View Single Post
  #5  
Old October 5th 05, 08:04 AM
Marko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Quartz" wrote in message
...

Plug them all in and 3dmark them it'll only take you half an hour, but to
be
honest there wont be a big difference between them


yeah, that's what I was figuring since they all seem to be basically the
same card. I was more wondering if one of them was known to be flakey or
wasn't actually the same chipset as the others. (I know nvidia's done
weird things with naming conventions before)


& the 128mb one certainly
wont see any real performance improvement in the game you want to play


I wasn't expecting it would (seeing as 64 is the max it can use), I
cared more about the SE vs non-SE issue. (since I really don't know what
the SE means). I have a couple other programs that probably could
benefit from the extra 64 though, so...


SE cards generally have lower clocked memory normally around 333MHz vs
400MHz for regular 440's & the clock rate may be slightly lower but I'm not
100% on that one.


(what
game is it btw).


Melty Blood Re*Act

it's not ancient, but neither is it WoW.


As for the dual display card, all GF4 MX's are twinview compliant


'twin view' as in capable of displaying different signals on each
screen? the reason I ask is that I've bumped into a couple crappy low
end cards that are hard-wired for mirroring only.


Yup twinview when enable displays two seperate images or you can merge them
into one giant widescreen desktop.


and both
displays share the same single framebuffer be it 64MB or 128MB,


yeah, that's what I figured, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

how well does XP pro sp2 handle manipulating different screens? like if
I wanted to play MBR with the full 64, I'm assuming I'd have to disable
the 2nd screen... is this a graceful operation or do I have to go
through a restart?

XP handles it out of the box you wouldnt have to disable anything you game
has to support multiple screen gaming for it to use multiple displays and if
this game is ancient it wont, thus when it is run it will run on your
primary dispaly and the card will automatically allocate all memory to it
for the duration of the game and switch back t odual screen mode once you
finish.

I guess what I'm really asking is: is this dual-view card in any way
worse than just slapping in one of my older mx400 pci cards side by side
with the agp? can the dual-view do/not do anything that two cards
can't/can? if it's the more or less the same performance/ability either
way, I'd rather keep the pci slot open.


The dual screen results will probably be the same mostly although the 440
will support mutli screen gaming for some newer games but to be honest it's
not really got the horsepower for it, but it is significantly more powerful
than a GF2MX for gaming due to double the memory bandwidth at least and also
around a 40% faster core.



normally
it's a dsub and a dvi but obvioulsy whoever made this card made if
specifically for analogue monitors.


I'm assuming by your response that nvidia doesn't make cards like this?
the sticker on the back says "e-Geforce4 MX440", does that mean it's an
evga card? (and if so, is that good or bad... I know they make clone
cards, but I don't know their reputation)


No nVidia dont generally make any cards for public use at all they simply
provide reference design for oem's to copy/modify/ignore the manufacturer
probably simply decided rather than give the user a DSUB and a DVI they
would supply 2 DSUB's as when the card was released analogue monitors were
still the defacto standard for high quality displays.

you can use the FCC number on the card to search the fcc website for
manufacturers name.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid/help.html


Cheers Marko