NewsUnrealEdFilesModsFragBULiandri Archives
BeyondUnreal Forums

Go Back   BeyondUnreal Forums > BeyondUnreal > Games > Unreal Tournament Series > Unreal Tournament 2003/2004

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16th Jun 2004, 08:42 PM   #1
SyK0
Registered User
 
SyK0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 1st, 2004
Posts: 111
Exclamation MX440..

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....
SyK0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 08:46 PM   #2
TWD
Cute and Cuddly
 
TWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug. 2nd, 2000
Location: Salt Lake City UT
Posts: 7,422
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.
__________________
TWD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 08:48 PM   #3
DaBeatard
Mr.How
 
DaBeatard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov. 20th, 2002
Posts: 1,261
What are the rest of your system specs?
__________________
DaBeatard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 08:48 PM   #4
Capt.Toilet
Good news everyone!
 
Capt.Toilet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 16th, 2004
Location: Ottawa, KS
Posts: 5,822
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.
__________________
Capt.Toilet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 08:54 PM   #5
SyK0
Registered User
 
SyK0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 1st, 2004
Posts: 111
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
SyK0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 09:15 PM   #6
m&ms
Melts in your mouth, not in your hand.
 
m&ms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul. 13th, 2003
Location: in a bag....duh
Posts: 1,179
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.
m&ms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 09:37 PM   #7
Dragon_Myr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar. 4th, 2004
Posts: 897
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.
Dragon_Myr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 09:44 PM   #8
SyK0
Registered User
 
SyK0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 1st, 2004
Posts: 111
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) so i think ill grab that and at olny 70$$
SyK0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 09:59 PM   #9
mrpirate
WTFLOL
 
mrpirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan. 21st, 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 225
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.
__________________
Signature.
mrpirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 10:13 PM   #10
Daedalus
I don't even...
 
Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May. 24th, 2001
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,261
yeah, definitely do not go with an SE version of a card, it wouldn't be much of an upgrade.
__________________
...
____
Daedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2004, 10:58 PM   #11
Niaad
hello internet
 
Niaad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May. 7th, 2004
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 22
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 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, and new ones for $120. I think it's a much better deal.
__________________
TeamServ - mIRC clan management script

Last edited by Niaad; 16th Jun 2004 at 11:00 PM.
Niaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jun 2004, 02:39 AM   #12
Atrocity
A.K.A. 'Celsius' via UT2K4
 
Atrocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 4th, 2004
Location: Preparing your grave. :)
Posts: 136
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.
__________________
Atrocity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jun 2004, 12:20 PM   #13
TWD
Cute and Cuddly
 
TWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug. 2nd, 2000
Location: Salt Lake City UT
Posts: 7,422
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.
__________________

Last edited by TWD; 17th Jun 2004 at 12:23 PM.
TWD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jun 2004, 01:51 PM   #14
rajput_warrior
The World's Favorite Flak Monkey
 
rajput_warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 26th, 2004
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD
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
__________________

rajput_warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jun 2004, 04:52 PM   #15
Daedalus
I don't even...
 
Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May. 24th, 2001
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,261
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
__________________
...
____
Daedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jun 2004, 08:06 PM   #16
BoboThePenguin
Bird. Bird. Bird. Bird is the word.
 
BoboThePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 9th, 2004
Location: www.digitallifestylecenter.com
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by m&ms
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
__________________

Clan Ci
BoboThePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jun 2004, 08:57 PM   #17
dehgenog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar. 19th, 2004
Posts: 14
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.
dehgenog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Copyright ©1998 - 2012, BeyondUnreal, Inc.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Bandwidth provided by AtomicGamer