1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

MX440..

Discussion in 'Unreal Tournament 2003/2004' started by SyK0, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. SyK0

    SyK0 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  2. TWD

    TWD Cute and Cuddly

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2000
    Messages:
    7,444
    Likes Received:
    8
    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.
     
  3. DaBeatard

    DaBeatard Mr.How

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are the rest of your system specs?
     
  4. Capt.Toilet

    Capt.Toilet Good news everyone!

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes Received:
    2
    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. :(
     
  5. SyK0

    SyK0 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  6. m&ms

    m&ms Melts in your mouth, not in your hand.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Dragon_Myr

    Dragon_Myr New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. SyK0

    SyK0 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  9. mrpirate

    mrpirate WTFLOL

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Daedalus

    Daedalus I don't even...

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    4,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah, definitely do not go with an SE version of a card, it wouldn't be much of an upgrade.
     
  11. Niaad

    Niaad hello internet

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2004
  12. Atrocity

    Atrocity A.K.A. 'Celsius' via UT2K4

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. TWD

    TWD Cute and Cuddly

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2000
    Messages:
    7,444
    Likes Received:
    8
    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: Jun 17, 2004
  14. rajput_warrior

    rajput_warrior The World's Favorite Flak Monkey

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    0
    good call, get a 9800 pro, its what im buyin pretty soon, itll be a nice upgrade from my geforce fx5200
     
  15. Daedalus

    Daedalus I don't even...

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    4,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :)
     
  16. BoboThePenguin

    BoboThePenguin Bird. Bird. Bird. Bird is the word.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same here, I'm getting a new card soon though :D
     
  17. dehgenog

    dehgenog New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page