Nvidia withholding the launch of GeForce4 Ti 4200
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
It is not faster than a GF3 Ti200 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=13
Not me too
On 2002-02-22 16:50, pascal wrote:
It is not faster than a GF3 Ti200 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=13
Not me too
I hate/love to say this but not anyone who actually knows what the heck it is. Personally I think it is a scam GF4MX(My ass it is a GF4- It is a GF2 with GF4 tech but it is still only DX7.) People will pay the cash thinking they are getting a new generation card but all they are doing is buying a butched up GF2MX. Nvidia is doing this so they can keep their margins thats all. But I think that the deal stinks personally.
Sabastian
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/geforce4-14.html
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-23 17:16 ]</font>
Those where, except "TwinView" and one more TMU? And which "features" did the GF2MX miss from the GF2GTS, except from two more pixel pipes and higher memory bandwith (hardly a feature)?
A GF1 DDR is faster in todays games than a GF2 MX/400 in 32bit because of the much higher bandwith (2,8GB compared to 4,8GB).
But a GF2 has the same feature set a the original GF DDR, but is just enhanced to make it faster. A GF4MX has the feature set of a GF2, not GF3. If it had GF3 features the name wouldn't be such a misnomer.
As has been stated by others, it just looks like a scam for the uninformed.
Galille,
I understand your point of view, looks like the GF4MX is highlly tuned for Q3.
IMHO one should not base his/her decision of a new card using an old benchmark like Q3 when a new benchmark based on real next generation game engine like Unreal 2 is available.
I upgraded from my Radeon 32MB DDR to GF3 Ti200 thinking about next generation games.
Probably any good DDR card will play Q3 very well.
I understand your point of view, looks like the GF4MX is highlly tuned for Q3.
IMHO one should not base his/her decision of a new card using an old benchmark like Q3 when a new benchmark based on real next generation game engine like Unreal 2 is available.
I upgraded from my Radeon 32MB DDR to GF3 Ti200 thinking about next generation games.
Probably any good DDR card will play Q3 very well.
True
I'm not saying that GF4-MX is a good choice, but it looks to me like it get some of the same FSAA performance-increase as GF4-Ti does over GF3. Probably due to the two vertex things
(2X and Quincunx same performance)
But in general GF4-MX is a lousy performer.
My guess on what will happen:
oem machines that usually ship with MX/TNT2 card will ship with GF4-MX, but it will not sell that good in the stores retail. Hopefully they will continue the GF3-Ti200 line.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-23 20:37 ]</font>
I'm not saying that GF4-MX is a good choice, but it looks to me like it get some of the same FSAA performance-increase as GF4-Ti does over GF3. Probably due to the two vertex things
(2X and Quincunx same performance)But in general GF4-MX is a lousy performer.
My guess on what will happen:
oem machines that usually ship with MX/TNT2 card will ship with GF4-MX, but it will not sell that good in the stores retail. Hopefully they will continue the GF3-Ti200 line.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-23 20:37 ]</font>
They are the Radeon 8500 is going mainstream market. http://www.necxdirect.com/hai/prod_page.html?key=0000163272&nonce=guest
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sabastian on 2002-02-23 23:15 ]</font>
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless."
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Heh, and I suppose "Arguing about the naming scheme is pointless" is not a blanket statement?
I have not interveiwed any developers / publishers, but I have read interveiws / statements by at least 2 of them: Carmack and Hook. And both were extremely disappointed.
No, it's not a blanket statement. It's an opinion. "Ask any game developer or publisher if the GeForce naming scheme is "pointless." "....Now THAT's a blanket statement
From one company? That doesn't quite support your statement above
Carmack was also extremely disappointed in the naming convention of the GF3 and GF2, yet I don't see you envangelizing that aspect
Hook is not at the same company as Carmack.
Similar threads
