![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
MX440 vs 5200
- Thread starter Shorty
- Start date
even better, if you live in Canada you can find built by ATI Radeon 8500's for cheap. Wal-mart, London Drugs, Office Depot even Zellers seem to have a surplus of these no longer made cards. I bought mine at London Drugs for $85CDN before a $40 rebate - not a bad price for Canadians.
stefan231
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
In my opinion neither card is worth you money. I recently tried a MX440 8X AGP card in my rig in sig below and it would not break 5000 3dmarks in 3dmark01 without overclocking the card, and then with overclock it scores 5013 3dmarls. There are integrated graphic solutions that do beter then this.
I got 8830 in 3DMark2000 with a Geforce4 MX-440 and Athlon XP 2100+ (all stock speeds). In 3DMark2001SE, I got 5727 with that system. Unfortunately, I don't have Geforce FX 5200 scores for comparison. People around here don't seem to trust www.TomsHardware.com but when comparing Nvidia to Nvidia I don't see much harm. In Aquamark3, the Geforce4 MX440-8X outperformed the GeforceFX 5200 by about 24%. If you're stuck on Nvidia, and stuck on a $50 budget, then I recommend you get the MX440-8X. However, I think you'll find yourself a lot happier with a Radeon 9200 for about the same price. Just make sure you get the regular 9200, and not the SE.
Sources:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-12.html
Links:
Radeon 9200 64MB ($59)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-282&depa=1
Radeon 9200 128MB ($67.99)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-125-113&depa=1
Sources:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-12.html
Links:
Radeon 9200 64MB ($59)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-282&depa=1
Radeon 9200 128MB ($67.99)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-125-113&depa=1
Just to be devil's advocate, I haven't really seen any Radeon 8500s that cost less than $80 let alone $50, like you can get the Geforce4 MX440-8X for. Do you have any links to such a creature? I have seen the Radeon 9100 around the $70 mark, which is a slightly underclocked Radeon 8500. I haven't looked into Geforce3 cards in a long time, but over a year ago, I helped someone find a decent one for around $70 to $90 (I don't quite remember).
MSI MS-8907 GeForce FX 5200 128MB (250,405) 53.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3DMark Score 7712
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 103.3 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 55.5 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 115.1 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 63.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 126.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 66.0 fps
Game 4 - Nature 27.8 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 606.0 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 720.7 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 31.4 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 4.8 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 75.0 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 72.1 fps
Vertex Shader 45.7 fps
Pixel Shader 53.5 fps
Advanced Pixel Shader 30.1 fps
Point Sprites 11.7 MSprites/s
MSI MS-8888 GeForce4 MX440-8X 64MB (275,512) 43.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3DMark Score 7608
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 122.0 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 58.4 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 124.6 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 60.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 136.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 70.0 fps
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 542.4 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 1058.0 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 33.6 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 6.6 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
DOT3 Bump Mapping 74.6 fps
Vertex Shader 68.7 fps
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Advanced Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites 10.1 MSprites/s
The difference is only in drivers & mobo. When I benched FX 5200, my mobo was ABIT NF7 2.0 & now is NF7-S 2.0 when benched MX440-8X. 5200 benched using 53.03 & MX440-8X benched using 43.45.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3DMark Score 7712
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 103.3 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 55.5 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 115.1 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 63.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 126.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 66.0 fps
Game 4 - Nature 27.8 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 606.0 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 720.7 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 31.4 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 4.8 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 75.0 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 72.1 fps
Vertex Shader 45.7 fps
Pixel Shader 53.5 fps
Advanced Pixel Shader 30.1 fps
Point Sprites 11.7 MSprites/s
MSI MS-8888 GeForce4 MX440-8X 64MB (275,512) 43.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3DMark Score 7608
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 122.0 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 58.4 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 124.6 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 60.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 136.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 70.0 fps
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 542.4 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 1058.0 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 33.6 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 6.6 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
DOT3 Bump Mapping 74.6 fps
Vertex Shader 68.7 fps
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Advanced Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites 10.1 MSprites/s
The difference is only in drivers & mobo. When I benched FX 5200, my mobo was ABIT NF7 2.0 & now is NF7-S 2.0 when benched MX440-8X. 5200 benched using 53.03 & MX440-8X benched using 43.45.
a) if he cares, he'd say something himself.
b) when you ask for free advice, you don't have any say in the replies; people are going to tell you what they think.
c) since he's building a new rig so he's buying a new card; if he already had both cards, he could just do some benches himself. There's no harm in making recomendations for alternates in the same price range.
With that being said, if you look at the current crop of $50 cards (GF4mx, GF FX5200, Radeon 9000/9200; maybe GF3 or Radeon 8500/9100 if you look around for a good price) there's not really a solid, clear winner. The GF4mx is quite fast for some older games but lacks modern shaders & AA/AF features; the FX5200 has modern shaders so it's faster/better looking in some newer games (not that you'd ever expect real performance out of the DX9 shaders, but the DX8 ones are respectable. The Radeon 9200/9000 lies in between the two; it's a DX8 card and has some decent AA features.
As for the GF3 recomendations, my 9000 beat out my GF3 Ti200 by a noticeable amount (15-20% on 3DMark2001). A full GF3 would be worth considering & close up the gap.
Personally, I'd avoid the GF4mx simply because it's a dated technology (remember, it's the same basic chip as the GF2). I'd probably go with the FX5200 or Radeon 9000/9200 (virtually the same chip) for a rig like this, but I'd spend a few minutes to see if a Radeon 8500/9100 was in my price range since they're going to be faster.
CrimandEvil
Dick with a heart of gold
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,670
FX5200 or Radeon 9000/9200, but if you get a 5200 make sure it has a 128 memory bus and cost less then $70USD
http://www.shentech.com/vige64ddr2xa.html
GF3 for $59, and it's faster than the 5200.
http://www.compuhq.com/compuhq/asv8geti64dd.html
$60, and it's the ASUS.
GF3 for $59, and it's faster than the 5200.
http://www.compuhq.com/compuhq/asv8geti64dd.html
$60, and it's the ASUS.
There is a difference between having it in the spec and actually being able to run it at an acceptable level.
Look at the benchmarks, the 5200 can't run Nature playably (27fps), whereas I KNOW (having had one) that the GF3 can run that at 40 fps. The 5200 has DX9 and 8.1, but NEITHER is playable on it at all. It can't even do 8.0 playable... So, I'd get the card that used to be top-of-the-line that can at least do what it's supposed to at a decent speed.
on another machine i run the FX5200nu with new det drivers. and i can play unreal tournament 2k3 with everything maxed out at 1024x768 with higher than 40fps. but without FSAA nor AF turned on. But runs great 32bit color everything on highest detail and runs fine. FX5200 isn't as bad as you all play it out to be. For $49 its a great deal for a gamer on a budget...i haven't seen a geforce3 card under $70
Between those choices, I'd consider going with a integrated video chipset. Perhaps the NF7-M? newegg stocks it for $100. That's not a bad deal for a budget PC, considering you'd pay at least $50 for the video card, and the NF7 series is far better than any MB you'd get for $50. This, of course, is assuming you don't already have the MB.
As for between the MX440 and the FX5200, referencing the sticky about VC's (top part of the list quoted here)
This shows the FX5200 as far above the MX440, which is rather consistent with what I've seen in reviews. On newegg, the MX440's start around $50. This is around the same as the Radeon 9200SE's, and assuming that what the sticky poster's criteria for rating are accurate and relevant, that would be the better choice. (I'm not a video card expert) The FX5200's start around $55-60.
Thus. my conclusion would be to go with a lowend 9200SE.
Sorry I didn't really answer the MX440 vs FX5200 question, but from what I've heard, these cards are, frankly, shit. So, I'll present you with an equally cost-appealing and more performance-appealing alternative. Good luck.
As for between the MX440 and the FX5200, referencing the sticky about VC's (top part of the list quoted here)
This shows the FX5200 as far above the MX440, which is rather consistent with what I've seen in reviews. On newegg, the MX440's start around $50. This is around the same as the Radeon 9200SE's, and assuming that what the sticky poster's criteria for rating are accurate and relevant, that would be the better choice. (I'm not a video card expert) The FX5200's start around $55-60.
Thus. my conclusion would be to go with a lowend 9200SE.
Sorry I didn't really answer the MX440 vs FX5200 question, but from what I've heard, these cards are, frankly, shit. So, I'll present you with an equally cost-appealing and more performance-appealing alternative. Good luck.
F
fallguy
Guest
The GF3 does DX8.1 just fine.
I noticed that myself.
3dmark 2001 is an accurate way to test video cards, hmm?
let me open that can of worms... lol
with the performance my brother's system shows with a 9000, I wish I had gotten him a Geforce 4 MX instead. Screw the shaders, the 9000 doesn't have much more power than the Geforce 2 MX I replaced. If not for the DAC going out, he'd have been better off with the G2 MX.