I could be wrong, but I don't think the GeForce4 MX's have all the advanced features of the geforce 3's - ie environment bumpmapping,etc. If that's the case then I'd rather fork out on a GeForce3 Ti200 for about the same price as an MX. Personally I have a GeForce3Ti500 and it creams everything i throw at it - 8700 3dmarks with an AthlonXP1700+
I have the asus G3ti card and i run all my games at 1024x768,every game maxed out on graphic settings which include tribes 2/RTCW/MOH/AliensVPredator2 and ghost recon and it runs them like a dream with a 3d2001se score of 8500,yea you may dream about a GF4 but who on earth can play a game above 1024 ?? everything is tiny and makes fast action games harder and am i going to upgrade soon.....no...people not me!! will rather spend £300-£400 on a XBOX as its the new cool thing to own rather than a card that they cannot see and cannot take around to friends houses to show off i am sure they will sell GF4 by the bucketload but how many of them will be single private purchases ?.
Ps.basis system specs are :-Asus GF3ti/athlon XP1900/2X80gig maxtor HDD/Epox 8kha+ mb/512 crucial ram all optimized and not overclocked at time of benchmark.
I have to disagree with you Bony Tony, I have a 19" Illyama visionmaster pro 452 monitor, and I run ALL games in 1600 x 1200 @ 32 bit colour (if the resolution is available in the games options). Can't say that things are too small on my screen, and I haven't noticed that "fast action games" are any harder. Just makes everything look even nicer IMHO.