Geforce4 MX440

[heldersouza]

I'm going to buy a Geforce4 MX440.
Does any owner of this card could tell me whether it's good with Project64 (beauty of graphics and speed, of course)?

I'd be very thankful.

Hélder

j64:

 

[heldersouza]

Sorry for my serious english mistake.
Here is the corrected post:

I'm going to buy a Geforce4 MX440.
Could any owner of this card tell me whether it's good with Project64 (beauty of graphics and speed, of course)?

I'd be very thankful.

Hélder

 

[heldersouza]

Please...



PLEASE tell me if I should buy it!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tagrineth]

I have to say it, the GeForce4 MX is a marketing scam and, aside from some performance benefits, is really no better than a GeForce 2 MX.

I say, get a Radeon 9000 Pro instead... performance should be around the same - better in many cases - and you'll get many more features (especially pixel and vertex shaders). Plus the price is just as low.

Just some friendly advice from someone who knows her video cards

 

[Harteex]

I have a GF4 MX 440... It works ok (a bit slow on my system) but I recommend to get a better gfx card.

I only bought this card as a cheap alternative to my fried GeForce 1....

 

[heldersouza]

Thanks.

Thanks for the tips.
If other people could give other tips, I'll be again thankful.

 

[Tagrineth]

Just like to add as well that the Radeon 9000 Pro according to NewEgg.com is only $10 more expensive than the MX440.

 

[Doomulation]

geforce3 ti (the cheapest) can be found around the same price as a gf4 mx card.

 

[james.miller]

in outright performance terms there definatly are cheaper and better cards out there. so theres no need to get one. but to answer your question - yes its more than good enough.......as long as you have a decent system to back it up.

a system with under a 1ghz cpu and 256mb ram will not be enough to run most games smoothly

 

[Eliminator]

Well as an old expert in the video card department.....I do NOT recommend a GF4 MX 440....its terrible and no better than my lousy old GF2 MX...I don't recomend a Radeon 9000 either...or a GF3 Ti 200....instead I recommend a Radeon 8500 LE 128MB....its as cheap as a Radeon 9000 but much better and u get a hefty 128MB of ram....if u wana get something better i would recomend a Radeon 9500...it is probably the most amazing mainstream 3D gfx accelerator out there...it is the 2nd video card to fully support Direct X 9.0 and it offers great performance and its only one step behind the Radeon 9700...it costs $200 US for the Pro version or $180 for the standard version...NOTE:the 9500 pro version beats a GF4 TI 4600....and if $200 is too much for u then defenitely get the Radeon 8500 LE 128MB...u cant go wrong with that and its one step behind the GF4 Ti 4200.....hope this helps ...if u need any help just ring the bell

PS in case ur confused from all that writing
My top choices:
1. Radeon 9500 Pro $200 (comes out Nov.19)
2. Radeon 8500 LE $100
3. GeForce 4 Ti 4200 $150-175

 

[Dark Watcher]

We have to disagree...we upgraded from a GF2 to a Geforce 4 MX, and are pleased with the performance for such a fairly cheap card. We got more spead and improved Full Screen Anti Aliasing / Anistropic Filtering. You may not be able to harness it's full potential till the OpenGL plugin is fully compatible, but you can use the GF4's 4XS FSAA which works beautifully with D3D plugins.

Most are going to preach on about more high speed cards such as the Nvidia TI's or Radeon fans..but if your looking for a cheap card you cannot go wrong.

 

[cooliscool]

Yep. gf4 mx has Accuview AA (same AA the ti series use) Which is the fastest available. It also has LMA II and many other features the others don't.

Thanks for setting it straight DW.

 

[Doomulation]

Geforce3 ti is cheaper and better afaik

 

[Cobra95]

"I have to say it, the GeForce4 MX is a marketing scam and, aside from some performance benefits, is really no better than a GeForce 2 MX."

That pretty much says it all. I am an NVidia fan, not an ATi troll. I am *ashamed* that NVidia has pulled this crap on its loyal customers. Stay away from GF4 MX's. You are much better off with a GF3 Ti--really.

 

[StonedConker]

i will agree that gf4 MX series are a crap.ppl say wohh it's a gf4 it's cheap so it will be great.The gf2 Ti or gf3 Ti have about the same speed but better quality than a gf4MX

 

[heldersouza]

I own

I own a Voodoo 4 4500 PCI.

Would it be a worth change??



???

 

[VenomGhost]

I have a geforce 2 MX400

I buyed it because of the ViVo functions , and manage to overclock it to 230Mghz core and 210Mghz VRAM , anyway ive heard that radeon cards have more Directx8 features , and even directx 9, i would like to know if it would be better to buy a radeon 7000 with 64 VRAM (mine has 32MB),anyway its cost make me doubt about its memory -->50$ must be SDRAM for sure just like mine , (i would love a DDR one),also what overclocking capabilities it has? would it be a better performer than mine ?(overclocked maybe),and in case you are wondering i have a "MSI MS-8833" AKA "MX400 Pro-VT32S"

 

[Tagrineth]

For the Voodoo4? To be honest, you shouldn't need anything bigger than that for N64 emulation, especially if you stick with GLide video plugins (hell, my underclocked Voodoo2 SLI gets perfect frames in most games with an 800MHz P3).

GeForce4 MX is seriously a useless line, surpassed in price/performance/features in too many ways by too many other (and OLDER) cards.

Whoever it was that suggested the Radeon 8500LE... the 9000Pro does have 128MB, and it doesn't have the curious fill-rate dive in stressful situations. It's really a toss-up between those two.

The 9500 non-Pro is a totally neutered card, if you choose a 9500 go with a Pro. It's only $20 more, after all... LOL.

And finally, VenomGhost, do not buy a Radeon 7000. They're the absolute lowest-end Radeons in existance... heh... at the barest minimum find a 7500, but even that's pushing it.

My pick for 'top main-stream' pretty much stands at the 9000Pro - great performance at a ludicrously low price.