Geforce 4 440MX Vs. Radeon 8500

[systemtech]

I recently purchased a Geforce 4 440MX to fulfill my need for a new dualhead gaming video card - my other monitor is a RCA 32" HDTV.

I've heard many people say I made a terrible choice, and should have gone with the Radeon 8500. Was my choice really that bad? I feel so dumb.

 

[Sunner]

Yes that was a terrible choice.

The MX's performance doesn't exactly live up to the GeForce 4 name.

 

[The_Lurker]

The GeForce 4 MX's are basicaly GeForce 2's w/ few more options. heck, it doesn't even have the things a GeForce 3 has. It's more a GeForce 2 MX on steroids.

 

[tenoc]

Definitely return the MX if you can and get a retail R8500!

 

[LuDaCriS66]

<< I recently purchased a Geforce 4 440MX to fulfill my need for a new dualhead gaming video card - my other monitor is a RCA 32" HDTV.

I've heard many people say I made a terrible choice, and should have gone with the Radeon 8500. Was my choice really that bad? I feel so dumb. >>



You should have just done your research before buying that's all... return it if you have the chance.

 

[Blurry]

Just a little helpful hint.
The next time you hit across a nVidia product (which you most likely will) never buy anything that ends with "MX" The MX sign always stands for budget, low cost solution, so you should know in an instance that you aren't getting anything good.

 

[ss284]

If you are happy with the 440 MX atm, there is no point in switching. I bought a 440mx myself because Its about as fast as a gf2 ultra, and its only about 80-90 bucks. The radeon 8500 will run you 50 more. If you dont game that much, its perfectly fine. Its up to you if you are satisfied or not.

-Steve

 

[Jeff7]

What has been said is correct about the GF4 MX. I think the GF2 MX at least had the feature set of the GF2, just with less memory bandwidth.
The GF4 MX, well, it shouldn't even be called a GF3 MX. It lacks any programmable vertex and pixel shaders, which were introduced in the GF3 line. As far as I'm concerned, the GF4 MX name is misleading. I don't know what the heck they should call it though. Geforce2 MX600 maybe?

 

[nemesismk2]

I purchased a Gainward Geforce4 MX 440 for my second computer and ok it's performance willn't exactly set your pc on fire but as a budget video card it's pretty decent. You can also overclock it really well, I've got mine running at 300mhz core and 505mhz memory and it's rock stable!

 

[LiLRiceBoi]

Who are thoes three people who voted for the mx??

 

[BFG10K]

The Radeon 8500 will cane the 440MX in gaming performance.

 

[eplebnista]

Radeon 8500

 

[spanky]

this is a laugher of a poll

 

[Kuhlman]

The 8500 absolutely humiliates the MX. No contest.

 

[Mitzi]

<NELSON>HA HA!</NELSON>

I recently purchased a Geforce 4 440MX to fulfill my need for a new dualhead gaming video card - my other monitor is a RCA 32" HDTV.

The GF4 MX could be described as the graphics cards for grannies - fine for word processing/emailing/light gaming but as a serious gaming card you should've shelled out that little bit more and got the Radeon.

 

[nemesismk2]

<< Who are thoes three people who voted for the mx?? >>



I voted for the MX mostly because I have one in my second PC and it runs ok, a friend of mine has a Radeon 8500 and the drivers are just horrible, it's so unstable!

 

[spanky]

ati drivers are fine for me. i dun get how come ppl have such trouble with drivers. did u do a clean driver install?

 

[nemesismk2]

<< ati drivers are fine for me. i dun get how come ppl have such trouble with drivers. did u do a clean driver install? >>



Not my video card, I didn't install the drivers although he should know what he's doing he works for Microsoft (then again probably not?). I can't comment on ATI's drivers, I'm just going by his experiences with his 8500.