GeForce4 MX
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.
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
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
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote:
I was having a think about this today, do we really need these fancy features?
No, but do we want them? We will once we see Unreal II run with said features, especially if more games start taking advantage of them. We just haven't seen them implemented yet, so of course we may think "ya what good are the features". You don't know how good chocolate is until you try some.
I was having a think about this today, do we really need these fancy features?
No, but do we want them? We will once we see Unreal II run with said features, especially if more games start taking advantage of them. We just haven't seen them implemented yet, so of course we may think "ya what good are the features". You don't know how good chocolate is until you try some.
Quote:
Do you think that retailers will drop GeForce3 Ti200 prices down after the GF4 Ti's and MX's come out?
Don't know. The cheapest true GF4 will be at around $200, and as the $50 drop to the GF3 Ti 200 is still a significant difference, there may be little reason to drop prices (well, at an increased rate than their already dropping, that is). The GeForce3 Ti 500 may drop more, though. With the GF4 MX being more a GF2 MX2, the GF3 Ti 200 still has it's place at it's price.
Do you think that retailers will drop GeForce3 Ti200 prices down after the GF4 Ti's and MX's come out?
Don't know. The cheapest true GF4 will be at around $200, and as the $50 drop to the GF3 Ti 200 is still a significant difference, there may be little reason to drop prices (well, at an increased rate than their already dropping, that is). The GeForce3 Ti 500 may drop more, though. With the GF4 MX being more a GF2 MX2, the GF3 Ti 200 still has it's place at it's price.
