The Cards:
       I put the new Visiontek GeForce4 MX 440
      and 420 cards through some
      comparison testing against GeForce2 Pro and GeForce3 Ti 200 cards to see
      if the new cards performed better or worse. The models I used for
      comparisons were the Asus V7700 Deluxe GeForce2 Pro 32MB DDR card and the
      Visiontek GeForce3 Ti 200 64MB DDR cards. 
       
       
      This is the GeForce4 MX440 card with 64MB of DDR
      DRAM.  Quite basic, and nothing really fancy, unless you consider
      Twin-View dual-monitor support fancy. And in a way, it is.  The
      dual-monitor support on the MX440 is quite impressive. 
        
      The GeForce4 MX420 is even more basic. This one
      almost looks like a network card it's so small.  But it still has
      room for an S-video out connector so you can play games on a large TV. 
      Finally, I also compared the performance of the
      new GeForce4 MX cards to the built-in GeForce2 MX video that comes with
      nForce motherboards. 
      Introduction: 
      So is the GeForce 4 MX anything to get excited about? In fact, the MX 440
      comes equipped with DDR DRAM, and it puts in a very commendable performance
      as you will see. The MX 420 is a real budget card, yet it still manages some
      quite decent scores. 
      Both cards have two output connectors. The MX420 has
      an extra S-video out for TV gaming, while the MX440 has dual-monitor support
      with excellent driver utilities for controlling both monitors in
      spanning and non-spanning modes. 
      Rather than do an exhaustive test of these cards
      with Quake III, Serious Sam, Unreal, and the rest of the usual lineup, I
      concentrated on 3D Mark 2000 and 2001 to test Direct X 7 and 8 performance
      respectively. I only tested two resolutions and color depths at the
      two ends of the playable spectrum with these lower-end cards (640x480x16
      and 1024x768x32). 
      System: I tested the video cards on
      what I consider a fairly basic new system with NVidia's new nForce
      chipset, including integrated sound and video. The motherboard was Asus' new
      A7N266 with DDR memory support. The system contained 256MB of Crucial
      PC2100 DDR DRAM and a 1.466 GHz (XP 1700+) Athlon CPU running at 11 x 133MHz
      (CPU and memory front side bus at 133MHz). The system had Windows 98SE and Direct X
      8.1 installed, and the latest nForce drivers from NVidia's web site.
       
      Video Drivers: 
      For most testing I used the latest 27.30 NVidia
      drivers that come with GeForce4 MX cards. For testing the old GeForce2
      card, I used the 23.11 WHQL drivers available from NVidia's web site. It
      is interesting that NVidia is only offering the 23.11 drivers for
      download, rather than putting the new 27.11 drivers up as well. 
      3D Mark 2000 (Direct X 7) 
      I ran 3D Mark 2000 version 1.1 to test what kind of performance you can expect in
      various Direct X 7 3D games. The results are shown in the next graph.  
        
      The blue bars are for 640x480 at
      16-bit, while the red bars are for 1024x768 at 32-bit color. The red bars
      really represent what resolution and color depth you would prefer to run
      your games at if possible. Running games at 800x600 with 32-bit color is
      perfectly good for 17 inch monitors, but if you have a 19 inch monitor,
      1024x768 is the preferred setting. 
      From the graph above it's clear
      that the MX440 is darned close to the Ti200. The price difference is
      negligible as well. The surprises for me are the excellent showing that
      the MX420 puts in (GF2 Pro equivalent), and the terrible showing for the
      integrated nForce video (Less than 1/3 the score for the MX440 at
      1024x768x32). 
      3D-Mark 2001 (Direct X 8) 
      Now we get to the benchmark that was designed
      for the GeForce 3 and 4 cards, the new 3D Mark 2001se (second edition).
      This benchmark makes $400 video cards cry for mercy. But take a look at
      Direct X 8 performance on these low-end cards. 
        
      The Ti200 really does well here,
      with good tight scores at both settings. The MX400 does exceptionally well
      too, beating the GF2 Pro nicely. Notice also that the MX420 does a very
      good job with Direct X 8 performance at a very affordable price. It meets
      or beats a GeForce2 Pro, and puts the onboard video to shame.  
      What I notice here the most is that the MX440 does
      not do as well with DX8 as compared to the GF3 Ti200. These two cards
      performed very similarly with DX7 (3D Mark 2000). But with Direct X 8 (3D
      Mark 2001se), there is now a significant advantage for the GF3 Ti200.  
      Take home messages? If you have an
      original GeForce2 MX card, the GeForce4 MX420 is a significant upgrade. If
      you have a GeForce2 Pro, the GeForce3 Ti200 is a significant upgrade, but
      the GeForce4 MX440 is not. 
      Overclocking GeForce Cards 
      I used Powerstrip 3.12 (Entech)
      to overclock the core and memory on the GeForce cards. If you haven't tried
      Powerstrip, I highly recommend it. You can get it here: 
      http://www.entechtaiwan.com/ps.htm 
      The default graphics core and memory settings on the
      5 cards I tested are:
      Standard speeds: 
      GeForce2 Pro:        
      200MHz/333MHz
      (core - memory) 
      GeForce3 Ti 200:     175MHz/400MHz  
      GeForce4 MX 420:    125MHz/166MHz (SDRAM) 
      GeForce4 MX 440:    135MHz/200MHz (DDR) 
      GeForce2 MX (int):   50MHz/50MHz? 
      Overclocked settings: 
      GF2 Pro Overclocked:        210MHz/350MHz 
      GF3 Ti 200 Overclocked:    185MHz/440MHz 
      GF4 MX420 Overclocked:    135MHz/190MHz 
      GF4 MX440 Overclocked:    145MHz/230MHz 
      GF2 MXint. Overclocked:     not overclockable 
      The on-board GeForce2 MX
      video (labeled GF2MXint in graphs) on the nForce motherboard would not overclock at all. I am not sure
      exactly how the nForce board uses system memory for AGP functions, but the
      default readings with Powerstrip read out as 50MHz core, 50MHz memory.  The
      memory slider would not move (because it's system memory), and the core
      slider always caused the system to crash, whenever I tried to change the
      setting. I set the nForce motherboard BIOS to allow video overclocking, but this had
      no effect on the lack of overclockability. I think it's safe to say that the onboard video
      on nForce motherboards is not
      particularly tweakable. 
      The graphs below show the benchmarks with the
      overclocked settings.  
        
        
        
      Overclocking these cards gave
      marginal increases in performance (for example, 9% for the GeForce4 MX 440
      at 1024x768x32).  
      nForce Chipset 
      NVidia's move into the chipset
      market is a logical extension of their move to to console market, where
      graphics and memory are integrated. But in the case of the nForce
      integrated video on the current chipset, I've got to wonder what they were
      thinking. Maybe servers? The onboard video on nForce motherboards is not anywhere near up
      to snuff for newer 3D games, and is barely good enough to run older games
      at acceptable resolutions and frame rates. But other than the built-in
      video, the nForce chipset is impressive. The memory support is very good,
      and the built-in audio is far superior to the Yamaha chips integrated on
      many motherboards. What NVidia needs to do is remove the on-board video
      altogether, and add 10/100 Ethernet support. The newer nForce 415-D
      chipset without the built-in video is a great idea, now let's get with the
      integrated fast Ethernet guys! 
      Conclusions 
      If you want raw power and speed in
      your graphics system, you'll want to save your money for something gutsier
      than MX cards. But if you have an old GeForce2 MX card, and you're on a budget,
      the MX 440 is one heck of a nice budget card.  Keep in mind that the
      GeForce3 Ti 200 beats the MX 440 in every benchmark, and only costs about
      $20 to $30 more. In my opinion, the extra $30 is worth the money. Also
      keep in mind that the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 should be available soon, and it
      will beat the GeForce3 Ti 200, for just about the same price. The MX420 is
      a damn good video card at the bottom end. For about $100, you get GeForce
      2 Pro performance... with good 'ol SDRAM! 
      Final words.  If you have a
      really old video card and it's giving you trouble, but you are also flat
      broke, the MX420 will beat the pants off of a Voodoo3 or TNT2
      card. If you have a little more cash on hand, the MX440 is an even better choice
      to replace an old video card. But for just a few dollars more, you can get
      a full-fledged GF3 Ti200, which has twice the number of pipelines, and
      faster memory. 
       But one thing is clear folks, the low-end of computer video isn't
      so low anymore, thanks to NVidia. 
       
      
        
          
            Pros: 
              
                - MX 440 is a good choice for budget
                  gamers
 
                - MX 420 excellent for it's price range
 
                - Complete Direct X 8 support
 
                - MX 440 has great dual monitor support
 
                - MX 420 is dirt cheap
 
                - Programmable special effects
 
                - Overclockable
 
               
               
             | 
           
          
            Cons: 
              
                - MX 440 is almost as expensive as GF3 Ti
                  200
 
                - GeForce3 Ti200 is fairly inexpensive, and
                  beats both GeForce4 MX cards in all benchmarks
 
                - Not much in the way of cooling on these
                  cards
 
                - Built-in video on nForce motherboards
                  is pitiful
 
               
               
              GeForce4 MX 440: 
              Price:
              Approximately $165 US 
              Rating, : 
              4.5 out of 5 smiley faces (90%). 
              :) :) :) :) + 
               
              GeForce4 MX 420: 
              Price:
              Approximately $120 US 
              Rating, : 
              4.3 out of 5 smiley faces (86%). 
              :) :) :) :) + 
              Availability for
              both cards:
              Good 
             | 
           
        
       
      © Copyright, March 10th, 2002
          |