PDA

View Full Version : MX440..


SyK0
16th Jun 2004, 08:42 PM
Ok i was just wondering if UT2004 will still run on an Nvidia Geforce MX440 128mb... cuse im just worried that when i get it, it wont run good on my mx440 and the patches that came out add some cool GFXs effects and i dont really plan on upgradeing my gfx card any time soon.... :rolleyes:

TWD
16th Jun 2004, 08:46 PM
It will run ut2004 dm about as well as it will run ut2003 dm. Onslaught tho will probably kill you. Seriously your videocard is such a piece of crap. With a card that old you might as well give up most games untill you get a new system. Thats a card that won't run even ut1 without choking at key points.

DaBeatard
16th Jun 2004, 08:48 PM
What are the rest of your system specs?

Capt.Toilet
16th Jun 2004, 08:48 PM
I agree with TWD because i had that card for UT, pshshs couldnt run the thing past 800*600. had everything on high but yet it would choke and i was sad. :(

SyK0
16th Jun 2004, 08:54 PM
Specs are kinda good for todays games

Operating System: Windows XP Professional
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.0GHz
Memory: 768MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440 with AGP8X
Current Mode: 1024 x 768 (32 bit) (85Hz)

it runs alot of games that dosent use Pixile or vortext and it ran FarCry ok with about 40fps in some areas with everything on high sept water and shadows :rolleyes:

m&ms
16th Jun 2004, 09:15 PM
i have the same card. i run at 800*600 with all graphics options completely minimized and i get about 50-70 fps on most maps. onslaught is a big of a killer though, but my fps never drop so low that i can notice a difference. its definately playable, just keep your graphics options low.

Dragon_Myr
16th Jun 2004, 09:37 PM
I used to have an MX440 at 64 mb. I'd say dump the thing. Personally, I bought a Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro with the higher clock speeds (660). It was considerably more expensive but much better performance.

If you have to stay low cost I'd say get the GF TI 4000 I think it is. I forget if that's the name or not. It shouldn't be as expensive and gives good performance.

SyK0
16th Jun 2004, 09:44 PM
hmm.. i just now went to newegg and found a ATI 9600SE real cheap Support DirectX®9, OpenGL®2.0 so it sounds good more then what the MX Support (opengl 1.4 and dx8.1) :rolleyes: so i think ill grab that and at olny 70$$ :D

mrpirate
16th Jun 2004, 09:59 PM
Whoa there... The SE is like ATI's MX. You'd do a lot better to get a 9600 Pro or non-Pro, as they both have 128-bit memory buses, compared with the SE's 64-bit.

Daedalus
16th Jun 2004, 10:13 PM
yeah, definitely do not go with an SE version of a card, it wouldn't be much of an upgrade.

Niaad
16th Jun 2004, 10:58 PM
I've had a GeForce MX 440 in the past (friend gave it to me for free) and it is pretty horrible, as people have stated. While I've only run UT2004 with my Radeon 9600 Pro on this computer (AMD 2500+, 1 GIG DDR RAM), other games such as Battlefield 1942, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and even Neverwinter Nights run drastically better with this card. My brothers now use the GF4MX on their older computer (AMD 1.1 GHz, 384 MB SDRAM) and it can barely run Onslaught at 30fps. Obviously the CPU and RAM hurts there, but the card is still awful and I would not reccomend paying any kind of money for it.

Also: steer clear from any ATI card that has "SE" in the name and not "Pro" in the name; despite the fact that it may still be a "Radeon 9600," you won't get anywhere near the performance a 9600 Pro will get. While it's nice to get a video card for $70, you're going to be dissapointed. These benchmarks (http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003) show why; while they may be for UT2003, they still show the drastic difference pretty nicely. GF4MX 440: 27.8fps, Radeon 9600 SE: 29.3fps, Radeon 9600 Pro: 66.7fps.

You can get refurbished Radeon 9600 Pro's on newegg for $100 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-131-219R&depa=0), and new ones for $120 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-131-219&depa=0). I think it's a much better deal.

Atrocity
17th Jun 2004, 02:39 AM
And if you want to go cheaper, get the Ti 4200 64MB or 128MB, which is under $100 at most retailers now.

The Ti 4200 is also worlds better than the MX and 9600 SE.

TWD
17th Jun 2004, 12:20 PM
If you were to get a low end card I'd just go for the GeForce 4 Ti 4600. That should be around 60-80 on e-bay by now I'd think, and will run UT at least higher than a radeon 9600 (other games is a different matter). Tho that'd just be the easy way out. He should really be saving up for the Radeon 9800 Pro or higher for a new videocard that you'd expect to use for a long time. I bought the GeForce but only because I knew I wouldn't need a computer in a few months.

rajput_warrior
17th Jun 2004, 01:51 PM
If you were to get a low end card I'd just go for the GeForce 4 Ti 4600. That should be around 60-80 on e-bay by now I'd think, and will run UT at least higher than a radeon 9600 (other games is a different matter). Tho that'd just be the easy way out. He should really be saving up for the Radeon 9800 Pro or higher for a new videocard that you'd expect to use for a long time. I bought the GeForce but only because I knew I wouldn't need a computer in a few months.

good call, get a 9800 pro, its what im buyin pretty soon, itll be a nice upgrade from my geforce fx5200

Daedalus
17th Jun 2004, 04:52 PM
wow...I'm really surprised at how well my Radeon 9700 Pro fared in that benchmark. I guess the 9700 Pro is still an impressive card :)

BoboThePenguin
17th Jun 2004, 08:06 PM
i have the same card. i run at 800*600 with all graphics options completely minimized and i get about 50-70 fps on most maps. onslaught is a big of a killer though, but my fps never drop so low that i can notice a difference. its definately playable, just keep your graphics options low.
Same here, I'm getting a new card soon though :D

dehgenog
17th Jun 2004, 08:57 PM
I personally only keep a windows desktop for UT2004. I'd much rather not be using it, but because ATI executives are in bed with MS, my next card will definitely not be ATI. They have lost a customer for not supporting Linux.

Nvidia on the other hand... has their act together.