Does geforce4 mx440 64mb run D3?

[guitarguy316]

hey, im just trying to get cheapest card to make the game run on a p4 1.6 768 ram. card he has right now is geforce2 mx400. i saw the card for $20 and wanted to make it was DIRECTX 9.0b compatible. any info would be of great help. thanks!

 

[Halon]

hey, im just trying to get cheapest card to make the game run on a p4 1.6 768 ram. card he has right now is geforce2 mx400. i saw the card for $20 and wanted to make it was DIRECTX 9.0b compatible. any info would be of great help. thanks!

The MX 440's the lowest supported video configuration for Doom 3. For $20 I question what memory interface it uses (64-bit DDR versus 128-bit DDR), but you can probably get Doom 3 to run in low detail at 640*480 playably.

 

[spite]

The MX400 is NOT directx 9 compatible, and will most likely barely run 640x480 low detail. I suggest you pick up a GF3 Ti card (640x480 HIGH detail) or a GF4 Ti. I have an old GF2 MX400 around, and its not even half as fast as a GF3 Ti200. Not worth 20 bucks, IMO.

 

[guitarguy316]

its a geforce4 mx440

 

[fallguy]

The MX400 is NOT directx 9 compatible, and will most likely barely run 640x480 low detail. I suggest you pick up a GF3 Ti card (640x480 HIGH detail) or a GF4 Ti. I have an old GF2 MX400 around, and its not even half as fast as a GF3 Ti200. Not worth 20 bucks, IMO.

Its also not DX8 capable either.

guitarguy316, for $20 I would get it, expecially if he can sell his GF2MX. As Halon said, it depends a lot on if its 64 or 128 bit.

 

[Yonkec]

its a geforce4 mx440

GF4 MX's are all based on the, what 4yr old?, GF2 MX line and thus are a DX7 card, they can probably run doom3 but at the lowest possible settings and it would still be slow, if you really want doom3 you should wait for the demo and see how it runs

 

[Elledan]

GF4 MX's are all based on the, what 4yr old?, GF2 MX line and thus are a DX7 card, they can probably run doom3 but at the lowest possible settings and it would still be slow, if you really want doom3 you should wait for the demo and see how it runs

Wasn't the GF4 MX based on a GF2 Ti? Basically, a GF2 on steroids?

 

[fallguy]

Pretty much, yes. Its a GF 2.5 so to speak. Both are DX7 only. A REALLY poor job of naming that a GF4, since it cant even do what a GF3 can, DX8. But I guess it worked, suckered in a lot of people thinking it was a good card.

 

[pxc]

www.hardocp.com, top of page. Kyle/Brent tested that exact video card with results and recommendations, so it's strange why you would ask.

 

[Chaballaman]

i have 64bit 64mb gf4 mx440 agp x8 (default speed 275/285), n its way tooo slow to run d3. 6.4fps on demo1 with card oc to max (300/400) n d3 setup to lowest settin at lowest res with xp3200+.

 

[Halon]

Wasn't the GF4 MX based on a GF2 Ti? Basically, a GF2 on steroids?

Nope. Believe it or not, the Geforce4 MX is actually based on the venerable old Geforce2 MX core. The Geforce2 GTS and higher featured four pipelines with two texturing units on each; the GF2 MX had half as many pipelines, placing it about on par with the original Geforce256. If nothing else, its performance when paired with 128-bit DDR memory is proof positive that with some bug fixes, a die shrink, increased core and memory clock speeds, and a retargeted Geforce4 memory controller, even bargain-targeted DirectX 7 hardware is surprisingly capable. The GF2 Ti was a Geforce2 Pro built on a smaller die, IIRC. If the GF4 MX uses 128-bit DDR memory, it's got a shot at running Doom 3. But if it's 64-bit DDR, it may be time to do some autoexec.cfg hacking to get the game to run in 512*384 or lower.

And I shudder to think of the possibility that it might be burdened with 32-bit DDR memory, which some hardware companies are actually rolling out to boost their razor-thin profit margins a little further...

 

[pxc]

Nope. Believe it or not, the Geforce4 MX is actually based on the venerable old Geforce2 MX core.

The GF4MX is closest to the GF4 Ti. Before your jaw drops from that statement, it's easier to say what it has in common with the GF4 Ti than the differences between the GF2 MX and GF4 MX. Let me elaborate:

What the GF2 MX and GF4 MX have in common: DX7 level features, 2x2 pipeline organization

What the GF4 Ti and GF4 MX have in common: multi-sampling AA, bandwidth saving features (z-compression/fast-z clear/z-occlusion), integrated TDMS (DVI) and TV encoder (TV out), 128-bit DDR memory interface (GF2 MX was 64-bit DDR or 128-bit SDR)

What neither the GF4 Ti or GF2 MX share with the GF4 MX: 2 way crossbar memory controller (GF4 Ti has a 4 way)

Getting back to my first statement: the GF4 MX is closer to a GF4 Ti, minus pixel shaders and newer vertex shaders, 1/2 the number of pipelines and 1/2 the number of crossbar memory controllers (2x64-bit vs 4x32-bit)...

or you can say the the GF4 MX is a GF2 MX plus the GF4 Ti's MSAA, bandwidth saving features, a 2 way 128-bit DDR crossbar memory controller and the GF4 Ti's integrated TDMS and TV encoders.

 

[Halon]

The GF4MX is closest to the GF4 Ti. Before your jaw drops from that statement, it's easier to say what it has in common with the GF4 Ti than the differences between the GF2 MX and GF4 MX. Let me elaborate:

What the GF2 MX and GF4 MX have in common: DX7 level features, 2x2 pipeline organization

What the GF4 Ti and GF4 MX have in common: multi-sampling AA, bandwidth saving features (z-compression/fast-z clear/z-occlusion), integrated TDMS (DVI) and TV encoder (TV out), 128-bit DDR memory interface (GF2 MX was 64-bit DDR or 128-bit SDR)

What neither the GF4 Ti or GF2 MX share with the GF4 MX: 2 way crossbar memory controller (GF4 Ti has a 4 way)

Getting back to my first statement: the GF4 MX is closer to a GF4 Ti, minus pixel shaders and newer vertex shaders, 1/2 the number of pipelines and 1/2 the number of crossbar memory controllers (2x64-bit vs 4x32-bit)...

or you can say the the GF4 MX is a GF2 MX plus the GF4 Ti's MSAA, bandwidth saving features, a 2 way 128-bit DDR crossbar memory controller and the GF4 Ti's integrated TDMS and TV encoders.

Right on. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Chaballaman]

gf4 mx is closest to gf2 series(not mx, but gts, pro, ti, etc) in terms of performance n they are both dx7. gf4 ti series are alot faster and have dx8. even the worst gf3, ti200 is much better(faster, dx8) than any gf4 mx.

 

[Elledan]

The GF4MX is closest to the GF4 Ti. Before your jaw drops from that statement, it's easier to say what it has in common with the GF4 Ti than the differences between the GF2 MX and GF4 MX. Let me elaborate:

What the GF2 MX and GF4 MX have in common: DX7 level features, 2x2 pipeline organization

What the GF4 Ti and GF4 MX have in common: multi-sampling AA, bandwidth saving features (z-compression/fast-z clear/z-occlusion), integrated TDMS (DVI) and TV encoder (TV out), 128-bit DDR memory interface (GF2 MX was 64-bit DDR or 128-bit SDR)

What neither the GF4 Ti or GF2 MX share with the GF4 MX: 2 way crossbar memory controller (GF4 Ti has a 4 way)

Getting back to my first statement: the GF4 MX is closer to a GF4 Ti, minus pixel shaders and newer vertex shaders, 1/2 the number of pipelines and 1/2 the number of crossbar memory controllers (2x64-bit vs 4x32-bit)...

or you can say the the GF4 MX is a GF2 MX plus the GF4 Ti's MSAA, bandwidth saving features, a 2 way 128-bit DDR crossbar memory controller and the GF4 Ti's integrated TDMS and TV encoders.

Which raises the question: what core did nVidia base the GF4 MX on? Was it a heavily modified GF2 MX/Ti core, or a stripped down version of the GF4 core? And would it actually make sense to go back and modify an old core?

I must say, though, that the GF4 MX isn't so bad if it still manages to outperform the latest ultra-low budget option from nVidia, the FX5200

 

[maxxo]

hey, im just trying to get cheapest card to make the game run on a p4 1.6 768 ram. card he has right now is geforce2 mx400. i saw the card for $20 and wanted to make it was DIRECTX 9.0b compatible. any info would be of great help. thanks!

well obviously it won't be directx9 compatible, but it should be able to run doom3 with the lowest settings. for 20$ i would take it over your current card.

 

[lopoetve]

The MX400 is NOT directx 9 compatible, and will most likely barely run 640x480 low detail. I suggest you pick up a GF3 Ti card (640x480 HIGH detail) or a GF4 Ti. I have an old GF2 MX400 around, and its not even half as fast as a GF3 Ti200. Not worth 20 bucks, IMO.

Features != Compatible. The GF4 is DX9 compatible, but it has no DX9 features

 

[pxc]

Which raises the question: what core did nVidia base the GF4 MX on? Was it a heavily modified GF2 MX/Ti core, or a stripped down version of the GF4 core?

Probably neither. They may have just lifted entire functional blocks from both the NV11 (texturing pipelines and vertex shaders) and NV25 (virtually everything else) then glued it together.

The only things that makes me a little sad is that people treat the NV17/NV18 (GF4 MX)like it's just a die shrink of the NV11 (GF2 MX). It's not. I even listed out all the differences and at least one person above still doesn't get it.

 

[chrisf6969]

The GF4MX is closest to the GF4 Ti. Before your jaw drops from that statement, it's easier to say what it has in common with the GF4 Ti than the differences between the GF2 MX and GF4 MX. Let me elaborate:

What the GF2 MX and GF4 MX have in common: DX7 level features, 2x2 pipeline organization

What the GF4 Ti and GF4 MX have in common: multi-sampling AA, bandwidth saving features (z-compression/fast-z clear/z-occlusion), integrated TDMS (DVI) and TV encoder (TV out), 128-bit DDR memory interface (GF2 MX was 64-bit DDR or 128-bit SDR)

What neither the GF4 Ti or GF2 MX share with the GF4 MX: 2 way crossbar memory controller (GF4 Ti has a 4 way)

Getting back to my first statement: the GF4 MX is closer to a GF4 Ti, minus pixel shaders and newer vertex shaders, 1/2 the number of pipelines and 1/2 the number of crossbar memory controllers (2x64-bit vs 4x32-bit)...

or you can say the the GF4 MX is a GF2 MX plus the GF4 Ti's MSAA, bandwidth saving features, a 2 way 128-bit DDR crossbar memory controller and the GF4 Ti's integrated TDMS and TV encoders.

Good info, the GF4 mx460 & mx440 are decent cards for gaming with older games. Newer games dont perform too well with it.

GF4 ti4x00 kicked ass, and are still great cards.

The FX line sucked more ass than a enema clinic. (misleading numbers make you think they perform better than the GF4 series but in general all they did was add DX9 and perform about the same)

Thank god the GeForce 6 series has come back to save the day.

 

[64bit_is_here]

actually i was able to play doom 3 with integrated geforce4 mx on my cousin's pc which had the first batch nforce2's with a crappy IGP. it was playable at the lowest settings with 256mb of ram.

other than the artifact problems with the flashlight, it was actually quite enjoyable. some hiccups here and there, but still playable.

 

[kick@ss]

hey, im just trying to get cheapest card to make the game run on a p4 1.6 768 ram. card he has right now is geforce2 mx400. i saw the card for $20 and wanted to make it was DIRECTX 9.0b compatible. any info would be of great help. thanks!

He's doomed with such a slow CPU. It doesn't matter how fast of a video card he uses, the CPU will be holding him back. I mean... you can play the game at 640x480 @ low detail but it's not worth it.

 

[TimothyB]

Really, why did they call them GF4mx cards? If it was only because of some features the GF4 had, I don't think that's right, it should be named according to perfomance, so it would have been better to call it a GF3mx, maybe not even that since it wasn't DX8. I also hate how even on $20 card they make it sound on the box like it's some speed demon.

I had a GF3, and I remember when Morrowind came out, everyone was in owe at the pixel shaded water. A lot of people came to threads complaining they couldn't get the water to work. Then you find out they bought a GF4mx card, many were confused thinking it could do everything a GF3 could. So there were a lot of people pist as the bought the GF4mx just to play Morrowind.

 

[ragejg]

I think it's safe to group the 128 bit memory interface GF4 MX440 with both the GF2ti and the 64 bit memory interface FX5200...

All 3 cards, when placed in an XP1600-XP2400 266fsb rig, will score approx. 4500-5500 in 3dmark01, and all game pretty much the same... The FX5200 will "accidentally" play slower sometimes, as apps detect the shader units and then try and use them (useless) ...

 

[0ldman]

440 MX and a P4 1.6 will play it, but not well.
A stronger card will make all the difference in the world, a better CPU will still be limited by the Geforce 4 MX, but it will perform better with a 2.2GHz than it would with a 1.6.

My laptop has a 440MX and a 1.6GHz P4, its playable, but I turn off everything but bump mapping and run at 640x480 low detail.
Get a Ti4200 and it will run great, even on a 1.6GHz system, ran fine on my 2GHz Athlon @ 1GHz. Dropping 1000MHz made little difference on Doom 3, if that was all I played I would lower my temp and save some green on electricity and just run @ 1GHz.

btw, the 4MX is more of a cut down Geforce 4. I don't know what the openGL differences are, but more than one homebrewed openGL app kicks ass on my Geforce 4MX and barely moves on my old Geforce 2MX. Same clock speeds (including dropping the 4MX DDR RAM to nearly nothing to match the SDRAM of the 2MX), the 4MX its much smoother than the Geforce 2MX.

 

[64bit_is_here]

440 MX and a P4 1.6 will play it, but not well.


My laptop has a 440MX and a 1.6GHz P4, its playable, but I turn off everything but bump mapping and run at 640x480 low detail.
Get a Ti4200 and it will run great, even on a 1.6GHz system, ran fine on my 2GHz Athlon @ 1GHz. Dropping 1000MHz made little difference on Doom 3, if that was all I played I would lower my temp and save some green on electricity and just run @ 1GHz.

actually dropping the speed from my AXP from 1.56ghz to 1.1g dropped doom3 fps quite a bit, and i cant fookin run doom3 at 1.56 any more cuz it overheats.

 

[0ldman]

dunno what to tell you. I've got nothing to go on except what I've done. On my system, 2100+ @ 2074MHz, 380MHz DDR @ 2-3-2-11, Ti4200 @ 290/600, it ran pretty much the same @ 1GHz w/200MHz DDR @ 2-2-2-11 as it did @ 2074MHz.

I will say this tho, I was on the early levels with imps, cutscenes and soldiers shooting at me, none of the big baddies while @ 1GHz.

 

[Elledan]

Probably neither. They may have just lifted entire functional blocks from both the NV11 (texturing pipelines and vertex shaders) and NV25 (virtually everything else) then glued it together.
.

Well, to me it seems like extending an old core is like taking a Mini (GF2) and putting in a 10-liter V8 (GF4 features). The former was never meant to support the latter. I could be wrong, though.

Wasn't the GF2 MX just a stripped down version of the GF2 core?

 

[Chaballaman]

He's doomed with such a slow CPU. It doesn't matter how fast of a video card he uses, the CPU will be holding him back. I mean... you can play the game at 640x480 @ low detail but it's not worth it.

no his setup should run d3 fine if he had 6800gt/ultra.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=802745&page=2

 

[Shane]

Do youself a favor and get 50.00 dollars and purchase a nvidia 4200

 

[kick@ss]

no his setup should run d3 fine if he had 6800gt/ultra.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=802745&page=2

And everything I saw there indicated he'd have to run the game at low resolution and low detail. In my opinion, it would be better to save the $50 Doom III costs and use it to buy new hardware.

"I played Doom 3 on an Athlon 850, 768 PC-133, and Radeon 9600 XT. And I know a 9600 XT is by no means the worlds best card. It still is good.

Playing Doom 3 at 1024x768 Medium quality I found that walking around etc was great, but once the CPU really had to work, the framerate would drop to around 5-7 FPS at times*, obviousely being a factor in the CPU and not the card."

I guess if you have fairly low standards about what's acceptable then you can play the game. But, I wouldn't even bother to try to play the game if every time something happened my framerate dropped to 5-7FPS. He will be a little better off with that old P4, but not by that much. Judging by the fact that he wants the cheapest card possible, it's safe to say that the GT and Ultra are wayyyy out of that price range.