AOA Forums

AOA Forums (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/index.php)
-   Graphics and Sound cards; Speakers and other Peripherals (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=32)
-   -   Gf4mx (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2911)

BobyJo 8th February, 2002 03:09 PM

Gf4mx
 
Unfortunately, the new MX is a GeForce4 in name only. The GeForce4 MX has none of the nifty DirectX 8/8.1 features supported by in Nvidia's nfiniteFX engine, and even the former midrange GeForce3 Ti 200 offering is a far more advanced and feature-rich chip. There have been a few enhancements such as a faster memory controller and hardware DVD playback, but these exist outside the core architecture. Again, even though the GeForce2 MX was a hobbled product for the value market, it was based on a GeForce2 core. By contrast, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to call Nvidia's new value entry even a GeForce3 MX.

This move might even indicate a plateau effect in 3D technology. When Nvidia started its GeForce3 marketing push, DirectX 8 and nfiniteFX support were placed on a pedestal and their importance to future 3D development was proclaimed. Now with the GeForce4 MX not even including these basic features, what kind of product support can GeForce3 owners expect?

Frankly, I think the GeForce4 MX announcement immediately tarnishes the GeForce4 name and makes Nvidia's numbering system nearly useless. I'm quite familiar with the market, but can still find vendors' myriad names and numbers confusing. Imagine, then, how it'll look to the average consumer, who buys a new "High-Performance GeForce4" desktop for Junior only to find that its GeForce4 MX 420 SDR video is actually slower than the old GeForce2 Ultra?

These are very real risks for Nvidia -- except for streamlining its varied product line (even mobile chips) under a single name, what could the company hope to gain by letting the hobbling MX version share the prestigious GeForce4 label with the real high-performance products? Well, the company took a lot of flak for including "only" GeForce2 MX video in its nForce chipset; maybe it'll sound better to advertise the next nForce as incorporating GeForce 4 MX graphics. Also, to be fair, Nvidia might feel that the general computing public doesn't want or need the immense power of a true GeForce4 or even GeForce3, but acknowledge that its economy TNT2 and Vanta products are past due for retirement.

Whatever the reasons, the DirectX-7-generation GeForce4 MX will spell confusion in the marketplace, and I wouldn't imagine Nvidia's competitors are happy with this slight of hand. Imagine the ads we'll see touting GeForce4 systems at prices well below those of ATI Radeon-equipped PCs. There'll likely be a lowball GeForce4 MX inside, but it's an easy bet which system will get more attention.

So I'm tossing some laurels to Nvidia for leading the 3D performance race with the impressive GeForce4 Ti, but throwing darts at the deceitfully labeled GeForce4 MX -- it's not that the 4 MX is a poor performer for its market, but it clearly flaunts a name well above its station and hopes to beat its competitors with branding alone. Time will tell if the ploy works, but consumers like an ordered world with consistent numbering. Marketing a pumped-up GeForce2 MX as a GeForce4 seems to be stepping well over the line, and might give ATI some extra market share based on consumer goodwill alone.

February 6, 2002

dimmreaper 8th February, 2002 04:15 PM

Actually, I was kind of thinking I'd pick up a GF4MX 460 twinview card to replace my GF2MX 400 5.5ns SDR twinview. But then there is a 2D visual quality advantage with the GF4MX, and I don't play any DX8 only games.

I think it's like a lot of hardware, it's designed to appeal to a certain segmant of the market, but just because it's not all that doesn't mean it's a bad product.

I do think that the GF4MX 420 was a bad Idea, but I'm sure OEMs will love it.

Pinky 8th February, 2002 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dimmreaper
Actually, I was kind of thinking I'd pick up a GF4MX 460 twinview card to replace my GF2MX 400 5.5ns SDR twinview. But then there is a 2D visual quality advantage with the GF4MX, and I don't play any DX8 only games.

I think it's like a lot of hardware, it's designed to appeal to a certain segmant of the market, but just because it's not all that doesn't mean it's a bad product.

I do think that the GF4MX 420 was a bad Idea, but I'm sure OEMs will love it.

I don't think that was the point, it's the obvious deception in the naming convention that causes my stomache to ache.

surlyjoe 8th February, 2002 06:20 PM

its only because the ATI 8500 has features that invidia will not impliment until the GF-4, that invidia is so hung up with using the "4" on everything now.. I'm sure they think ATI soiled the market with features they didnt have, and the only way to beat them back down is to release a GF-4 that has those features, and then call everything you make by that name to try and fool the noobs into thinkin they all have the features the ATI does,,,,
err, isn't this exactly what ATI did by renaming the radeon DDR64 to the "7500"
I mean, new name, no new features right? I know I was misled!

it would prolly floor their marketing departments to find out that pimple faced 15 year olds with dayglo skin DO know the difference. Unfortunatly, most of their parents, and your parents/grandparents haven't got a clue! and will be burned into buying a product that isnt at all what they think it is, for a little less money, when most wouldv'e gladly paid the extra for what they thought they were getting :rolleyes:

BobyJo 8th February, 2002 07:06 PM

I also read an article about the true GF4Ti4600 with the extras available on the card. I don't remember the names of the extras but I do remember the selling price. This is Australian money and have no idea what this would be in US $ 999 something is the price for this card. The GF4Ti4400 was something like 799 Australian $.

mrpcman 8th February, 2002 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by surlyjoe
its only because the ATI 8500 has features that invidia will not impliment until the GF-4, that invidia is so hung up with using the "4" on everything now.. I'm sure they think ATI soiled the market with features they didnt have, and the only way to beat them back down is to release a GF-4 that has those features, and then call everything you make by that name to try and fool the noobs into thinkin they all have the features the ATI does,,,,
err, isn't this exactly what ATI did by renaming the radeon DDR64 to the "7500"
I mean, new name, no new features right? I know I was misled!

it would prolly floor their marketing departments to find out that pimple faced 15 year olds with dayglo skin DO know the difference. Unfortunatly, most of their parents, and your parents/grandparents haven't got a clue! and will be burned into buying a product that isnt at all what they think it is, for a little less money, when most wouldv'e gladly paid the extra for what they thought they were getting :rolleyes:

well, they did clock the 7500 quite a bit higher than the 64ddr.

surlyjoe 9th February, 2002 12:28 AM

ya, but why not actually make a low end card like the GF2 MX was,
well I guess thats what the Ti-200 is, but atleast they still callet the GF2-Ti what it was :rolleyes:

CNUCompGuy 10th February, 2002 05:24 AM

I've had the GF4 MX420 for 2 days now and I've had no problems what so ever....it's a huge improvement over my previous ATI Radeon 32MB DDR....I doubled my 3DMark2001 score and am now doing full graphics quality on all my games thatI play with no loss in performance....great card for only $120 US dollars....sorry to hear how you guys feel about it....they wouldn't have priced it soooo low if it was even remotely as good as the GF4Ti series....so, they decrease performance and give it the MX series name and decrease the cost of it to appeal to those, like me, who can't afford the top of the line GF4 card....$400 US dollars, come on, now....I could build a whole new computer for that....I don't think so, anyways, good luck all, ttyl :-D :rolling: :evil:

BobyJo 10th February, 2002 08:48 PM

Going from a Radeon 32DDR up to the GF4MX is an upgrade, but the reason I posted this info, is not to say the card will or will not work. I simply wanted you to know you are getting a GF2 GPU, the same old stuff of a couple years ago. Not a new GF4 GPU of any kind. You could have purchaed a GF2 pro and it would perform just as well or better than what you have.

Aedan 10th February, 2002 10:33 PM

I'm not sure where the problem is here. The Geforce 4MX is aimed at a specific part of the market. It's not aimed at high end gamers. It would appear to be aimed at mid-end machines. It offers much better performance than the 2MX, whilst allowing system integrators to use the Geforce 4 name.

People who know exactly what they want already know they don't want this card.

People who want a mid-range card supplied with the new PC they're buying will probably think that this is a great card for their needs. It probably is a great card for their needs! It offers fine performance for today's games, which is what most people want. They're not looking for the absolute top-dollar performance, nor can they afford it.

Ignoring the Radeon, it seems to offer pretty much what the occasional game player wants. Hey, my girlfriend's still using a Voodoo 1 based 3D card because it offers her all she wants for the games she plays. There's no point upgrading at this point as it won't offer her anything new.

AidanII

Daniel ~ 10th February, 2002 11:22 PM

It seems the real problem is lack of clarity in the consumers life! When was the last time you could make ANY kind of purchase without doing considerable research? Reviews are often no help, living as they so often do, in various manufactures pockets.

The sorting out process can be a real burden for some one who works full time in a field other than computers. It seems to me that this is designed to get the consumer to buy the product that fits what he/she can afford rather than what he/she actually needs.

Then if it doesn't fit their needs to buy again. How many of us, and hey we are hobbyists, have been forced to upgrade a part we just bought?

Truth in advertising has become a mix of often meaningless benchmarks and Smoke in mirrors. My 2 cents from the peanut gallery.":O}

CNUCompGuy 11th February, 2002 04:11 AM

I don't usually listen to advertisements and most of the time I don't even pay any attention to reviews....usually, I go by word of mouth or forums like this....also, personal experience plays a huge factor in it as well....like ATI, I have had a Radeon 32MB DDR for about 7 months now and I have had nothing but problems with it's driver support when I put Win XP on my comp....when I bought the GF4 a few days ago....everything worked great, the drivers supplied on the disk are from 1/15/02, farely new, very surprised, the drivers I got on the CD that came with my Radeon were dated about 2 1/2 months before the date I bought it....very disappointing...I think that ATI has a great product to work with, but they will never succeed unless they get some good programmers to keep those drivers as close to flawless and up-to-date as possible....as for the faulty advertising system that we have now-a-days....people have grown to not care about the truth, they just care about making the "All-American Dollar"....this is reflected in commercials and various advertisements that you see everywhere and I think this human characteristic of greed has rubbed off on many of the review sites we all go to....I believe that the majority of popular review sites are paid off by companies to give good reviews....I mean think about it, if u r a representative for ATI and u have to make a decision of which review companies to give ur product to....r u goin to choice a company that will be ruthless in their tests and expose every last flaw of your product, or are you goin to go with a company that is on ur side/payroll and basically just point out the good characteristics of ur product....I think this pretty much answers itself...but any ways, there's my 2 cents, lol....and about he GF4MX420, I don't know all the details about it, but what I do know is that it is a great performer....straight out of the box, no tweaks or overclocking, yet, I got a 3DMark2001 score of 7823....pretty good, huh?? So, don't doubt what this "low-end" board can do before you've had a chance to play with it....just because something is priced low, doesn't mean the quality of it is lowered as well....why do you think AMD CPUs are so popular?? They are the best CPUs, in my opinion, out there, yet their average cost is atleast half that of an intel CPU....maybe NVidia has realised that ATI is doin so well because it's pices are quit a bit lower than theirs, so NVidia decides to make a top-of-the-line graphics board that is really inexpensive....anyways, ttyl :-D


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0