-
Reef Shark
quick question GF4-440 vs 440SE
What is the difference between the SE and non SE?
I just want a cheep card with TV out.
How much faster would it be then a Geforce2 MX400 ?
Ive read that the 440 is about the same as a gf3 ti200.
Thanks
PC #1 - AMD XP Tbred-B 1700+ @ 2200mhz (16.5*133) , Abit KR7A133-RAID , 1.25gig DDR , AX7 w/ tornado , Geforce 4 ti4200 @ 326/708max
PC #2 - Celeron 1300@1547, asus mobo , 768 meg ram , Geforce 3ti200 @ 235/535
PC #3 - Duron 1300@1450, 512ddr
PC #4 - PIII 450
PC #5 - Laptop p3-750/512ram/40gig
-
Based on my knowledge I gather from browsing article from the Net, I found from madonion.com the MX440 is far below Ti200. Madonion resource show (start from the lowest to better):
MX460 - R9000 - Ti 200 - GF3 ...etc...etc...etc...
As you can see MX 440 is below MX460.
Soo you got to choose.
Vodude => the fans of 3dfx voodoo
(not a vodka drinker and not a Vodafone user)
Dedicated to my V3000 (21/6/99-18/12/02), which I forgot where have I put it.
-
Evil Monkey Shark
Originally posted by Vodude
Based on my knowledge I gather from browsing article from the Net, I found from madonion.com the MX440 is far below Ti200. Madonion resource show (start from the lowest to better):
MX460 - R9000 - Ti 200 - GF3 ...etc...etc...etc...
As you can see MX 440 is below MX460.
Soo you got to choose.
madonion has those cards ranked as such because none of the gf4MX have directX 8 hardware support, which is a MAJOR factor in determining 3dmark 2001 scores, and certainly doesn't paint the full picture about the mx440's performance. the 440mx and ti200 are pretty closely matched as far as framerates in dx7 and older games (q3, half-life, etc...), but in dx8 games the ti200 will pull ahead because of it's dx8 support.
because of it's lack of dx8 support i'd avoid getting it. the dx7 technology it uses is more than 3 years old, so for many of todays games with dx8 features it will lack in performance.
as far as getting back to the original question, the difference between the mx440 and the 440se is that the se version has agp8x support, where the non-se version does not. the performance difference between agp4x and 8x is completley non-existant, so if you do decide to get the mx just get whichever of the 2 is cheaper.
Last edited by thebove; 02-08-2003 at 07:52 PM.
Abit IP35 Pro - Core2Duo E8400 - 4GB Crucial Ballistix 1066 - ATI 4850HD
- 2xRaptor 150GB RAID-0
Dave? Dave?! Dave's not here...
-
Originally posted by thebove
madonion has those cards ranked as such because any of the gf4MX do not have full directx 8 support, which is a MAJOR factor in determining 3dmark 2001 scores, and certainly doesn't paint the full picture about the mx440's performance. the 440mx and ti200 are pretty closely matched as far as framerates in dx7 and older games, but in dx8 games the ti200 will pull ahead because of it's dx8 support.
personally though, i'd aviod the mx because of it's lack of dx8 support....the technology it uses is more than 3 years old, so for many of todays games with dx8 features it will lack in performance.
Thanx for the additional, I jusr realize that technology
does count.
Vodude => the fans of 3dfx voodoo
(not a vodka drinker and not a Vodafone user)
Dedicated to my V3000 (21/6/99-18/12/02), which I forgot where have I put it.
-
Hammerhead Shark
Not sure the differance between SE and non SE but a MX440 is not a bad card if you read this page. http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi...force4-18.html
Windows XP Pro
P4 2.4B
768 pc2100
9800p
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|