MX 4000 performance

Is MX 4000 better than MX 440 ????

BigVoice wrote:
Is MX 4000 better than MX 440 ????

That would be MX400 compared to a MX440 and the answer is no. The MX400 RAM
runs at around 166-183mhz (depending on card)
The MX440 runs at about 400-500 depending on card.

In saying that there are better cards out there again. Unless you just want
to see whats on the screen adn do little else you would be better looking at
a Ti or FX card. Then there is the whole debate if the FX5200 can cut it
or not. I haven't got one (I have the MX460 which runs at 600Mhz ) but my
mate got an FX5200 Ultra and reckons it runs alright on his XP2400+
Average gamer playing Diablo 2 and battlefield 1942 and things like that.

Thanks for the comment, but my question is on MX 4000 which is
different from MX 400. I have noticed this card recently in Inno3D
web site.

BigVoice

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:02:29 +1300, "cowboyz" wrote:

BigVoice wrote:
Is MX 4000 better than MX 440 ????

That would be MX400 compared to a MX440 and the answer is no. The MX400 RAM
runs at around 166-183mhz (depending on card)
The MX440 runs at about 400-500 depending on card.

In saying that there are better cards out there again. Unless you just want
to see whats on the screen adn do little else you would be better looking at
a Ti or FX card. Then there is the whole debate if the FX5200 can cut it
or not. I haven't got one (I have the MX460 which runs at 600Mhz ) but my
mate got an FX5200 Ultra and reckons it runs alright on his XP2400+
Average gamer playing Diablo 2 and battlefield 1942 and things like that.

ha. So they have added yet another card. Interesting Nvidia don't have any
info on it. Looking at it, it looks like a MX400 with more RAM.
Personally I would stay away from it simply for lack of info.]


BigVoice wrote:
Thanks for the comment, but my question is on MX 4000 which is
different from MX 400. I have noticed this card recently in Inno3D
web site.

BigVoice

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:02:29 +1300, "cowboyz" wrote:

BigVoice wrote:
Is MX 4000 better than MX 440 ????

That would be MX400 compared to a MX440 and the answer is no. The
MX400 RAM runs at around 166-183mhz (depending on card)
The MX440 runs at about 400-500 depending on card.

In saying that there are better cards out there again. Unless you
just want to see whats on the screen adn do little else you would be
better looking at a Ti or FX card. Then there is the whole debate
if the FX5200 can cut it or not. I haven't got one (I have the
MX460 which runs at 600Mhz ) but my mate got an FX5200 Ultra and
reckons it runs alright on his XP2400+
Average gamer playing Diablo 2 and battlefield 1942 and things like
that.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:52:14 +0800, BigVoice
wrote:

Is MX 4000 better than MX 440 ????

MX400 was fine when it was new about 4 years ago...

The MX440 was already a **** card.

Both are FINE for UT (original), Counter Strike and any game made in
2001 or older.

Otherwise... you need more... REad this:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...ournament_2003

The MX400 is not on the chart, but it'd be at the bottom, about
10fps.


You need at least a Ti4200 (if available) or a 5600Ultra for current
games.

With slower CPU, you'd need more video horse power to help make up the
difference.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

I just tried Call of Duty on a P4 Celeron 2.4, with a MX 400,
yes MX400 and it plays fine at 1024x768.

A small point, I love powerful gear also, but there
are many that cannot afford the good stuff

Often a more powerful CPU is money better spent then a
powerful video card.

Daniel

"Darthy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:52:14 +0800, BigVoice
wrote:

Is MX 4000 better than MX 440 ????

MX400 was fine when it was new about 4 years ago...

The MX440 was already a **** card.

Both are FINE for UT (original), Counter Strike and any game made in
2001 or older.

Otherwise... you need more... REad this:


http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...ournament_2003

The MX400 is not on the chart, but it'd be at the bottom, about
10fps.


You need at least a Ti4200 (if available) or a 5600Ultra for current
games.

With slower CPU, you'd need more video horse power to help make up the
difference.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

He's asking for Mx4000!!! not Mx400! I know that MSI have made some cards
that are 128mb Mx4000. Don't know much else than that they sell quite cheap.


"Darthy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:52:14 +0800, BigVoice
wrote:

Is MX 4000 better than MX 440 ????

MX400 was fine when it was new about 4 years ago...

The MX440 was already a **** card.

Both are FINE for UT (original), Counter Strike and any game made in
2001 or older.

Otherwise... you need more... REad this:


http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...ml#unreal_tour
nament_2003

The MX400 is not on the chart, but it'd be at the bottom, about
10fps.


You need at least a Ti4200 (if available) or a 5600Ultra for current
games.

With slower CPU, you'd need more video horse power to help make up the
difference.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:22:00 GMT, "Asestar" wrote:

He's asking for Mx4000!!! not Mx400! I know that MSI have made some cards
that are 128mb Mx4000. Don't know much else than that they sell quite cheap.

At the time of the post, me and others didn't know a MX4000 exisited!
It happens here all the time, "I have an MX4000" or a "Gf3TI2000" etc.

From what I can tell, the Mx4000 (Should have been called Mx420se) is
nothing more than an MX440-AGP 8x version, but with 64 bit memory
running at 300 some-odd Mhz. So it's HALF the performance of the
MX440 (which is **** by todays standards)... so it's on par with a
GF2-MX400.

Wow... a new Card by Nvidia... its super low end.. costs about $5 less
than a 440mx... go figure.

PS: Nvidia doesn't even list this product...


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:51:38 GMT, "Daniel"
wrote:


I just tried Call of Duty on a P4 Celeron 2.4, with a MX 400,
yes MX400 and it plays fine at 1024x768.

Celeron 2.4 = P3 1000Mhz. GF2 card, good when it was new - not
really bad. I had no issues with my own.

But try COD like I DO, turn UP every single DETAIL to MAX, everything.
I played it in 1600x1200... played great... but consider this, COD is
a Quake3 engine game.

They DID an AMAZING job with 5 year old gaming technology! The
lighting, the art details, the maps - the feel of the game is very
good. BUT its easy to see that its graphicly sub-standard compared
to Unreal2/ UT2003 - even HALO. If Half Life2 had a score of 10 of
graphic details (Download the video demos, sometimes easier to get
from P2P if you don't have a **** GameSpy account) - I'd put Unreal2 a
score of 7 and COD a score of 3.

I give the game itself a rating of 5 star, they did an excellent
job...

so of course it runs well on a GF2mx.

A small point, I love powerful gear also, but there
are many that cannot afford the good stuff

Powerful gear? I'm not rich either... it sucks.


Often a more powerful CPU is money better spent then a
powerful video card.

Celeron 2.4?

UT 2003 1024x768 BOTMATCH (FPS) - ATI 9800Pro

118.73 - AMD 64 FX51 (2.2Ghz) = $700
113.48 - AMD 64 3400+ (2.2Ghz) = $400
107.67 - AMD 64 3200+ (2.0Ghz) = $275
101.05 - AMD 64 3000+ (2.0Ghz) = $220 (512k Cache)
100.50 - Intel P4EE 3.2Ghz = $950
90.29 - Intel P4 3.2Ghz = $400
84.31 - Intel P4 3.0Ghz = $270
61.84 - AMD XP 2600+ (2083Mhz) = $85
61.16 - AMD XP 2500+ (1833Mhz) = $82 (Mine)
58.92 - AMD XP 2400+ (2000Mhz) = $70
54.85 - AMD XP 2200+ (1800Mhz) = $60
49.06 - AMD XP 1700+ (1466Mhz) = $45
44.77 - AMD Duron 1.6Ghz = $40
43.58 - Intel P4 1.8Ghz A (not org P4 1.8) = $115
36.07 - Intel Celeron 2.6Ghz = $90
34.84 - Intel Celeron 2.4Ghz = $70
33.70 - Intel Celeron 2.2Ghz = $67
32..12 - Intel Celeron 2.0Ghz = $63


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

I know it is "kind-of" new product. MSi mixed up some old stock of Mx cards
that was not selling, and made something "new".
Man I miss good old 3dfx days, when every new product was surely better than
old one.. You could just close eyes and buy it, knowing that it will work
better.



"Darthy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:22:00 GMT, "Asestar" wrote:

He's asking for Mx4000!!! not Mx400! I know that MSI have made some cards
that are 128mb Mx4000. Don't know much else than that they sell quite
cheap.

At the time of the post, me and others didn't know a MX4000 exisited!
It happens here all the time, "I have an MX4000" or a "Gf3TI2000" etc.

From what I can tell, the Mx4000 (Should have been called Mx420se) is
nothing more than an MX440-AGP 8x version, but with 64 bit memory
running at 300 some-odd Mhz. So it's HALF the performance of the
MX440 (which is **** by todays standards)... so it's on par with a
GF2-MX400.

Wow... a new Card by Nvidia... its super low end.. costs about $5 less
than a 440mx... go figure.

PS: Nvidia doesn't even list this product...


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!