
DX8 features, but to tell you the truth, I have a hard time seeing exactly
what those are when in a game. Maybe if I had the two on two different
monitors side by side I could be able to tell. Myself, I will never in my
life spend more than $150 for a video card. It's just not that important to
me. As long as the card plays the games I want to play and plays them
smoothly with a pleasant (and somewhat realistic) visual, then I'm
satisfied.

Dave


"cowboyz" <me RemoveThis @here.now> wrote in message
news:bv6dbs$q1q$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
 > I have a GF4MX460 sitting ona XP2100+
 >
 > Works quite nicely too. I have yet to find a game that I can't play at
 > 1024x768 which is my preferred resoultion Above that and I have trouble
 > reading text on my 17' monitor. Despite being constantly told how the
MX460
 > is crap and the Ti4200 rocks I am currently playing Halo and Postal2 which
 > no trouble at all.
 >
 > Then yesterday I got my hands on a GeForce DDR running at 120/300 with a
 > bandwidth of 4800MB/sec (as aposed to the 460 running at 320/600 with a
 > bandwidth of 9600MB/sec) I thought it would suck but it really does a
good
 > job. Played postal2 for half and hour and noticed a couple of glitches
 > (which I wouldn't see on the 460) but nothing that would piss me off when
 > playing. Simpsons hit and run plays like a dream.
 >
 > At the end of the day it hasn't been worth my time to switch the cards
back
 > over yet so this GF1 is still in my machine.
 >
 > So I come to these conclusions .
 >
 > a> Software setup has more to do with smooth gameplay than hardware
 >
 > OR
 >
 > b> The GF1 was a REALLY good card
 >
 > OR
 >
 > c> The GF4MX460 REALLY sucks.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

Derek Wildstar wrote:
 > "cowboyz" <me.DeleteThis@here.now> wrote in message
 > news:bv6dbs$q1q$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
 >
 >
  >> c> The GF4MX460 REALLY sucks.
 >
 > Welcome to 2004.

I put that in there kinda knowing that you would pick that option.

I was looking at a 5900U the other day and as with all things we have to
justify large spends with the other in the house and I simply haven't got a
good game that I like that slows the 460 down enough to hinder the enjoyment
out of playing. This isn't surposed to be a troll but I guess it could
easily get there. I keep getting told my 460 sucks but I can't find the
evidence to support it therefore justifying an upgrade.

Added to that I got this GF1 the other day and it rocks too. My entry
level nvidia card was the GF2MX (can't remember the core but memory was at
183) and i thought that was pretty good. I brought the GF4 when I got
Tiger woods 2003 cause it played like crap and then it turned out to be a
software (driver) issue anyway. I wasn't that upset cause I got the G4 for
the VIVO and dual screen which is cool so it was worth the upgrade.

So I guess my question is. Why does the GF4MX460 suck? with 600Mhz on the
memory (the Ti4200 is like 500 or 550 isn't it? with a bandwidth of like
8GB/s?) and a memory bandwith of over 9GB/s. Sure, dx8 is missing but what
am I missing out on? I have seen GTA VC on a Ti4200 and couldn't tell the
difference visually between that and the 460 and I thought that was surposed
to be a dx8 title.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

I hear ya. I have GF4MX 440s that plays many games just fine, if
you are on a system of reasonable strength . I also have a FX5900 and
it plays that same stuff better, that's all.

Enjoy what you have got, and get what you can, when you need to.


"cowboyz" <me.DeleteThis@here.now> wrote in message news:bv6pem$ue$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
 > Derek Wildstar wrote:
  > > "cowboyz" <me.DeleteThis@here.now> wrote in message
  > > news:bv6dbs$q1q$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
  > >
  > >
   > >> c> The GF4MX460 REALLY sucks.
  > >
  > > Welcome to 2004.
 >
 > I put that in there kinda knowing that you would pick that option.
 >
 > I was looking at a 5900U the other day and as with all things we have to
 > justify large spends with the other in the house and I simply haven't got
a
 > good game that I like that slows the 460 down enough to hinder the
enjoyment
 > out of playing. This isn't surposed to be a troll but I guess it could
 > easily get there. I keep getting told my 460 sucks but I can't find the
 > evidence to support it therefore justifying an upgrade.
 >
 > Added to that I got this GF1 the other day and it rocks too. My entry
 > level nvidia card was the GF2MX (can't remember the core but memory was at
 > 183) and i thought that was pretty good. I brought the GF4 when I got
 > Tiger woods 2003 cause it played like crap and then it turned out to be a
 > software (driver) issue anyway. I wasn't that upset cause I got the G4
for
 > the VIVO and dual screen which is cool so it was worth the upgrade.
 >
 > So I guess my question is. Why does the GF4MX460 suck? with 600Mhz on
the
 > memory (the Ti4200 is like 500 or 550 isn't it? with a bandwidth of like
 > 8GB/s?) and a memory bandwith of over 9GB/s. Sure, dx8 is missing but
what
 > am I missing out on? I have seen GTA VC on a Ti4200 and couldn't tell
the
 > difference visually between that and the 460 and I thought that was
surposed
 > to be a dx8 title.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:41:27 +1300, "cowboyz" <me.DeleteThis@here.now> wrote:
 >
 >So I guess my question is. Why does the GF4MX460 suck? with 600Mhz on the
 >memory (the Ti4200 is like 500 or 550 isn't it? with a bandwidth of like
 >8GB/s?) and a memory bandwith of over 9GB/s. Sure, dx8 is missing but what
 >am I missing out on? I have seen GTA VC on a Ti4200 and couldn't tell the
 >difference visually between that and the 460 and I thought that was surposed
 >to be a dx8 title.

Crank up the details to max... there is a visual difference on GTA VC
on a MX-4 card and a GF4-Ti4200. The textures aren't as sharp, the
frame rate isn't there. The slower the card, the more CPU power it
needs to make up for it.... and that can only go so far.


I've owned a GF2mx, GF3, Ti4200 and now ATI9800. Halo ran great on
my Ti4200... I've seen it play on a GF2mx and it looked like crap,
horrible frame rate.... anyways - even between the ATI9800 and Ti4200
- the is visual differences, But for the most part, they are simular
on both and look good on both.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

Why does the GF4MX460 suck?

"Suck" is a bit of a strong term but basically what you are missing out on
is being able to set the cards quliaty settings ( 8x AA/AF - Best Quality
MipMap etc) to the maximum and then setting the game settings to the
maxcimum and getting a super quliaty picture with very acceptable frome
rates - I suspect if you did all this on UT2003 say that it would judder a
lot. Certainly in Eve Online (a game I am very fond of which is DX9) it
looks much much much better with all the cards settings set to the max -
noticeably different to not having them on....

That said I recently built a very budget PC for a friend and to cut costs he
used his existing Voodoo3 3000 card (PCI) - paired this with a Duron 1.4Ghz
and 256Mb PC2100 and installed UT, Quake3, Return to Castle Wolf and
HalfLife (old games I grant you) together with Star Trek Armada2 - these
all play wonderfully - I was quite shocked and managed to crank up the
detail levels on the games as well but just kept the colour settings to
16bit - everything else to "High"/"Best" - Was quite frankly amazed at how
well they played.
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

Paul Greer wrote:
 > I'm a student living in a house with two of my mates. We all have
 > PC's, the house is littered with them. One guy plays UT at a good
 > framerate with average-ish settings on a TNT2. I play UT with a good
 > frame rate on close to max settings on a GF4 MX440. My other friend
 > plays UT2003 with Max detail, 4xAA and 8xAF at great frame-rates on a
 > Radeon9700Pro.
 >
 > I think that speaks for itself.

Sure does. With a MX440 (alot slower than the 460) I think the 440 is like
400Mhz or 450 compared to the 460's 600. you can play UT2003 at close to
max settings. That is pretty good going I would have thought. Are you
saying the 440 sucks? or are you saying it is good cause it can play UT2003?
Not sure which side of the fence your post falls on?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

"cowboyz" <me RemoveThis @here.now> wrote in message news:bv6pir$vo$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
 > Paul Greer wrote:
  > > I'm a student living in a house with two of my mates. We all have
  > > PC's, the house is littered with them. One guy plays UT at a good
  > > framerate with average-ish settings on a TNT2. I play UT with a good
  > > frame rate on close to max settings on a GF4 MX440. My other friend
  > > plays UT2003 with Max detail, 4xAA and 8xAF at great frame-rates on a
  > > Radeon9700Pro.
  > >
  > > I think that speaks for itself.
 >
 > Sure does. With a MX440 (alot slower than the 460) I think the 440 is
like
 > 400Mhz or 450 compared to the 460's 600. you can play UT2003 at close to
 > max settings. That is pretty good going I would have thought. Are you
 > saying the 440 sucks? or are you saying it is good cause it can play
UT2003?
 > Not sure which side of the fence your post falls on?
 >
 >

I can play the *original* UT close to max settings. UT2003 plays like a
slug. I don't like my card. The only good thing about it is that it
overclocks by about 100% since I stuck a CPU heatsink on the RAM.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

"DaveL" <dave1027.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ae-dndQiHqSPY4vdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
 > The MX460 is the best MX that Nvidia ever made. I'm not surprised that it
 > is OK for you. Did you get Halo to run ok on the GF1? I have never
tried
 > Postal so I don't know hard it is on a card.


Yep. just got off playing halo. It plays well but there were a few jumpy
bits when alot of aliens come onto the screen firing around their
superweapons. no large pauses but walls taking 0.2 seconds to move when you
spin around. Probably just on the outta limits of the card. If I had to I
wouldn't complain playing Halo with the GF1 256 but not ideal.

 > As long as you are satisfied with the MX then stay with it. It is missing
 > DX8 features, but to tell you the truth, I have a hard time seeing exactly
 > what those are when in a game. Maybe if I had the two on two different
 > monitors side by side I could be able to tell. Myself, I will never in
my
 > life spend more than $150 for a video card. It's just not that important
to
 > me. As long as the card plays the games I want to play and plays them
 > smoothly with a pleasant (and somewhat realistic) visual, then I'm
 > satisfied.
 >
 > Dave
 >
 >
 > "cowboyz" <me.TakeThisOut@here.now> wrote in message
 > news:bv6dbs$q1q$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
  > > I have a GF4MX460 sitting ona XP2100+
  > >
  > > Works quite nicely too. I have yet to find a game that I can't play at
  > > 1024x768 which is my preferred resoultion Above that and I have trouble
  > > reading text on my 17' monitor. Despite being constantly told how the
 > MX460
  > > is crap and the Ti4200 rocks I am currently playing Halo and Postal2
which
  > > no trouble at all.
  > >
  > > Then yesterday I got my hands on a GeForce DDR running at 120/300 with a
  > > bandwidth of 4800MB/sec (as aposed to the 460 running at 320/600 with a
  > > bandwidth of 9600MB/sec) I thought it would suck but it really does a
 > good
  > > job. Played postal2 for half and hour and noticed a couple of glitches
  > > (which I wouldn't see on the 460) but nothing that would piss me off
when
  > > playing. Simpsons hit and run plays like a dream.
  > >
  > > At the end of the day it hasn't been worth my time to switch the cards
 > back
  > > over yet so this GF1 is still in my machine.
  > >
  > > So I come to these conclusions .
  > >
  > > a> Software setup has more to do with smooth gameplay than hardware
  > >
  > > OR
  > >
  > > b> The GF1 was a REALLY good card
  > >
  > > OR
  > >
  > > c> The GF4MX460 REALLY sucks.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

"cowboyz" <me.RemoveThis@here.now> wrote in message news:bv6pem$ue$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

 > I keep getting told my 460 sucks but I can't find the
 > evidence to support it therefore justifying an upgrade.

If, in your circumstance, you can not forsee the advantage of a video card
upgrade, then by all means, do not upgrade. However....


 > So I guess my question is. Why does the GF4MX460 suck? with 600Mhz on
the
 > memory (the Ti4200 is like 500 or 550 isn't it? with a bandwidth of like
 > 8GB/s?) and a memory bandwith of over 9GB/s. Sure, dx8 is missing but
what
 > am I missing out on? I have seen GTA VC on a Ti4200 and couldn't tell
the
 > difference visually between that and the 460 and I thought that was
surposed
 > to be a dx8 title.

The first question a person needs to be asked, for they never ask it
themself, is "What application are you using that your current configuration
is not handling to your satisfaction."

Since you report there is no application that isn't performing to your
expectation, the issue of an upgrade isn't one you should be considering
since any advantage a newer card would provide would be incremental, and by
your very words, incremental improvement isn't important to you.

Yet, I assure you, in a balanced system, with the right application, your
card would be a decided underperformer. You ask "what am I missing out on",
the answer to that is: "Applications that would run better, including more
fluid play with more advanced visuals, with a DX9 based card, even a DX8
based card."

It's all about the application...application application application.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:40:37 GMT, v56k <v56k DeleteThis @nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

 >That said I recently built a very budget PC for a friend and to cut costs he
 >used his existing Voodoo3 3000 card (PCI) - paired this with a Duron 1.4Ghz
 >and 256Mb PC2100 and installed UT, Quake3, Return to Castle Wolf and
 >HalfLife (old games I grant you) together with Star Trek Armada2 - these
 >all play wonderfully - I was quite shocked and managed to crank up the
 >detail levels on the games as well but just kept the colour settings to
 >16bit - everything else to "High"/"Best" - Was quite frankly amazed at how
 >well they played.

So... exactly how do you get a Voodoo3 to display 24/32bit graphics?



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

v56k wrote:
 > Why does the GF4MX460 suck?
 >
 > "Suck" is a bit of a strong term but basically what you are missing
 > out on is being able to set the cards quliaty settings ( 8x AA/AF -
 > Best Quality MipMap etc) to the maximum and then setting the game
 > settings to the maxcimum and getting a super quliaty picture with
 > very acceptable frome rates - I suspect if you did all this on UT2003
 > say that it would judder a lot. Certainly in Eve Online (a game I am
 > very fond of which is DX9) it looks much much much better with all
 > the cards settings set to the max - noticeably different to not
 > having them on....


Great answer. So even though I don't get any "jumpy screens" or loss in
frame rate I could expect a more visually enhancing experience?


 > That said I recently built a very budget PC for a friend and to cut
 > costs he used his existing Voodoo3 3000 card (PCI) - paired this with
 > a Duron 1.4Ghz and 256Mb PC2100 and installed UT, Quake3, Return to
 > Castle Wolf and HalfLife (old games I grant you) together with Star
 > Trek Armada2 - these all play wonderfully - I was quite shocked and
 > managed to crank up the detail levels on the games as well but just
 > kept the colour settings to 16bit - everything else to "High"/"Best"
 > - Was quite frankly amazed at how well they played.

This is the paradox i am in right now. Can't justify an upgrade cause I
can't see what I'm missing.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade? 

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:53:50 +1300, "cowboyz" <me.TakeThisOut@here.now> wrote:

 >v56k wrote:
  >> Why does the GF4MX460 suck?
  >>
  >> "Suck" is a bit of a strong term but basically what you are missing
  >> out on is being able to set the cards quliaty settings ( 8x AA/AF -
  >> Best Quality MipMap etc) to the maximum and then setting the game
  >> settings to the maxcimum and getting a super quliaty picture with
  >> very acceptable frome rates - I suspect if you did all this on UT2003
  >> say that it would judder a lot. Certainly in Eve Online (a game I am
  >> very fond of which is DX9) it looks much much much better with all
  >> the cards settings set to the max - noticeably different to not
  >> having them on....
 >
 >
 >Great answer. So even though I don't get any "jumpy screens" or loss in
 >frame rate I could expect a more visually enhancing experience?

uh yes. Modern game: Unreal2

AMD 1000 / gf2mx (about half the speed of your mx460) = FPS in 640x480
was about 5~7... useless. Visual settings were on LOW... looked like
shit.

Adding the GF4 Ti4200 makes the game playable.... about 30+fps.

With a faster CPU, he'd be around 50~70fps. Settings are still not
max.

 >
  >> That said I recently built a very budget PC for a friend and to cut
  >> costs he used his existing Voodoo3 3000 card (PCI) - paired this with
  >> a Duron 1.4Ghz and 256Mb PC2100 and installed UT, Quake3, Return to
  >> Castle Wolf and HalfLife (old games I grant you) together with Star
  >> Trek Armada2 - these all play wonderfully - I was quite shocked and
  >> managed to crank up the detail levels on the games as well but just
  >> kept the colour settings to 16bit - everything else to "High"/"Best"
  >> - Was quite frankly amazed at how well they played.
 >
 >This is the paradox i am in right now. Can't justify an upgrade cause I
 >can't see what I'm missing.

Yep... youre not playing games that actually use more advanced
features.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: did we really need to upgrade?