I'd say yes. The 4MX series is little more than a rebadged GeForce2 (DX7-level hardware, fixedfunction only, no shaders). The Ti4200 is a 'real' GF4, which means it has support for vertex and pixelshaders and various other new features, like better AA/AF. It also has much better performance (the MX440 is slower than even the GF3).

Sandi1987 wrote:

Should i replace my GeForce 4 MX-440 for GeForce 4 Ti 4200 for older games?

Have you ever seen something to suggest that you should not do this?

(You're doing at least a little research on your own before you post these threads of yours, right..?)

Here you can see the benchmark comparison from kanecvr. He has benched a lot of VGA cards last month.

As you can see in the overall results of Unreal-Gold, Dungeon Keeper 2 and Quake 3, the GF4-MX440 is sometimes as fast as Geforce 2 GTS/Pro,
and sometimes fast up to Geforce 3 Ti-200.

GeForce 4 Ti 4200 faster than GeForce 4 MX-440:

Unreal-Gold: 23.6%
DK-II: 11.9%
Q3 (lowres): 8.6%
Q3 (highres): 62.8%

HUGE 1997*-2003 video card performance benchmark thread (Q3, Unreal, DK2, 3DM2k, 3DM2001)

I would argue as always it depends. The Ti4200 is certainly superior but its also a bit more hard to find. The performance level of the MX440 is absolutely fantastic considering you can pick them up for barely more then the cost of shipping it and they run extremely cool

Jorpho wrote:

Sandi1987 wrote:

Should i replace my GeForce 4 MX-440 for GeForce 4 Ti 4200 for older games?

Have you ever seen something to suggest that you should not do this?

A K6 system would be better off with a 440mx.

Sandi1987, it really depends on your system and what your doing. Id keep the 440mx, but that's just me. the 4200 if I recall it a better card, but if your upgrading why a 4200? why not go one step beater or more, like why not a 5950 or a 6800?

Jade Falcon wrote:

A K6 system would be better off with a 440mx.

Why?

Sandi1987 wrote:

Should i replace my GeForce 4 MX-440 for GeForce 4 Ti 4200 for older games?

It depends.

The bottleneck.
You will not see much improvement from a 4200 at most screen rez. So your better off with the cooler cheaper card. that's just my thoughts. It would be the same with a Pii setup.

I'm sure others have there own options.

Honestly to exactly answer this question we need to know more about the system it will be in. But given the info given by OP, I'd say no it is not worth wile to upgrade. Get a better card then a 4200 if your upgrading from a mx440.

Jade Falcon wrote:

The bottleneck.
You will not see much improvement from a 4200 at most screen rez. So your better off with the cooler cheaper card. that's just my thoughts. It would be the same with a Pii setup.

So you're only looking at performance, and not factoring in that the GF4Ti is a far more advanced card, which is not only much faster, but also delivers much better rendering quality, more effects etc.
It's a GPU, so all this is accelerated, and you can turn all the extra eyecandy on 'for free' if your CPU is the bottleneck anyway. All the more reason to go for the Ti.

But he was asking about older games. I guess to me older means 9x. 😵 And I was not factoring in all the extra stuff you get from a GF4ti card. Still if it was me Id still stick with the 440. Why go gf4ti and not FX or 6xxx? I don't see the GF4ti being worth wile over a 440 unless your very picky about how splinter cell looks.

I've never much felt like "bottlenecking" was worth getting worked up about, but I suppose that's personal preference.

Jade Falcon wrote:

but if your upgrading why a 4200? why not go one step beater or more, like why not a 5950 or a 6800?

Are those cards not substantially more expensive? Or do they not have considerable power supply requirements?

Jade Falcon wrote:

But he was asking about older games. I guess to me older means 9x. 😵 And I was not factoring in all the extra stuff you get from a GF4ti card. Still if it was me Id still stick with the 440. Why go gf4ti and not FX or 6xxx? I don't see the GF4ti being worth wile over a 440 unless your very picky about how splinter cell looks.

^This.

Jorpho wrote:

I've never much felt like "bottlenecking" was worth getting worked up about, but I suppose that's personal preference.

Jade Falcon wrote:

but if your upgrading why a 4200? why not go one step beater or more, like why not a 5950 or a 6800?

Are those cards not substantially more expensive? Or do they not have considerable power supply requirements?

^and this

It's not only a matter of speed or screen resolution, but also about compatibility.

I'm not sure if GF2-techlike graphics cards (Scali mentioned it's basically a GF2...which kinda it is when looking at the way he explained it) are in some ways more compatible with some older games compared to GF4 but they possibly are. But if he already has a rig that works perfectly fine for the games that he plays on that rig right now, swapping a GF4MX for a GF4-proper won't be doing any good to him anyway. It'll only result in extra potential driver mess, more work, higher power draw (though not by a LOT, but still), extra costs for acquiring the GF4, extra time invested, maybe even a hosed OS and the risk of this Sandi guy of damaging his own hardware...seeing Sandi doesn't seem to really know what he's doing anyway I'd say this risk factor wouldn't be fully uncalled for 🤣.

But Sandi might as well just be some troll, his questions are obviously very odd.

They're both 'GF4', so they're both from the same era. Which means they both run the same unified driver. You wouldn't even need to uninstall/reinstall the driver. Just plug in the other card and it will work right away. I don't think there will be any compatibility issues.

There are different flavours of GeForce4 MX 440:
- The 128-bit memory enthousiast cards.
- The bare 64-bit memory cards.
- Many variants like MX 420 / MX 460 / MX 4000 / MX 440-SE / MX 440 AGP 8X that were produced for quite a long time.
Those later cards are usually like the bare 64-bit memory cards, but with a BIOS that no longer allows VESA CRT refresh rate control.

The only MX I would consider "usable" is the MX 460... others are just too common / lowend / using low quality components / meh. But thats just me 🤣

GF4 Ti draws about 20W more power which could be a problem for S7 or early slot 1 boards - these might not be able to handle such high current. But it offers double the performance (Ti 4600 vs MX 460), DX8 support (not very useful) and high quality AF. GF4 Ti AF is causing serious performance hit but also offers quality comparable to Radeon X1xxx (HQ mode) and GeForce 8.

havli wrote:

DX8 support (not very useful)

Say what now?
GF3/GF4 (except for the MX ofcourse)/Radeon 8500 were the first wave of cards with programmable shaders. They allow you to enjoy per-pixel shading in games like Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, Halo etc.
I'd say it's extremely useful, since it totally transforms the look of these games. I think Halo is the best example there.

Useful in general (on faster GPUs) - sure. But GF3/4 / R8500 raw power is not good enough to run DX8 games at decent fps. For example Far Cry @ medium 1024x768 noAA, noAF
GF3 Ti 200 = 25,2 fps
GF4 Ti 4200 = 36,7 fps
GF4 Ti 4600 = 45,5 fps (2xAA, 4xAF = 19,7 fps)
R8500 = 33,9 fps

As a general blanked statement I feel that I would use neither of those cards for old games. But it does depend a lot on other variables like what game and what machine is being used and the OP has a habbit of not providing much information, which doesn't help answer this properly.

havli wrote:

Useful in general (on faster GPUs) - sure. But GF3/4 / R8500 raw power is not good enough to run DX8 games at decent fps.

That's very arbitrary. It all depends on what kind of resolution, detail level and framerate you want.
No matter how you try to spin it, the GF4Ti4200 will balance out better than the GF4MX. Either the GF4Ti is faster at the exact same settings, or you can get the same framerate, but with higher res and/or more eye candy.