Upgrade to ge2 mx400

Basically the GF4 MX works with DirectX 8 games.
But is not fully compliant with the DirectX 8 API. i.e. It cannot do anything about Pixel or Vertex shading as Didou points out.
There isn't much of a problem understanding the fact that there are features of DirectX 8 that the GF4 MX can't take advantage of, but it can still run DirectX 8 games without a hitch.

Tomshardware on the Pros and Cons of Vertex and Pixel shaders
Tomshardware VGA card charts - Check out the placing of the GF2 MX400 and the GF4 MX440...

Arris.

That's what I'm trying to clear up: GF4MX's support DX8.x (tho' naturally not to the fullest extent of the GF4Ti's) but the GF2MX's only support up to DX7. Is that a true statement, IYO?

I'm impressed w/the GF2Ultra running up w/the GF3Ti200's on the Aquanox BM! Too bad there isn't a 420 in the ratings. The 440 sure looks weak. :rolleyes:

C'mon Ti4200 PCI! :angel:


Didou,

I can research & supply the info I find. I can NOT advise. Only an Atty. can do that. I'm familar w/Cal State Laws & (lucky) have some knowledge of Federal Copyright/Patent Laws.

Lemme know what you had in mind.

Geforce 2's & GF4MX's can run DirectX8 Software, but they have to emulate hardware fuctions which they do not have (i.e. they take a performance hit), in 3d Mark this is more apparant as Direct3D Pure Hardware T&L Cards (i.e. fully DirectX8 Hardware) will outperform Direct3D Hardware T&L and Direct3D Software T&L based cards.

IMHO the best value graphics cards at the minute are the GF3Ti200 at around £100 or the GF4Ti4200 64Mb at around £140, both fully support all features of DirectX8, and are around 1/2 - 1/3 the price of the top end cards.

Nope.

I'd say they're too fast for the PCI bus. Very much so.