GeForce 4 MX440 - What can I do?

[a c i d.f l y]

Is there any hope of getting any sort of playability out of this thing?

I can play UT2004 at 1024x768, but I have to turn all the texture settings down -- and it just looks bloody nasty...

...any suggestions?

-Frank

[a c i d.f l y]

269 marks in 3Dmark 2003, if that says anything (have Pro version, but am unable to run 85% of the tests, of course)...

....downloading 2001 to see where it stands in that...

-Frank

[Tebore]

That's as good as that card gets. If you're in to gaming you'll have to get another card. The technology in the card is close to 6 years old which is like an EON in the computer kingdom.

[a c i d.f l y]

No kidding.. it plays WarCraft 3 at 1024x768 with all the settings on high..

Shoot, even a 9800 non-pro would cost about $25-50 more than this thing... what a joke. I didn't buy this recently or anything... nor did I pay anything for it (traded out my old S3 Savage 4 -- I'd say it was an upgrade but I'd be lying to myself at the same time :( )

-Frank

::Edit::
6018 Marks in 3D Mark 2001 SE... *sigh* Time for an upgrade..

[Quailane]

269 marks in 3Dmark 2003

My gf2 mx does 85.

[fyre]

6018 Marks in 3D Mark 2001 SE

I can hardly get over 4800 Marks in 3D Mark 2001 SE, default settings. I have the same GF4MX (56.72 drivers) and a faster system (see sig), so what's the deal?

[Tebore]

I can hardly get over 4800 Marks in 3D Mark 2001 SE, default settings. I have the same GF4MX (56.72 drivers) and a faster system (see sig), so what's the deal?

Actually your system is only faster in CPU speed. In bandwidth he's got you beat.

[fyre]

I just ran the test with 200MHz FSB and x12.5 multi (2500MHz); believe it or not my board is fairly stable at 200. I still only got 4859 3Dmarks. What is the big difference between our systems?

[PCluva]

I just ran the test with 200MHz FSB and x12.5 multi (2500MHz); believe it or not my board is fairly stable at 200. I still only got 4859 3Dmarks. What is the big difference between our systems?

My MX440 gets about 5500ish 3d marks in my back-up rig with a stock 1800+ palli. I think it may have something to do with your drivers, performance takes a huge nose dive if I use the 56.72 drivers (or anything over the Det 50's for that matter)

You should try some older drivers like the 44.03's http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp-2k_44.03.html they seam to be the best for my setup :) .

I think Nvidia's later drivers are only good for the FX line of cards :rolleyes:

[fyre]

Tried the 44.03 drivers but got 200 points less. Maybe it was the way I installed the 44.03 over the top of 56.72?

[a c i d.f l y]

I have no idea what drivers I am using, I will let you know when I get home.

I disabled all sound and music -- try that and let me know what you get.

-Frank

[a c i d.f l y]

Drivers 56.72
force VSync disabled
card not oc'd

1024x768x32bit
AA off
double frame buffer
compressed textures
24bit zbuffer

disable title screens
disable sounds
disable sound effects
disble music
detail level low

All game tests (minus pro version tests)

6151 3DMarks

Do I have a fast MX440? Pwahahah... ?
-Frank

[fyre]

Oh jeez. I upgraded the drivers to 56.72, copied your settings, and got 4540 marks. I am beginning to wonder if I'm running a bad version of the VIA Hyperion drivers, or that my KT400 chipset is in some way the problem here.

BTW I dont think 'disable sounds' etc has any effect for the benchmark, just in the Demo and Game modes.

[PCluva]

I just run a bench on my number two machine, 1800+ (1.5ghz) and a DFI KT333 mobo the drivers are the 40.41 not the 44.03 I mentioned in my earler post, sorry my bad:rolleyes:

results...
http://www.artamatik.co.nz/4041.jpg
my first picture post:clap:

The card is from MSI 4x AGP, 64meg. It would do 61xx 3Dmarks when it was in my GFs setup, (now has 9600pro, and even though it is abit slower than my Ti4800SE I am blown away with the IQ) T-Bred A 2200+ @180x11.

[a c i d.f l y]

Strange.. I ran at 2300mhz last night, and got 100 points less??

My card is an 8x agp, I have the latest hyperion, latest agp drivers.. latest BIOS.

...my cpu also only detects 64k L2 cache (making it think its a Duron). That might be affecting things...

I'm curious how I'm receiving 300 more points than either of you? Maybe my stock board is clocked higher? I need to check that.. and see if I can clock mine any higher.

-Frank

[fyre]

acidfly, could you post your GF4 clock speeds (install the coolbits patch)? My stock settings are 250(gpu)/400(mem). Also which version of DirectX? PCluva if you could also check, thatd be much appreciated.
Thanks.

[stratcatprowlin]

I love my Mx440! It is a classic and it is the most reliable card I ever had.And IM stepping down from a 9600XT. Medium settings at low res is no problem for me.I dont mind not having dx8 or dx9 support anyway.
What matters most to me is it has no glitches or issues and it works every time I boot up.

[TUK101]

I love my Mx440! It is a classic and it is the most reliable card I ever had.And IM stepping down from a 9600XT. Medium settings at low res is no problem for me.I dont mind not having dx8 or dx9 support anyway.
What matters most to me is it has no glitches or issues and it works every time I boot up.For me I have had the same results with my TI4200. I had a Radeon 9500 which easily modded to a Radeon 9700 without a hitch. The only problems that I ever had with the 9500/9700 was installing drivers. Once past the installation stage it was solid as a rock as well. As far as a c i d.f l y and his MX440..... that is a solid yet aging card that is about 6 generations past its prime. Heck, even in its prime it was 2-3 generations old already. It is a DX7 card and really doesnt do the newer games any justice since it cannot render in hardware all of the effects. I would just save up for a newer card and use it as a backup card. In the classieds there are a couple of TI200's in there for around $30. Even a TI200 would be a bit of a upgrade over an MX440. At least they are DX8 compliant.

[Drec]

i wanna know how i get 1102 3dmarks in 03, and you get below 300..then you get 6800 in 01 and i get 5300?

[stratcatprowlin]

I just got this with My sig @ totally stock speed. 56.72 driver set.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7962099

[stratcatprowlin]

i wanna know how i get 1102 3dmarks in 03, and you get below 300..then you get 6800 in 01 and i get 5300?

Because the 5200 is a dx9 card while the 440 is faster at dx7.

[kevy8up]

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=311160

[stratcatprowlin]

ummm. what does that have to do with and mx 440?

[a c i d.f l y]

Read my sig.. it is updated to show my speeds...

I'm doing about 6600 3d mark SE 01... 03 does about 200..

The reason I get so low on 03, is I can only do like 2 or 4 of the tests.. out of the 17... You can actually do all of them.. regardless of how slow they are ;)

I can't even do all the 01 tests -- as some of them are DX8. This is why other cards get like 12,000-18,000...

-Frank

-Frank

[Jimbob7]

Just to give the 440 MX a bit of 'goodness' within this thread

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7450585

[fyre]

Overclocked to 275/500 and got 5771 3dmarks with 52.76. Didnt know that MX440s are not created equal, as your stock speeds are way above mine. Tried 340/575 but the RAM crapped out pretty quick.

[Careface]

sorry to bring up an old post, but i was wondering is the GeForce4mx 4000 much better than a mx440? because i can play UT2004 1024*768 16bit(32 is a killer :S) and everything up Highest with 30-50fps, 40-60oc'd both are 8X agp.. hmm sorry, just wondering

[stratcatprowlin]

No! the MX4000 is the worst card I ever played on period.It is not a gaming card.The 440 eats it for breakfast lunch and dinner.Do not buy that card!I have used it.

[a c i d.f l y]

Heh, I NEVER run anything in 16bit mode... translucent effects disappear in 16bit.

I can overclock the proc higher -- I just haven't tried higher than I have it now.. I'm surprised it isn't having any issues where it is at.

I need to take the .5 multiplier off my proc -- AMD procs whig out at half multipliers (10.5).. just go full 11x -- up the voltage .025.. no prollum..

-Frank

[stratcatprowlin]

Really? my AMD cpu's never acted strange at a .5 multi.Can you tell me what happens? and why?

[a c i d.f l y]

They work fine -- but as far as benchies are concerned, the performance decreases significantly in most tests when running at a half-multiplier.

I forgot to mention, I upped my cards memory to 600mhz, and UT2k4 is now playable with some of the settings turned on (enough that is doesn't look like poo anymore).

-Frank

[amical]

I have a mx440 64mb but it is made by jetway. In testing with 3DMark2001 se pro I got a
score of 2860. When i started up riva turner and found that my core was normal at 274.5 and found that my memory clock at 265.5 that is very low . Is this normal for the jetway model of the mx 440 chip.

[a c i d.f l y]

Your memory is DDR, so 265.4 is really 265.4x2 = 530.8mhz... you may need to verify that, but if it really is 265... that is horrendously slow. Try clocking it at 400 (standard memory clock on the MX440).

-Frank

[amical]

how would i do that

[deeman]

how would i do that

You would have to install the coolbits patch, type coolbits in google and it will tell you how its done.

Also guys my old 440mx that i had i used the omega Drivers found Here (http://www.omegadrivers.net/). And found the picture quality increased without the loss of performance.

[amical]

the setting is at 266mhz, could the riva tuner 2.0 + patchs have any effects on the memory speed. As i installed it before the coolbits patch.

[stratcatprowlin]

If you use Riva Tuner,you wont need coolbits.Riva Tuner will unlock the clock frequency tab itself.I would suggest you read this to help you understand overclocking in general.

http://overclockers.com/tips444/

[amical]

No that's not the problem, it is that my memory clock is under rated and the when i installed riva tuner 2.0 it didn't unlock the overclock tab. i think that i have a bad copy.