Image Quality and Conclusion
This content was originally featured on Amdmb.com and has been converted to PC Perspective’s website. Some color changes and flaws may appear.The image quality is very good, even up to 1600X1200 the text was crisp and not blurred, also MPG and DVD playback was very good and I was very impressed with the quality of the DVD playback through the S-Video cable to my TV.
I did some Antialiasing tests with 3D Mark 2000 with the resolution set at 1024X768 (32 bit) to see how it performed and the results below are quite interesting.
The first thing you notice is that the Quincunx and 2 X AA have identical scores, this is in line with what Nvidia have said but it is uncanny that the scores are identical.
The difference in performance between the non antialiasing and Quincunx is just under 1000 points and considering that Quincunx gives better results than 4-sample FSAA that really makes 4-sample FSAA obsolete; Nvidia know this and have given us 4S X AA but the difference in performance is minimal and I don’t recommend using it with the MX range of the GeForce 4 cards.
The eVGA GeForce MX 440 uses 5ns DDR ram modules that are rated to 200 MHz (400 MHz DDR) so there is not allot of headroom for overclocking, but that does not mean that it wont overclock.
The eVGA GeForce 4 MX 440 actually overclocked very well, allot better than I expected; I managed to push the core from its default 270 MHz to a respectable 330 MHz and the memory up to 450 MHz and anything beyond that I would get random lockups or reboots while doing 3D Mark 2001 SE.
While overclocking the video card I kept the CPU at default, and I did this to demonstrate how it overclocked and not distract away from the card itself. The best score that I could get was 5975 in 3D Mark 2001 SE, which isn’t bad and I may have got to 6000+ with some ram sinks fitted.
I started out saying that this was not a comparison between the GeForce 3 and the GeForce 4 MX 440, but as you have seen throughout the benchmarks it becomes quite apparent that it comes closer to the GeForce 3 than the GeForce 2 MX comes to it, in fact throughout a majority of the benchmarks it is within 25% of the higher spec GeForce 3, this is most likely due to the higher clocked core and the more efficient memory.
Allot of people have commented on why Nvidia have called this a GeForce 4 MX and not a GeForce 3 MX and they have a point considering that it is basically a higher clocked GeForce 3 core without the two rendering pipelines and more efficient memory, but as you may already know Nvidia are trying to phase out the older GeForce 2 & 3 range for their newer GeForce 4 range of cards so why would they want to name it after a product that will soon be obsolete.
Also allot of people have voiced concern that the GeForce 4 MX only has the two rendering pipelines rather than the 4 that we see with the GeForce 3 and the Ti range of the GeForce 4, this is most likely because if they included the extra pipe lines then it would directly compete with the GeForce 3 range, when they want it to compete with the Radeon 7500; if I could have got my hands on a Radeon 7500 during this review you would have seen how well it competes with the ATI card.
The scores that we have seen here are very respectable for a budget card when you consider that a GeForce 3 will cost you up to twice as much, and you are getting nowhere near that much of a performance gain.
While the GeForce 3 can be twice the cost of the GeForce 4 MX 440, the GeForce 3 Ti 200 is not and in most cases will outperform the GeForce 4 MX440 and with a price tag of anything from $40 to $60 more could be a good option.
As for the eVGA card itself, well I must admit that I was very impressed by the performance and considering that you can pick one up for as little as $126 at Directron.com, and eVGA have followed their tradition, by putting together a solid video card, I would recommend it to anyone on a budget looking to upgrade.
You can search from prices on all kinds of GF4 MX 440 cards on the new Amdmb.com PriceGrabber services.