leileilol wrote:

What about a Radeon 7500? How does that stack up against MX460?

The Radeon 7500's performance easily compares to that of the GeForce2 Ti/Ultra, and in most games at higher resolutions the difference between the two is roughly a couple fps at most. In essence an MX460 would still smoke a 7500 in performance, as the MX460 is easily faster than a GF2 Ultra. That and the GeForce card seems to have less compatibility issues as well. The only clear advantages I see with the 7500 are environmental bump mapping support (rarely used) as well as higher-level anisotropic filtering support (though quirky in some ways - i.e. heavy angle dependence).

the radeon7500 is generally on par with mx440(depending on tests), both are a bit faster than the gf2ultra, but nowhere near the mx460.
and yes, the mx460 is a 2*2 pipeline, but all geforce2s suffer from wasting memory bandwidth and overdrawing, which remain unsolved until geforce3.

But isn't GF4MX based on the GF2 anyway?

Pippy P. Poopypants wrote:

higher-level anisotropic filtering support (though quirky in some ways - i.e. heavy angle dependence).

Angle dependence is only one quirk. R100 and R200 also can't anisotropic filter when trilinear is being used. You must use bilinear filtering. As a result you are stuck with obvious mip map boundaries.

On the other hand, their highly "optimized" anisotropic filtering doesn't impact performance much. The same can't be said of GeForce 3/4.

Tetrium wrote:

But isn't GF4MX based on the GF2 anyway?

Of course. It's a GF2MX with significant efficiency optimizations. GF2 and GF2MX are very inefficient chips.

Radeon 7500 is a lot less potent than the MX460. IIRC, they place somewhere between a GF2 Ultra and a GF3.

7500 is more around the speed of a GeForce 2 Pro or maybe Ti.

Just a heads up, there's an MX460 up on eBay right now. It's not exactly cheap, $35 with shipping, and the guy only ships within the US, but... it's there, anyway, for whoever may be interested.

Tetrium wrote:

But isn't GF4MX based on the GF2 anyway?

GF2 MX + efficient memory controller + MSAA support = GF4 MX. The second part is really what sets it apart from GF2 and allows for higher performance.

A Radeon 9800 blows away a TI 4800 (the Geforce 4 TI 4600 with agp 8x bus, and the latest revision chips in the series). Nvidia had some crappy chips for the GF4/GF FX generation. ATI just refreshed the chip with the 9800 XT and kept beating the snot out of the NVidia chips.

The 4800 was actually a 4400 with 8x AGP. The 4600 was still a bit faster than the 4800, but was harder to find and cost more. I think...

Iris030380 wrote:

The 4800 was actually a 4400 with 8x AGP. The 4600 was still a bit faster than the 4800, but was harder to find and cost more. I think...

GeForce4 Ti 4800SE = 4400 w/ AGP 8x (275/550 MHz respective core/memory frequency)
GeForce4 Ti 4800 = 4600 w/ AGP 8x (300/650)

GeForce4 Ti 4800 = 4600 w/ AGP 8x (300/650)

Also known as the "Ti4600 8x" in the US, for some reason they didn't call it the Ti4800 here. Strangely, though, the Ti4800SE was still called the Ti4800SE here.

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

Also known as the "Ti4600 8x" in the US, for some reason they didn't call it the Ti4800 here. Strangely, though, the Ti4800SE was still called the Ti4800SE here.

Interesting; I've never seen it being called the 4600 8x over here. Of course, I was too focused on R300 cards at the time to carefully pay attention.

the frequency of r7500 cards varies a lot, from the "standard" 290/230 all the way to r7200's 183/183.
the standard clocked r7500 would be comparable to mx440 and edge out the gf2ultra(not in opengl though), but still nowhere near the mx460.

the ti4800(or 4600-8x) is actually rarer than the ti4600, only manufactured by a few brands, and i would say they all look ugly... their designs are more
"mature" than the ti4600 days, so they needn't to be well built...

and the geforce4 was not a failed product, it was fairly good for its release days, not to mention the mx440's successful marketshare. it was because the gf5(fx) got delayed(and eventually turned out to be crap too) that they have to match up against the new generation r9700pros... and got blown away of course. 😢

I found a comparison review between the MX460 and MX440 on xbitlabs, here. This comparison test also includes the GF3 Ti200, GF2 Ti, ATI 8500 LE & 7500.

retro games 100 wrote:

I found a comparison review between the MX460 and MX440 on xbitlabs, here. This comparison test also includes the GF3 Ti200, GF2 Ti, ATI 8500 LE & 7500.

I wonder if there's any testing against the Radeon 9100. The 9100 was the fastest of the entire R200 generation of cards, even faster than the later 9000,9200 and 9250.

Actually the retail Radeon 8500 64MB and 128MB are the fastest with their 275/275 clocks. 9100 ran at 250/250 and was a 8500 LE rename.

swaaye wrote:

Actually the retail Radeon 8500 64MB and 128MB are the fastest with their 275/275 clocks. 9100 ran at 250/250 and was a 8500 LE rename.

I should have said in PCI. (Still searching for a Visiontek Xtasy Radeon 9100 PCI 128mb)

I didn't know there were R200 boards on PCI. Nifty.

swaaye wrote:

I didn't know there were R200 boards on PCI. Nifty.

there were some, but not sure if any were built by ati, maybe built by aic such as powercolor and sapphire or so. 😎