GeForce4 MX

[ConQueso 0]

When the GeForce4 MX's come out, be aware that they lack some important features present in the GeForce3 line. Might want to consider them updates of the GeForce2 MX line.

 

John Carmack of Id even criticized the NV17 being called a GeForce4 MX. More info: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2847063,00.html

[Brian Frank 0]

Yup. Nvidia's getting full of themselves...

[Brian Frank 0]

Just a friendly reminder that you don't need to cross post;)

[ConQueso 0]

Well, I posted in both hardware forums so that the folks who don't check _both_ because they don't have both of the OSes. Why alert the XP folk only? (or vice-versa) It's not as if this is going to get into a multi-page thread that would have ideally (therefore) been in only one forum.

 

So what's it matter?

[Brian Frank 0]

It's annoying, and the mods have locked one of the double threads in the past.

 

It would be courteous instead of double posting to just link to the one post. I know it sounds dumb, but that's the unoffically proper way to do that.

[JP- 0]

Man who cares, hes just pointing out some very useful info for the people who dont know this about the card, and it makes no difference for it to be posted twice or just linked to. Its just so pathetic.

[clutch 1]

Actually, it does make a difference if someone is interested in a thread and responds to it, not knowing there is another one that's active elsewhere. If you link to your original one, then all the responses can sit in one spot and each person can see what others have posted. Not such a pathetic reason afterall, now is it?

[JP- 0]

Fine lock it, close it do whatever you feel you need to do.

[ConQueso 0]

About the whole "GeForce4 MX" cross-posting:

 

I didn't think to post a _link_ to avoid the cross-posting. Just wanted to get the word out on the GF4 MX is all. I actually went to update the smaller thread (this one) (as Brian suggested, thanks for the idea ), and updated it to link responses to the thread in the Win2000 forum, and then went back to the Win2000 forum to post a reply (this reply) and apologize for not thinking of the link idea.

 

When I got back to that forum, I realized the thread was closed, so I went back and took out the updated link from the XP thread as it is now pointless to link future post requests to a closed thread that cannot be posted to.

 

I didn't think, however, that there'd be any significant response in either forum. And there wasn't (on-topic discussion that is), except for the whole cross-posting ordeal. Just wanted to get the word out, as I myself, upon hearing about the GeForce4 MX was STOKED, making the (what I thought safe at the time) assumption that it would have the primary GeForce3 technology packed into it. When I found out more about the NV17, I figured I'd post it, and didn't want to leave out the XP folk, so I put the post here too.

 

So, I apologize for the cross-post. Should there be a reason for a similar circumstance in the future, I will have one of the threads _only_ linking to the other, to keep all responses in one thread.

 

By the way, why wasn't the _this_ thread closed, as it was the one with the _least_ response. (this message should have been a reply in the busy thread, and the cross-post problem solved by my up[censored] this smaller thread, by linking (and requesting) future responses to the busy thread)

 

(the busy thread being the http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20023 one, and I figure linking to it does no harm, as it is closed now so no one can post to it anyways thus keeping all further responses in this thread)

 

Didn't mean to frustrate anyone. (Only meant to avoid having potential GF4 MX owners from getting frustrated themselves)

 

Thank you, Brian Frank, for the linking-posts idea.

And thank you, M4Carbine, for the backup.

 

Both were appreciated.

[SHS 0]

This didn't really didn't need to close do you all under stand the ture mean of cross posting I know min of you still don't what it mean I for one have been on Internet way to long in fact I go way back to good days of good old text BBS 1986.

 

1: Cross posting can only be done on news server.

One message send to more then one discussion groups at one time like this "comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro, rec.video.desktop" this ture mean of cross posting using the same discussion line "I need help" but all other discussion group see reply from everbody eles even know it was reply from one of the other groups.

 

2: I don't agree some folks calling this a cross posting of same message in separately massage to "comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro" and 2nd separately massage to "rec.video.desktop" using the same discussion line "I need help" this by no mean called cross posting.

 

3: Forum can't do cross posting.

 

Read and lean Cross-posting

[clutch 1]

Honestly, I am not sure I follow what you are saying, but I did post my reasoning earlier and many other people seemed to agree with it. In a forum where you can easily post a link to an existing issue, I don't see why the discussion can't be held in one forum and linked from others, so that many people can take part in the same topic at the same time rather than bouncing back and forth between them. It seems much simpler to me, but if you find this an easier way for people to respond to a topic then more power to you.

[SHS 0]

that what I'am doing clutch

[SHS 0]

clutch do see what I did? I Merge the two in to one forum and move it wail still leave link to one discussion group.

[clutch 1]

Actually, that's pretty cool. I used to leave redirect links and requests to go to the original post, but there were a few times where you could see the same post 3 or more times and that got pretty old quickly.

 

[ConQueso 0]

The merged thing is good, (thanks, SHS) but as I _don't_ wan't to be wasting moderator and administrator time (and of course, can't merge threads myself), I'll just be doing the above mentioned linking, (should I even need to again) in the future.

 

Oh, and by the way, the GeForce4 MX lacks some key features found on the GeForce3.

 

[JP- 0]

The gf4mx is false advertising really, the name really implies that it is a geforce 4 chip when infact it really isnt.

[Brian Frank 0]

Bingo! It's the NV17, and is much closer to the NV15 lineup (GF2) than NV25. The GF4 MX simply appears to be the latest in the GF2 lineup--under a different name.

[SHS 0]

M4Carbine in a way I agree but then again I don't agree.

For started

 

nVidia GeForce4 MX 420,440,460

1: Faster core and memory clock

2: Better DVD Acceleration it now has iDCT and MC so that mean lower CPU usage.

3: Full DirectX 7.0 support (Boo no full DX 8.1 support)

 

nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4200, 4400, 4600

1: Titanium get no iDCT how cold can nVidia get

2: nfiniteFX II

3: Full DirectX 8.0 support (Boo no full DX 8.1 support)

 

Final Words

I the long run nVidia GeForce4 Ti 4200 clear recommendation at it price point and features over nVidia GeForce4 MX 460 being there only $20 diff but the sad part is you have to wait 8 more weeks longer for GeForce4 Ti 4200 or you could just go get a nVidia GeForce3 Ti 200, I see that price has drop down to $150 at bestbuy.

 

If you don't all ready have a good video then by all mean get a GeForce4 440 or wait for Ti 4200 that if you can and if and when it come out other then that go for GeForce3 Ti 200 it better deal for now or could just wait for all new nVidia NV3 or ATI R300 GPU this should get interesting.

[pmistry 0]

Honestly this post should have been dumped into the other forum, since it is isn't a hardware configuration issue with either XP or 2k/NT, its general talk about GeForce4 MX.

[JP- 0]

Well what would you say the gf4mx is? certainly looks like hardware to me.

[pmistry 0]

Its hardware obviously but really has no reason to be in the XP Hardware forum, since that forum is for hardware running under XP. I only brought this up since people are upset that it was posted in both the 2k and XP forums, which I don't really care about. To avoid all of this flaming, it would've just been better to dump this post in the "Other" forum, as all 2k/XP users go there.

[ConQueso 0]

Quote:

...it would've just been better to dump this post in the "Other" forum, as all 2k/XP users go there.

I am a Win2k user, and I've never (yet) been to the "Other" forum. (though I am just about to check it out to see what IS talked about there) And I figured that people looking for relevant info on hardware would look in hardware rather than other, as hardware somehow seems more appropriate.

Back to the topic, maybe name the NV17s "GeForce2 MX2 420/440/460" which is much more accurate. The GF2 minumum base features, and a new MX (hence the MX2). Unfortunately this isn't going to happen. (though if it did, I wouldn't mind being proven wrong )

The worst part is, that while nVidia has been pushing the 3D PC gaming industry forward the past few years, it might now actually be slowing it down. Game developers now know that MANY computers will be equipped with such cards (the name sounds good, and the cost is low, so you'd better believe they'll be slapped many mass produced big name brand computers), and as they must make games for the mass market (for mass sales) many games that might have implimented full DX8.0 support (had the GeForce 4 MX been named something more accurate, thus greatly reducing its sales and therefore market presence) now won't impliment full DX8.0 support because of it. Sorry for makeing that such a run-on sentence.

It's a slap in the face for those who've spent good money for GeForce3s and also to those who'll buy _true_ (as in non-MX) GeForce4s, since the features they paid their hard earned cash for will now take longer to emerge fully. Oh, and its also a HUGE slap in the face for those who buy GeForce4 MXs assuming (rightfully) that they were getting a slower GeForce4, rather than a souped up GeForce2.

[pmistry 0]

Yeah I don't like this whole GeForce4 MX thing. Two things for sure will happen, most computer users beginners and intermediate users will buy a GeForce4MX over other GeForce4's because of the price. Second, OEMS are going to dump these suckers into systems like anything. Just look at how many systems now come with 32 or the whopping 64 MEG GEFORCE2 cards..........GeForce2 MX that is.

 

There are a lot of people who will think the GF4 MX is a true GF4 and not realize the difference since name is so important to them and that fact that they don't follow marketing trends.

[ConQueso 0]

Worse yet, if the gaming industry slows in full DX8.0 support, many gamers might settle for the GF4 MX, as at it's price, it makes perfect sense to buy--but _only_ if games don't take advantage of the GF3 and _true_ GF4s features. So, if this happens, it will only _further_increase_ the amount of consumers that don't have full DX8.0 supported video cards, and thereby further _decreasing_ the incentive for the gaming industry to make full DX8.0 supported games. Which of course ends up in a circle.

 

Let's hope for a GeForce5 MX that might actually--_get_this_--_have_ GeForce5_(and GF4, and GF3)_features. Obviously that's not something to be taken for granted these days.

[JP- 0]

I was having a think about this today, do we really need these fancy features? things like vertex/pixel shaders, which games actually make use of them ? (suggestions on a post card....) Maybe all we need is a fast card for the moment so the games can catch up with the hardware. I still wouldnt touch a gf4 mx just on pricipal. Its just a suped up renamed gf2