FAQ News Search Archive Forum IRC nZone Articles Tweaks Technology Files Prices Folding
Need Memory?
Popular Articles
Drivers/FAQ
Associates
 

NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440 Experiences
By: Jonathan Martini - April 9, 2002

Test System

Now that we’ve touched the various features of the GeForce4 MX, let’s see how it performs.

The system used for testing consisted of the following configuration:

  • AMD Athlon XP 1600+ (1.4GHz)

  • Gigabyte 7VTXE KT266A Motherboard

  • 512 MB DDR RAM

  • eVGA e-GeForce2 Ultra

  • eVGA e-GeForce3 Ti 200

  • eVGA e-GeForce4 MX 440

  • Creative 3D Blaster MX 440

  • Chaintech A-G411 GeForce4 MX 440 Special Edition

  • Detonator Driver V27.70

  • Windows XP Pro

  • Sound Blaster Live X-Gamer

  • Quantum LM 20GB Hard Drive

  • VSYNC off

  • No Sound

Benchmark tests:

  • 3DMark2000 V1.1

  • 3DMark2001 SE

  • AMD N-Bench2

  • AquaMark V2.3

  • DronezMark

  • F1 2001

  • GLExcess

  • Quake 3 Arena V1.31

  • Return to Castle Wolfenstein V1.0

  • Serious Sam II: The Second Encounter

  • VulpineGL

I have tried to portray the GeForce4 MX 440’s performance under a wide variety of situations using a variety of games and synthetic benchmarks while varying the now famous FSAA and Anisotropic filtering image quality levels. I have pitted the GeForce4 MX 440 against the slightly more powerful and slightly more expensive GeForce3 Ti 200, to see what the nFinite Effect Engine and two more graphics pipelines can muster. Many consider the GeForce4 MX 440 an evolved GeForce2 MX with the addition of DDR Ram. The GeForce4 MX would just blow the GeForce2 MX out of the water, but I felt it would be much more interesting to see how the GeForce4 MX 440 would perform against the performance champ of pre-DirectX8 times; the GeForce2 Ultra. Onto the fun…

Vulpine GLmark

Vulpine GLmark is a fairly intensive OpenGL benchmarking program comparable to the 3DMark series as it makes use of some GeForce3 specific techniques to improve speed and image quality. Unlike the 3DMark series, GLmark's score is represented by an average fps reading generated at the end of the demo.

The settings:

Advanced Features was selected for all the cards while scores from the GeForce3 Ti 200 using the GeForce3 settings are thrown in for comparison.

The GeForce3 Ti 200 is 20 fps ahead of the GeForce4 MX 440 with the GeForce2 Ultra trailing both competitors. The additional GF3 features drag the performance of the Ti 200 slightly, but it's still 15fps faster than the GeForce4 MX 440.

GLExcess

Bustard's GL Excess software was programmed by one man in a matter of weeks. The test suite is composed of a variety of scenes testing various rendering speeds in different conditions. A neat feature of this benchmarking program is that the whole suite features 12 different test targeted at 4 specific areas of concern to 3D graphics. An interesting aspect of this benchmark program is that all the action is processed using non-specific OpenGL code and only uses one 3D model.

GLExcess records the results (as well as the result breakdown) in an html file for quick access. More detailed scores can be found here.

  In a drastic change from the previous results, the GeForce3 Ti 200 and the GeForce2 Ultra are neck and neck at all but 800x600 where the GeForce2 Ultra enjoys a 200+ point advantage. The GeForce4 MX hover 300 to 400 points behind the other competitors.

Next Page: Performance Continued

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

 
 

Last Updated on April 9, 2002

Copyright © 1998-2003. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in any form or medium without written permission of the site's owners is prohibited.

Privacy Policy


FastCounter by bCentral

 Visitors Are Online
Powered by Perlonline.com
eVGA.com
Tweakmonster
Graphics Utilities
Add-In Cards
For Developers
Sponsors