Actually $400.

Solid
 

P4 2.53Ghz
512MB DDR RAM
160GB HD
GeForce 4 MX440 64MB DDR RAM

Solid :smokin:

A quote from John Carmack:

"On the topic of current Nvidia cards:

Do not buy a GeForce4-MX for Doom[3].

Nvidia has really made a mess of the naming conventions here. I always thought it was bad enough that GF2 was just a speed bumped GF1, while GF3 had significant architectural improvements over GF2. I expected GF4 to be the speed bumped GF3, but calling the NV17 GF4-MX really sucks.

GF4-MX will still run Doom properly, but it will be using the NV10 codepath with only two texture units and no vertex shaders. A GF3 or 8500 will be much better performers. The GF4-MX may still be the card of choice for many people depending on pricing, especially considering that many games won't use four textures and vertex programs, but damn, I wish they had named it something else.

As usual, there will be better cards available from both Nvidia and ATI by the time we ship the game."

http://www.shacknews.com/finger/?fid...idsoftware.com

GeForce4 MX is not designed for next-generation games.

nVidia does not make any of their own cards. ATI does [edit:]make their own cards[/edit].

Re: Video Cards??
 

Answering the first post...

There a two different GeForce4 lines (three if you count the mobile GeForce4 Go): the MX line, and the TI line. The MX are essentially the "bargain-brand" performance card. They are good cards for the money you pay but will effectively be obselete with next-generation games like Unreal Tournament 2003 and Doom 3. There are three MX cards, the MX460, MX440, and MX420.

The GeForce4 MX 460 has a 300MHz GPU clock and a 275MHz memory clock. The MX 440 is clocked internally at 270MHz with a 200MHz memory clock. Finally the entry-level GeForce4 MX 420 is clocked at 250MHz core with 166MHz memory.

Quote from http://anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=6 :
It turned out that the NV17M was eventually going to be a desktop part as well under the codename NV17, which is what we had always known as the GeForce3 MX. The major problem with this name is that the NV17 core lacks all of the DirectX 8 pixel and vertex shader units that made the original GeForce3 what it was. Instead, the NV17 would basically be a GeForce2 MX with an improved memory controller, multisample AA unit, and updated video features; another way of looking at it would be the GeForce3 without two pixel pipelines or DirectX 8 compliance. The problem most developers will have with this is that the uneducated end user would end up purchasing the GeForce3 MX with the idea that it had at least the basic functionality of the regular GeForce3, only a bit slower. While in reality, the GeForce3 MX would not allow developers to assume that a great portion of the market had DX8 compliant cards.

Luckily NVIDIA decided against calling the desktop NV17 the GeForce3 MX, unfortunately they stuck with the name GeForce4 MX. This is even more misleading to those that aren't well informed as it gives the impression that the card at least has the minimal set of features that the GeForce3 had - which it doesn't.

More specifically, the GeForce4 MX features no DirectX 8 pixel shaders and only limited support for vertex shaders. The chip does support NVIDIA's Shading Rasterizer (NSR) from the original GeForce2 but that's definitely a step back from the programmable nature of the GeForce3 core.

Instead of the MX line, I would highly recommend the ATI Radeon 9000 Pro, which is cheaper and faster.

link: http://anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1655

The TI line is definetly better and consists of the TI4200, TI4400, and the TI4600. I really dont feel like sharing my opinion and will instead link you to Anandtech:

http://anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=5
and: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1608&p=1
and: http://anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1643

And yes, I like Anandtech. I going to the same school(NCSU) he goes to and trust his site.

Wow! I did not answer your question! I'm an idiot! I think I'll throw in a few more exclamtion points!!!

Ummm..yeah.

So the answer is that one card is made by Creative Labs and the other is not. Differences would be that some manufacturers have different clock speeds on the cards and they package different software with them.