Oh lord, there is no point in discussing this with you. Sorry but it seems you divert and modify the disagreement to your liking, maybe you would consider taking up sophistry?
"And the point is? A Geforce2 MX 200 suffers considerably against a Geforce DDR. You need to factor that in as well."
The position is that the GF2MX has been magically twisted into yet an additional entirely new creation yet still retains most of its original characteristics with the greatest change being in the generational name e.g. GF4MX. This is all been said prior and I(as well as others) am starting to sound like a broken record. Yet you can't or don't want to grasp the logical aspects of the argument. It would seem that you are intelligent but you fail to realize the folly in the GF4MX naming scheme. Intentional disregard of a completely logical comprehensive argument tells me that you would deny any dispute that you do not favor, I have no time for that.
"What does transistor count have to do anything? A crippled pipeline/core will always yeild lesser transistos. Then again, you did post a while back that the GF4 didn't impress you because it was on the same .15 fab as a GF3, and the GF4 had a less percentage gain in transistors compared to a GF2 (despite the mathematical fact that lesser numbers yield higher percentages than higher numbers even with the same numbered increase)."
The pipeline isn't "crippled" at all, the pipeline that exists in the GF4 chip but not in the GF4MX. Therefore it isn't a matter of "crippling" at all. The disparity in transistor count tells me that it really isn't a new generation chip at all, it is that simple.(If a 50%+ difference doesn’t tell you something then….. I don’t know what will.) At any rate I am done quarrelling with you on this. Others may want to conduct this exercise in futility with you but clearly you will fail to be convinced that the naming scheme of the GF4MX is a con. Exactly why that would be? Dare I use the term f*n boy?
Sabastian
"And the point is? A Geforce2 MX 200 suffers considerably against a Geforce DDR. You need to factor that in as well."
The position is that the GF2MX has been magically twisted into yet an additional entirely new creation yet still retains most of its original characteristics with the greatest change being in the generational name e.g. GF4MX. This is all been said prior and I(as well as others) am starting to sound like a broken record. Yet you can't or don't want to grasp the logical aspects of the argument. It would seem that you are intelligent but you fail to realize the folly in the GF4MX naming scheme. Intentional disregard of a completely logical comprehensive argument tells me that you would deny any dispute that you do not favor, I have no time for that.
"What does transistor count have to do anything? A crippled pipeline/core will always yeild lesser transistos. Then again, you did post a while back that the GF4 didn't impress you because it was on the same .15 fab as a GF3, and the GF4 had a less percentage gain in transistors compared to a GF2 (despite the mathematical fact that lesser numbers yield higher percentages than higher numbers even with the same numbered increase)."
The pipeline isn't "crippled" at all, the pipeline that exists in the GF4 chip but not in the GF4MX. Therefore it isn't a matter of "crippling" at all. The disparity in transistor count tells me that it really isn't a new generation chip at all, it is that simple.(If a 50%+ difference doesn’t tell you something then….. I don’t know what will.) At any rate I am done quarrelling with you on this. Others may want to conduct this exercise in futility with you but clearly you will fail to be convinced that the naming scheme of the GF4MX is a con. Exactly why that would be? Dare I use the term f*n boy?
Sabastian
