How good/bad is the GeForce4 MX 440 2

[Minnis]

As a lowish end graphics card, is the GeForce 4 MX 440 better than a GeForce 2 Pro GTS (which i currently have)?

The MX 440 seems to come as a standard in all system packages in the shops at the moment.

 

[DBSSP]

I have no personal experience with this card, but if you were thinking of buying it because it seems to show up in alot of PCs you gotta think about why. The usual answer is because it's cheap yet dependable. Performance is going to be a little better in the 4 than your 2 due to V-processor speed and of course overall architecture upgrade. Jay

"Jeezus-sqeezits Bob!"

 

[paparazi]

Here are some 3D benchmarks based on my XP1800 MSI KT266a
DDR system.
Mad onions 3D Benchmark 2001SE
Your present GF2 GTS averages at 4,624 points
The new GF4 440MX averages at 5,442
So around 22% faster! Not a vast differance.
I will let you into a little secret.
The best performing card for the money is the GF4 4200Ti
In the UK a 64mb version can be picked up for around £135 and performs within 7% of the mighty 4600Ti which costs over double the price.
I am getting 9,499 points with the above setup only 200 points less than the all conquering GF4 4600Ti which gets an average 9,696 points with my configuration, but as I said costs in excess of £300 in the UK. Martin
Please let members know if there advice has helped any.

 

[cdogg]

Minnis,

The main reason why I'd recommed the GeForce4 Ti series over the MX series is for 3D gaming. If that's your main concern, the MX is nothing more than an upgraded GeForce2 GTS (and many GeForce2 Ultra's have been said to have similar performance). Many including myself didn't like NVidia's naming scheme since any GeForce3 card actually has more than the GeForce4 MX.

The Ti series comes with programmable shaders, which allow you to play a game specially made under DirectX 8 or DirectX 9 that use special code for these shaders. The MX doesn't allow it and is much cheaper for that reason alone (not to mention slightly slower benchmarks in FSAA).

Like paparazi mentioned, the GeForce 4200 Ti is still the best buy for your money out there when it comes to the NVidia selection.


Here's a review for ya:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020409/index.html

~cdogg
"We park in driveways but drive in parkways?"

 

[DBSSP]

Just read an article about ATI. If you can wait, the new ATI Radeon 9700 is blowing NVidia out of the water!(unofficial) I only recommend this if you are a gamer and are willing to save a little to get it. Of course, if your a technology junkie like me , it's also highly recommended.

http://www.extremetech.com

Jay

"Jeezus-sqeezits Bob!"

 

[Minnis]

Thanks for the quick repsones everyone.

I was also considering getting a 128MB GeForce3 Ti 500, as i can't stretch to the really high end cards. But if the Geforce4 Ti 4200 is that cheap and good then I might end up going for that one.

My main use will be for gaming yes!

 

[Minnis]

Thanks for the quick repsones everyone.

I was also considering getting a 128MB GeForce3 Ti 500, as i can't stretch to the really high end cards. But if the Geforce4 Ti 4200 is that cheap and good then I might end up going for that one.

My main use will be for gaming yes!

Michael

 

[paparazi]

Yes I went from a GF3 3D Prophet to a GF4 4200Ti and can confirm that it deffinately is a faster card with all the rich features of it's big brother the 4600 but without the £300+price tag.
I did my homework before I bought mine, it seems that only Leadteks Winfast A250 LE TD has heatsinks on the RAM as well as GPU (good overclocking potential)
Nearly all GF4 4200Ti's DO NOT have ram cooling.
It is also common knowledge that the 64mb versions use slightly faster memory modules than the 128's so perform better upto 1024X768 but the additional memory of the 128's does help at higher resolutions.
The 128 versions also use the cooler running ball array? memory.
You pay about £30 more for the 128 version
Anyway I settled for the 64mb A250 LE TD My ViVo
But I must say Gainwards Golden Sample 4200Ti 128mb was tempting but £45 more than I paid for mine.
Martin
Please let members know if there advice has helped any.

 

[Mudassar]

GF 4 MX 400 is NOT worth your money
GF 4 MX 440 is worth your money
GF 4 MX 460 is worth your money
GF 4 Ti 4200 is worth your money
GF 4 Ti 4400 ________________ <-- Please complete
GF 4 Ti 4600 ________________ <-- Please complete -----------------
MK

Hope this helps!

 

[cdogg]

Here's a good comparison chart:

Chipset Triangles/Sec: Fill Rate: Operations/Sec: Memory Bandwidth:
GeForce4 Ti 4600 136 Million 4.8 Billion AA Samples/Sec. 1.23 Trillion 10.4GB/Sec.
GeForce4 Ti 4400 125 Million 4.4 Billion AA Samples/Sec. 1.12 Trillion 8.8GB/Sec.
GF4 Ti 4200 (128MB) 113 Mil 4 Billion AA Samples/Sec. 1.03 Trillion 7.1GB/Sec.
GF4 Ti 4200 (64MB) 113 Mil 4 Billion AA Samples/Sec. 1.03 Trillion 8GB/Sec.

GeForce4 MX 460 38 Million 1.2 Billion Texels/Sec. 8.8GB/Sec.

GeForce3 Ti 500 Not Rated 3.84 Billion AA Samples/Sec. 960 Billion 8.0GB/Sec.
GeForce3 Ti 200 Not Rated 2.8 Billion AA Samples/Sec. 700 Billion 6.4GB/Sec.


In case that didn't come out quite right, you can view the full chart here:

http://www.d-silence.com/articles/geforce4.shtml

~cdogg
&quot;We park in driveways but drive in parkways?&quot;

 

[Neo81]

I just built my new Machine Atlton XP 1800+ 256ddr, Geforce 4 mx 440 64ddr and am very happy with the performance of the card specially after a few little tweaks you can get really good performance out of it for the money ....

Later
NEo81 >:O>

 

[Stretchy]

Minnis, If your considering the GF3 Ti 500 i can reccommend it as I have one myself. Both the Ti 200 and Ti 500 and very very respectable cards, my 3d mark with the 500 is around 8800

The GF4 Ti4200 is an amazing card, and can be performance tweaked to hell to produce the same speeds as the 4600 (if you really want it to) so i hear. The choice is yours, both get my recommendation. I play Q2 and Q3 and its lovely and smooth even with detail settings turned to max. _______________________
Happy to Help if i can. If my posts have been of any help plz click the link below.........................

Stretchy [Pipe]

 

[paparazi]

Yep! there is no dought that the GF4 4200Ti is a gem of a card for the price.
My Leadtek A250 LE TD has benchmarked within 2%
of the average 4600Ti on 3D Benchmark 2001SE.
(with just minor overclocking) nothing silly.
Of course against unclocked GF4 4600Ti's but the point is at less than HALF THE PRICE!!
It is worth pointing out though that although the MX range are very capable video cards they do lack many of the Ti's features and software support , they are afterall budget offerings and that is why the 4200Ti is such a steal because it doesn't offer such compromises.
Martin Please let members know if there advice has helped any.

 

[Guest_imported]

hi everybody i have an athlon 1'33 with just 256mb of ram.
my question is.. i have just bought a geforce 4 4200 ti 128mb, i wasn´t sure about buying the 64mb or 128mb and i´m not sure if i´ve done the right choice. I would like to know if i would be able to play gta3 at 1280x1024 with maximum detail as i read that 128mb version is better just for resolutions above 1024x768.
thx (and sorry for my english) 8)

 

[paparazi]

It not that the 128mb versions carn't play at resolutions below 1024x768 it's just that the quicker memory on the 64mb cards means they perform slightly better than the 128 cards UP TO that resolution.
I have a 64mb 4200Ti and would have prefered the 128 version but couldn't get hold of one at the time.
I think you are also underestimating your cards capabilities because it will easily play at 1024x1280 high detail and MUCH, MUCH MORE. Martin Please let members know if there advice has helped any.

 

[Guest_imported]

paparazi thankyou for your reply... now i think i´ve done
the right choice

 

[ceh4702]

There are some Geforce4 4200 cards from people like gainward and realtek that sell in the range of about $140.00 or maybe a little less.

I am still using a card made by Visiontek. A Gforce2 GTS-V 32mb DDR Xstasy video card. It has absolutely no extra ability other than Analog Video Out. It only cost about $48.00 but it works a lot better than its pricetag implies. I am able to play all the games I have on it so it works for me. I was playing games like Battle for Dune, the sequel to dune 2000. I think if I was going to replace it an ATI Radeon 9000 would be a good video card. If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[dvornik]

As someone mentioned here the new generation of cards from ATI and nVidia are going to be released very soon. In case you're looking for top performance (I'm a 3ds max user, not a gamer) it makes sense to wait. The new cards will also drive the GF4 Ti prices down. MX line of cards is clearly not for 3D applications.

 

[paparazi]

I guess with a long running thread like this (nearly 2 months now) things change, it may indead be wise to wait to see just what these ATI 9000's can do and more importantly how much they cost.
I still think at this time and from what I have read the GF4 Ti4200 still offers best performance/price, that undoughtably will change soon.
Just scored 10,496 in 3Dbenchmark 2001SE (XP1800+ KT266a chipset) not bad for a $160 card. Martin Please let members know if there advice has helped any.

 

[chaosinc]

go for the gf 3 no mx...
faster and better...
gf4 mx is lacking in a few areas especially if you are a gamer or do high end graphics.
plus the gf3 ti can be massively over clocked to boot..