Sorry, my mistake. But my point had more to do with the fact that the GF2MX was the entry / mid level chip even after GF2GTS/Ti went away and GF3 was here. Once GF4 came out, the MX version of THAT became the entry / mid level card, and it was also basically crippled compared to its higher end siblings featurewise (just like the 2MX was throughout the GF3 lifetime).
I had hopes that nVidia would release a GF3MX type of card when GF3Ti came out, so that the full feature set would be exposed to the entry-level crowd (even if it might not generally have been very fast, programmers could code for the extra features in their games). I thought when the GF4MX first arrived that it would finally signal that change, but then we found out that it was basically an enhanced GF2 core with the AA engine added (not that AA was bad, but where were the shaders?).
I really hope that this round of cards will actually have a low and mid range product supporting the full feature set of the same versions of APIs that the nV30 itself supports. ATI has been killing nVidia in this area, since they have cards in the low and mid range supporting the full spectrum of capabilities, even though they might be slow about it.
I have a feeling that nVidia's griping about 3DMark2003 has more to do with the probability that their low and mid range lineups are going to look very poor indeed when they can't run at least one of the games that the score is based on. In other words, while their cards looked great in the benchmark, they were happy. Now that they're challenged, they are resorting to badmouthing one of the companies that contributed to their past successes.