- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Gt440
- Thread starter Wreckage
- Start date
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Termie
Diamond Member
Review: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT_440/
In short: performs between 5570 and 5670, but costs more than 5670.
"NVIDIA's GeForce GT 440 is not really a new kid on the block. It has been available for OEMs to use in their pre-assembled systems since fall last year. Last year's GT 440 OEM is a fundamentally different design than today's GeForce GT 440. Whereas GT 440 OEM was based on GF106 with 144 shaders, NVIDIA's new GT 440 uses GF108 with 96 shaders - essentially the same configuration as GeForce GT 430. The major difference between GT 430 and GT 440 is that GT 440 can be equipped with fast-running, but more expensive, GDDR5 memory.
The ASUS GT 440 that we have on our testbench today comes with 1 GB of GDDR5 which helps the card gain some performance compared to GT 430 GDDR3. Another improvement is that ASUS has overclocked the GPU out of the box to a frequency of 823 MHz. Overall this results in a 23% performance boost over GeForce GT 430, but also increases power consumption substantially. Where we saw 36 W under load on GT 430, GT 440 consumes 55 W. Power consumption in non-gaming states is still incredibly low with 7 W in idle at the desktop and 12 W when playing back Blu-ray content.
GeForce GT 440 is really not made for gaming, even though we see it manage 1024x768 at lower detail setting in older titles. If you are into 3D gaming then you should really look at GTS 450 which costs around $30 more but is 70% faster.
While an exact pricing is not available yet, our optimistic prediction is around the USD 100 mark, which means that the card is more expensive than AMD's HD 5670, that delivers 11% more performance. HD 5770 for $120 is even twice as fast. Until NVIDIA reduces the prices of their GT 440 and GT 430 substantially, I don't see it gaining any substantial market share."
In short: performs between 5570 and 5670, but costs more than 5670.
"NVIDIA's GeForce GT 440 is not really a new kid on the block. It has been available for OEMs to use in their pre-assembled systems since fall last year. Last year's GT 440 OEM is a fundamentally different design than today's GeForce GT 440. Whereas GT 440 OEM was based on GF106 with 144 shaders, NVIDIA's new GT 440 uses GF108 with 96 shaders - essentially the same configuration as GeForce GT 430. The major difference between GT 430 and GT 440 is that GT 440 can be equipped with fast-running, but more expensive, GDDR5 memory.
The ASUS GT 440 that we have on our testbench today comes with 1 GB of GDDR5 which helps the card gain some performance compared to GT 430 GDDR3. Another improvement is that ASUS has overclocked the GPU out of the box to a frequency of 823 MHz. Overall this results in a 23% performance boost over GeForce GT 430, but also increases power consumption substantially. Where we saw 36 W under load on GT 430, GT 440 consumes 55 W. Power consumption in non-gaming states is still incredibly low with 7 W in idle at the desktop and 12 W when playing back Blu-ray content.
GeForce GT 440 is really not made for gaming, even though we see it manage 1024x768 at lower detail setting in older titles. If you are into 3D gaming then you should really look at GTS 450 which costs around $30 more but is 70% faster.
While an exact pricing is not available yet, our optimistic prediction is around the USD 100 mark, which means that the card is more expensive than AMD's HD 5670, that delivers 11% more performance. HD 5770 for $120 is even twice as fast. Until NVIDIA reduces the prices of their GT 440 and GT 430 substantially, I don't see it gaining any substantial market share."
Last edited:
Yikes, so basically, don't even bother. Pick up a used 5770 from the boards if you need low power or anything else for a better card for less money. A 3850 is probably considerably and can be easily had for $50 or less.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
GeForce GT 440 is really not made for gaming, even though we see it manage 1024x768 at lower detail setting in older titles.
what? so they can only get older titles to play on low settings at that res with a 96sp card. I can play older games at medium, high and even sometimes very high settings at that res just a 32sp 8600gt. heck when I was playing around a few weeks ago I could get ANY modern game to play just fine on the 32sp 8600gt at that res. even Crysis is smooth at 1440x900 on medium DX9 settings on an 8600gt. really Metro 2033 was the only game that was borderline because even on low the 256mb on the 8600gt was not really enough.
what? so they can only get older titles to play on low settings at that res with a 96sp card. I can play older games at medium, high and even sometimes very high settings at that res just a 32sp 8600gt. heck when I was playing around a few weeks ago I could get ANY modern game to play just fine on the 32sp 8600gt at that res. even Crysis is smooth at 1440x900 on medium DX9 settings on an 8600gt. really Metro 2033 was the only game that was borderline because even on low the 256mb on the 8600gt was not really enough.
Last edited:
Yea I have a GT240 and thought the GT440 was going to replace it. But with half the ROPs not sure what they were thinking.
I guess it makes a good HTPC card; but at that price...
I guess it makes a good HTPC card; but at that price...
It looks cute
omg! i just giggled so loud in my office with the biggest grin on my face, and i don't care who heard me!
Llano will be faster than the 440 ^-^
So for OEMs selling the Llano cpus, its a pointless card.
For people makeing HTPC, Im pretty sure the Llano will use less power too.
ATI usually has better video quality, which matters when makeing a HTPC.
"In short: performs between 5570 and 5670, but costs more than 5670."
Its overpriced, but it looks cute being such a small card. (this is what will sell the cards)
Its peak power is higher than the 5670..
Quotes from techpowerup:
"it costs more than a 5670
it uses more power than a 5670
its slower than a 5670"
"The 5670 is faster, cooler, and less expensive. Who would buy this!? "
So for OEMs selling the Llano cpus, its a pointless card.
For people makeing HTPC, Im pretty sure the Llano will use less power too.
ATI usually has better video quality, which matters when makeing a HTPC.
"In short: performs between 5570 and 5670, but costs more than 5670."
Its overpriced, but it looks cute being such a small card. (this is what will sell the cards)
Its peak power is higher than the 5670..
Quotes from techpowerup:
"it costs more than a 5670
it uses more power than a 5670
its slower than a 5670"
"The 5670 is faster, cooler, and less expensive. Who would buy this!? "
Last edited:
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
If it was the OEM version and it was $50, it would be the best selling card around. At this price and with a less features than the OEM version...it's not very compelling. Except maybe for a HTPC.
I doubt it. Llano is just another IGP except they have to watch the heat and power more with it being strapped to a CPU.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=28544
So between the 5500 and 5600 (at best), while this card competes directly with the 5600.
I doubt it. Llano is just another IGP except they have to watch the heat and power more with it being strapped to a CPU.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=28544
So between the 5500 and 5600 (at best), while this card competes directly with the 5600.
Last edited:
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,275
- 46
- 91
440 is not competing with the 5670 at all; it's never faster. That's not competing; that's being slower.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT_440/6.html
It more likely competes with a 4670, which falls right between a 5570 and 5670, same as the 440 does.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT_440/6.html
It more likely competes with a 4670, which falls right between a 5570 and 5670, same as the 440 does.
@Wreckage
Just the youtube video of the demo'ing of the Llano running AvP (not the Zacate), it looks like its doing more than 30fps+.
the 440 seems to do about 32.5 fps at 1024x768, so.. Yeah I think the Llano (depends on what memory is in it) will beat the 440 in performance, or atleast come close enough that its besically a wash.
I think the llano will kill the market for anything slower than a 5670/450 card, no reason to buy a new pc with a card slower than those, if the IGP that comes with your cpu is faster.
Just the youtube video of the demo'ing of the Llano running AvP (not the Zacate), it looks like its doing more than 30fps+.
the 440 seems to do about 32.5 fps at 1024x768, so.. Yeah I think the Llano (depends on what memory is in it) will beat the 440 in performance, or atleast come close enough that its besically a wash.
I think the llano will kill the market for anything slower than a 5670/450 card, no reason to buy a new pc with a card slower than those, if the IGP that comes with your cpu is faster.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter