• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

1.2Ghz bottleneck for GF4 MX440?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

quegyboe

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Location
BC Canada
Hey everyone, I just bought myself a new Forsa GF4 MX440 (I know you all think it sucks, but when you are coming up from a GF2 MX, anything looks better), and I wanted to know if this card is being pushed to it's limits by my Duron 1.2Ghz.
 

Maxvla

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2002
Location
OKC
don't think so. the curve for the mx440 should level out at about 1800 amd mhz or 2000 intel mhz. anything past that wouldn't be the video card helping.

you shouldn't really expect much more than mid 5k out of a 1.2ghz + dx7 card. is that card overclocked yet? :D
 
OP
quegyboe

quegyboe

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Location
BC Canada
Well so far, I have hit 5552 3DMarks with just the video card OC'ed. The card is stock @ 270/400 and I benched it at 300/480. I currently have the fastest Duron 1.2Ghz / GeForce4 MX 440 combo on the ORB, so I am happy. I only payed $99 CND for this card, so it's nothing but a gain for me! I even made an article comparing the GF2 to the GF4 MX, to show people that the GF4 MX is not a renamed GF2. :) PM me if you wanna read it...
 

Maxvla

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2002
Location
OKC
sounds good. i figured that was at least slightly overclocked. think you can get any more out of it?

my gf2mx400 gpu overclocked 60mhz yours should do somewhere around that. memory might be at capacity though. whats the ns rating on that?
 

Samoyed

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Location
VA
I think your card and CPU are evenly matched. Good choice. A faster CPU would have a bottle neck with that card but a slower CPU would not push it to the max.
 
OP
quegyboe

quegyboe

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Location
BC Canada
The core isn't maxed out, I know that. The core will do 330. I don't know the memory ns rating though, because the card came with ramsinks on it stock. The ram seems to max out at about 490, because 500mhz causes artifacting.
 

OC-Master

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2001
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
A 1.3GHz Athlon with 200MHz FSB is enough to fork out solid amounts of juice for a TI 4600, 1200MHz will idle currently with any MX card hands down.


DS-Master
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
quegyboe said:
Well so far, I have hit 5552 3DMarks with just the video card OC'ed. The card is stock @ 270/400 and I benched it at 300/480. I currently have the fastest Duron 1.2Ghz / GeForce4 MX 440 combo on the ORB, so I am happy. I only payed $99 CND for this card, so it's nothing but a gain for me! I even made an article comparing the GF2 to the GF4 MX, to show people that the GF4 MX is not a renamed GF2. :) PM me if you wanna read it...

well it is a Geforce2 renamed and overclocked....but still a great card depending on how much you pay for it.....(around 50$ US would be pretty good).......
 

f00t

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
a 2ghz p4 maxes out the card as you had stated earlier. The score on a rig like this (2ghz p4, 512mb pc800) is around 5700-5800 in 3dmark 2k1 (not oced).
 

james.miller

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Location
Dunstable, uk
f00t said:
a 2ghz p4 maxes out the card as you had stated earlier. The score on a rig like this (2ghz p4, 512mb pc800) is around 5700-5800 in 3dmark 2k1 (not oced).

LMAO!!!!!!!

i get 6000 with my xp1800 setup (rig 1 in my sig). looks like the card gets maxed out even by my machine
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
i like your analysis, but it is still only a theoretical difference....i dont consider 500-1000 3dmarks to be a generation jump....the Geforce4 is not technically a rebadged Geforce2, but the performance is very similar and i refuse to think of it as a geforce4 MX chip.......a Geforce4 MX in my mind should be based on the Geforce4 Architecture......i would have called the Geforce4 MX the Geforce2 Super Duper Ultra :)......like people say the Geforce4 MX440 maxes out at around 5800-6500 3dmarks with the BEST systems out there....an overclocked geforce 2 Ti/Pro would max out at 5500-5600.....and an overclocked Ultra would max out at around 6000.....I tell people not to buy MXs because you get them for aroun 70$US, for that price with a little looking around you cna get a Ti200 or Radeon 8500 which max out at around 10-11000 with the best systems out there....that is what i call a new generation card.......if they came out for 50$ then yes they would be a good deal......whoooo long rant :)
 

james.miller

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Location
Dunstable, uk
i totally agree.

i cant remember who, but sombody here has the exact same setup as me, but he has an albatron ti4200p. He's currently getting around 10,500 in 3dmark2001se, and still has lots of room to o/c the card, whereas im totally maxed out at 6000 points.

that ti4200p is the next logical step for me, and i would also recomend it to anbody who is thinking about upgrading.
DONT BOTHER GETTING THE GF4MX SERIES - They are just not worth the $$$
 

Samoyed

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Location
VA
Check out Tomshardware.com under "VGA charts" it pretty much says it all about vid card comparison under 3DMark2001SE and other benchmarks.

After looking at these charts, figure your price vs performance. To me the GF3 TI 200 (69) is priced ok to make it a good deal. Or u can get the 4200 (114) or just go down to the GF4 MX 440 (52) and save for a better card next year.

I guess it depends on budget and desired performance.
 
OP
quegyboe

quegyboe

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Location
BC Canada
They are just not worth the $$$
That's funny, because I am quite happy with my purchase. The GF4 MX440 is $119 CND here in Victoria BC, and the "next step" GF3 Ti200 is $209 CND, so for me this card was perfect. I will admit though, that I do not plan to keep this card for long because as it was stated in an earlier post, this card is just a temp upgrade while I save up for a Ti4600 or an NV30. I just don't like people saying the GF4 MX is a GF2 because it's NOT! There are SOOO many reasons why it's not, and I would post a link to my article comparing them if I was allowed to....
 

james.miller

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Location
Dunstable, uk
quegyboe said:
That's funny, because I am quite happy with my purchase. The GF4 MX440 is $119 CND here in Victoria BC, and the "next step" GF3 Ti200 is $209 CND, so for me this card was perfect.
i found my gf440mx to be a waste of money. it was hardly an upgrade from my gf2.
IMHO, the gf3 ti200 is not the next step. the next step, for me, is the albatron ti4200p, because it can outperform a ti4600. it would be silly not to get it.
I will admit though, that I do not plan to keep this card for long because as it was stated in an earlier post, this card is just a temp upgrade while I save up for a Ti4600 or an NV30
well then why get it at all?sounds like a waste of money to me....
Then again, so would getting any current ti4600 be a waste of money.
If i would have know when i brought my gf4 440mx, what i know now, i wouldnt have bothered
I just don't like people saying the GF4 MX is a GF2 because it's NOT! There are SOOO many reasons why it's not, and I would post a link to my article comparing them if I was allowed to....
i never said that.

But, for all intents and purposes, it is a gf2.
similar features, similar clock speeds, and, above all else, similar performance.
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
thats the thing though.....it may have a completely different architecture than a Geforce2, but crippled, and have the same performance...how does it make a difference if there is not a tangible performance difference?.....
 

Samoyed

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Location
VA
Nah, the GF4 MX is not the same as a GF2. Think of a GF4 MX as a GF2.5. It can render more features than a GF2 GTS but fewer features than a GF3 -200 or 500.

I can look up the exact differences if someone wants to know in terms of the engineering specs.

GF2 GTS 32 DDR core 200 mem 333

GF4MX440 32megDDR core 270 mem 400

All in all the GF4 MX is a slight improvement over a GF2 GTS in speed and features but it is NOT as good as a GF 3 TI 200 which has full dirX8 support. Its a decent cheap card but I certainly would not buy one as an upgrade from a GF2 GTS. There isnt enuff of a difference
 

baqai

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Location
Karachi, Pakistan
i think so its better to save if you are thinking about going from gf2 to gf4mx440, i upgraded from my gf2 ultra to gf4 ti4200 and i am happy.

3D Mark scores difference between my ultra and gf4mx440 is about 500 or something and with ti4200 it was nearly 4000 points

plus gf4mx440 does not support pixel shader (if i am not wrong)
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Samoyed said:
Nah, the GF4 MX is not the same as a GF2. Think of a GF4 MX as a GF2.5. It can render more features than a GF2 GTS but fewer features than a GF3 -200 or 500.

I can look up the exact differences if someone wants to know in terms of the engineering specs.

GF2 GTS 32 DDR core 200 mem 333

GF4MX440 32megDDR core 270 mem 400

All in all the GF4 MX is a slight improvement over a GF2 GTS in speed and features but it is NOT as good as a GF 3 TI 200 which has full dirX8 support. Its a decent cheap card but I certainly would not buy one as an upgrade from a GF2 GTS. There isnt enuff of a difference

you are comparing it to the GTS....what about the Pro (200/400), Ti (250/400), or Ultra (250/460)......but still i digress....its more like a geforce 2.2 :)

edit: also read quegyboe's comparison, it explains why an MX440 is still faster than the Tis and a little slower than the Pro at stock speed even though the memory is clocked the same as the Pro....