PDA

View Full Version : Gainward 64bit MX4000 preview @ Darkcrow


DSC
01-12-04, 10:32 PM
http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/Preview/Preview_Content.asp?board_idx=176

http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/image/preview/2003/0312/gain_MX4000/result.gif

Suffice to say, don't buy the MX4000 crap. :p :rolleyes:

GlowStick
01-12-04, 10:36 PM
Not really a shocker there, but heh.

saturnotaku
01-12-04, 10:43 PM
Good Lord my GeForce2 Ultra/Athlon 1.2 GHz combo spanked that thing.

Grechie
01-12-04, 11:26 PM
MX 4000? WTF WERE THAT THINKING!!

Its bad enough the MX440 is a crap card only 80 Buks and less for budgets but they release a card thats even crappier that my GF2 Could Slaughter for how much again lol ?? i wouldnt be surpised if this is a 30 dollar Video card tsk tsk i wonder if it could run and games ?

GlowStick
01-12-04, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Grechie
MX 4000? WTF WERE THAT THINKING!!

Its bad enough the MX440 is a crap card only 80 Buks and less for budgets but they release a card thats even crappier that my GF2 Could Slaughter for how much again lol ?? i wouldnt be surpised if this is a 30 dollar Video card tsk tsk i wonder if it could run and games ? There is a huge market for cheep ass cards.

I had this discussion about 2 months ago.

My friend built his grandpa a computer, and it stoped working so he thought it could be the video card. It went something like this

Me: So what video card dose it have?
Him: Not sure, its top of the line, i paied alot for it.
Me: Well bring it over here and we will put it in my system and see if it works

The next day he brings it over, and its a Rage product, and i said, this isnt top of the line, its the cheepist crap you can find.

He said: Did i get riped off? i paied near 30$ for it!!!!!

nuff said, most people consider tthe mx 4000 a kings ransom.....

Edge
01-12-04, 11:45 PM
Holy crap, the MX4000 is absolute garbage. It should AT LEAST be as good as an MX420, but that is totally horrible. And people say the FX5200 is a bad card (though isn't the test uneven in the FX's favor, since it would be the only one capable of running the forth 3dmark2k1 test?). Even 64-bit FX5200 cards would be better then this, and couldn't cost THAT much more, could it? Where are they even going to be selling these cards?

zakelwe
01-13-04, 01:07 AM
They seem to have taken the 0 off the end of the 3dmark2001 score to use on the end of the name of the card. This being the case I hope they don't bring out a 40 000 series soon.

I have to agree with glowstick though as well, I was talking to a girl in the office yesterday ( she has a great 3D T-shirt by the way, if you know what I mean , some sort of bump mapping is being used) and she has some online fantasy game she plays, anyhow it wouldn't work with her new expansion pack, the video was too weedy as it was onboard Intel ( Dell machine ) and she had to go to a PCI 5200 to get by.

She showed me a bitmap picture of her character and she said " look at the trees, they are so cool " I asked her if the leaves moved and she said no :).

A lot of people have very low expectations.

Regards

Andy

-=DVS=-
01-13-04, 03:06 AM
Wh0oa :eek: maybe we all have very high standarts from rest of the world with 30$ video cards :confused: and i thought my system is totaly outdated peace of c*** :)

DMA
01-13-04, 03:51 AM
MX3000 would have been a better name huh? :o

Gator
01-13-04, 06:41 AM
CPU Intel, Pentium4 3.06 HT - FSB 533
RAM Samsung PC-2700 DDR 512MB * 2
Mainbord ASUS P4GBX (BIOS-1005) - E7205
HDD Maxtor 40G_7200RPM_ATA133
OS Windows XP SP1
Driver ForceWare v53.03 / DirectX 9.0b
GF4 MX4000
3dmark = 3058 ???

OMG! An old 3dfx Voodoo5 could give that thing competition. I mean honestly I don't usually give a 3dmark score too much credit, but 3K on a P4-3ghz? That's just horrible. And furthermore, I'll smack the individual who buys a 3ghz CPU and pairs it with an MX4000, that's just sad. This card better not sell for more than $30us. Why that much? Because that's what a Radeon7000/VE sells for and even that crumby card has a better rating than this thing from the look of it :rolleyes:

And futhermore, it's very irresponsible for Nvidia to call it a MX4000 as if it's a higher or better card than a MX440 :mad:

DSC
01-13-04, 07:26 AM
The FX5200 and MX440 cards are 128bit memory bus, while the MX4000 is only 64bit, no suprises there.

The MX4000 core is slightly better than the MX440, because it has TMDS transmitter for DVI support and S-Video support integrated on chip, where as the MX440/MX440-8x doesn't. But still doesn't make sense to me when there's a far better FX5200 which has all of the above plus the Vertex and Pixel Shader unit.

thatdude90210
01-13-04, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
There is a huge market for cheep ass cards.


I think integrated video could kill off this market.

Edge
01-13-04, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Gator

OMG! An old 3dfx Voodoo5 could give that thing competition.

I think that's an insult to Voodoo 5s everywhere :D

And futhermore, it's very irresponsible for Nvidia to call it a MX4000 as if it's a higher or better card than a MX440 :mad:

Yeah, I think both ATI and Nvidia have some pretty crappy naming systems for their low-end cards (and even some of their high-end cards). A GF4MX being a pumped up GF2? A 9000/9200 being a slower version of the 8500 with missing features? And now this. I think both companies have to be a hell of a lot more honest with thier naming systems then they currently are. I think they give the low-end cards big numbers just so stupid people will think they're powerful ("Oh wow, I got a 9600, which is almost like a 9700 but like $20 cheaper! I sure got a good deal!" And then they go on to playing games at 640x480 while keeping all details at default...)

MUYA
01-14-04, 10:17 AM
As I mentioned before in thread before, the MX4000 is probably intended for the 3rd world where they cannot afford even GF4 440mx type cards. Areas like Mainland China, South Asia, parts of East Europe, parts of South America, some SE Asian countries like Vietnam etc. Not intended for developed nations...except Tight Budget PCs?

Hellbinder
01-14-04, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Edge
I think that's an insult to Voodoo 5s everywhere :D



Yeah, I think both ATI and Nvidia have some pretty crappy naming systems for their low-end cards (and even some of their high-end cards). A GF4MX being a pumped up GF2? A 9000/9200 being a slower version of the 8500 with missing features? And now this. I think both companies have to be a hell of a lot more honest with thier naming systems then they currently are. I think they give the low-end cards big numbers just so stupid people will think they're powerful ("Oh wow, I got a 9600, which is almost like a 9700 but like $20 cheaper! I sure got a good deal!" And then they go on to playing games at 640x480 while keeping all details at default...)
Actually the 9200 and 9000 have an almost identical feature set as far as capabilities are to a 8500. My Friend is Gaming with a 9200SE right now and loves it. He is a Battlefield Junky. Thing screams at 1024x768.

Johnmcl7
01-14-04, 11:20 AM
A 9200SE screaming in battlefield? You've got to be joking, the performance of it and the 64 bit 9100 is dire. Unless you mean screaming in pain...

John

Edge
01-14-04, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Actually the 9200 and 9000 have an almost identical feature set as far as capabilities are to a 8500. My Friend is Gaming with a 9200SE right now and loves it. He is a Battlefield Junky. Thing screams at 1024x768.

Well in particular I'm refering to Truform, which apperently had it's hardware removed from ATI cards later then the 8500 (though I'm not totally sure if that includes the 9000/9200 or not). Now it's only availible by software emulation, which is totally horrible for it. In fact I think Truform was one of the 8500's strengths, it just wasn't used very well yet (and now never will be, since only the 8500 card can use it efficiently). But given ATI's naming system, you'd think a 9xxx card would be DirectX9 compatable, their naming system used to be fine until the current generation (and now with the 9600 being slower then a 9500, 9800se being slower then a 9700, etc). I think Nvidia's current cards are named kinda ok, but their upcoming low-low-low-end cards like the MX4000 are named really stupidly. Isn't that like GF2MX speed?

Oh, and a 9200se working great for BF1942? Aren't the SE versions like well below TI200 speed? 1024x768 seems awful high for a card like that...

Hellbinder
01-14-04, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Johnmcl7
A 9200SE screaming in battlefield? You've got to be joking, the performance of it and the 64 bit 9100 is dire. Unless you mean screaming in pain...

John
Actually no i am serious...

The game plays very smooth with no hitches and averages in the 70's For FPS at 1024x768. For your average gamer that is pretty Hefty for online play in a game like this.

Hellbinder
01-14-04, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Edge
Well in particular I'm refering to Truform, which apperently had it's hardware removed from ATI cards later then the 8500 (though I'm not totally sure if that includes the 9000/9200 or not). Now it's only availible by software emulation, which is totally horrible for it. In fact I think Truform was one of the 8500's strengths, it just wasn't used very well yet (and now never will be, since only the 8500 card can use it efficiently). But given ATI's naming system, you'd think a 9xxx card would be DirectX9 compatable, their naming system used to be fine until the current generation (and now with the 9600 being slower then a 9500, 9800se being slower then a 9700, etc). I think Nvidia's current cards are named kinda ok, but their upcoming low-low-low-end cards like the MX4000 are named really stupidly. Isn't that like GF2MX speed?

Oh, and a 9200se working great for BF1942? Aren't the SE versions like well below TI200 speed? 1024x768 seems awful high for a card like that...
That is where you are wrong.... as are everyone else who is constantly trying to TELL Ati what their naming scheme is instead of FINDING OUT what their Naming scheme is.

The "9" does not and never has had anything to do with DirectX 9. Nor ha Ati ever tried to push off on people that it has anything to do with DX9.

Secondly the 9600pro *IS* Faster than a 9500pro win most modern Dx9 heavy games. This difference will become more pronounced in the future.

The 9800XE is something done only by a few Korean companys overseas. The only way you can get one is over the internet. North american REtail chains do not see such products.

Edge
01-14-04, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
That is where you are wrong.... as are everyone else who is constantly trying to TELL Ati what their naming scheme is instead of FINDING OUT what their Naming scheme is.

Umm, ok, so how exactly DOES ATI's naming system work? After all, since the 7*** series were all DX7 cards, and the 8*** series were all DX8 cards, and the 9*** series BEFORE the 9000/9200 cards were DX9 cards, how in the hell does "9000" translate to "slower version of our DirectX8 8500 card"? Please tell me what ATI's reasoning is for raising the numbers and lowering performance. It's exactly the same situation the GF4MX was in.

The "9" does not and never has had anything to do with DirectX 9. Nor ha Ati ever tried to push off on people that it has anything to do with DX9.

Riiiight...so how is it that the point I made in my last paragraph not apply to it? Again, isn't naming something a Geforce4MX when it's actually a faster GF2MX misleading in the same way (except the GF4MX is FASTER then the card it was based on, whereas the 9000/9200 is SLOWER). Also, notice the text in the lower left of this box: Radeon 9200 (http://images.bestbuy.com/BestBuy_US/images/products/5429/5429627_ra.jpg)

[Secondly the 9600pro *IS* Faster than a 9500pro win most modern Dx9 heavy games. This difference will become more pronounced in the future.

The 9600 is slower then a 9500, and the 9600pro is faster then a 9500pro. OK, that's just more confusing then the rest of their naming system is.

thatdude90210
01-15-04, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Edge
Umm, ok, so how exactly DOES ATI's naming system work? After all, since the 7*** series were all DX7 cards, and the 8*** series were all DX8 cards, and the 9*** series BEFORE the 9000/9200 cards were DX9 cards, how in the hell does "9000" translate to "slower version of our DirectX8 8500 card"?
It had always mean "generation" of technology, never had anything to do with Dx numbers. People only interpreted as such because the two sometimes coincide.

ChrisRay
01-15-04, 05:38 AM
HB, I hope your kidding about the 9600 Pro being faster than a 9500 Pro in DX 9.0 games.


It has less shader units than a 9500 Pro, Hell Even Beyond3d states this.

Edge
01-15-04, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by thatdude90210
It had always mean "generation" of technology, never had anything to do with Dx numbers. People only interpreted as such because the two sometimes coincide.

But why did they call the upgraded Radeon card the 7500 then when it came out around the time of the 8500? Shouldn't they have called it the 8000?