Radeon 7500 vs Geforce MX440

[Skeletor05]

Hello,

I'm currently using a Radeon 7500 video card with 64mb DDR and I'd very much like to upgrade soon.

I've been considering the Nvidia Geforce 4 MX440, and since I have no experience with the card I'd like to hear some of your opinions. Will I notice a drastic a change in performance from the Radeon? What other cards would you recommend for someone on a budget?

Thanks in advance,

 

[rogue1979]

They are very close in performance, the 7500 chipset features are better. For a cheap upgrade I would suggest the 8500 LE or 9000 Pro.

 

[tenoc]

R7500 to an MX440 can't be called an upgrade.

Like the rogue said, or at least a GF3 Ti500 if you want to play with NVidia.

What's your budget?

 

[Skeletor05]

Ah, I see. My budget would be below $100 preferrably, with a maxiumum of about $150. Thanks for the replies, any suggestions as to what cards I should consider will be very helpful.

 

[tenoc]

Under $100 - Sapphire R8500le, 9000Pro, 9100 in 64 and 128meg flavours.

For $130, you can get a GF4Ti4200 64meg (MSI).



Browse here for a rough idea.

 

[Skeletor05]

Thanks for the replies.

I think I've narrowed it down to the Radeon 9000Pro or the Nvidia Geforce Ti4200. What do you have to say about these cards?

I checked Pricewatch and found that the Radeon 9000PRO 128mb sells for about $100 on average, while the Nvidia Geforce Ti4200 128mb is priced at roughly $40 more. The 64mb versions of each card also differ by about $30.

Is the extra $30-40 worth it for the Ti4200? Or should I go with the lesser priced 9000PRO?

 

[Skeletor05]

Also, how much of a peformance increase am I going to see between the 64mb and 128mb versions of these cards?

Thanks again,

 

[EdipisReks]

the MX440 beats a Radeon 7500 silly. the MX440 is generally close to a radeon 9000, though it lacks the direct x 8.1 support that the 9000 has. and definitely get the ti4200 over a radeon 9000 Pro. it is MUCH faster.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I would say 0 to 6% performance difference between 128mb cards and 64mb cards
it all depends some cards with 128mb have slower mem chips
the 128mb is more or less an investment for future games with larger textures but even then might not be too big of a difference
i just got a 128mb GF4 ti4200 card
it's great

 

[DieHardware]

the MX440 beats a Radeon 7500 silly.

I wouldn't say the 440(and certainly not an SDR SE model) beats a 7500 silly. Tom's VGA chart shows the 440 to be faster, but not by a huge margin. And his chart dated April 18/02 can't take into account the improved perforance of ATI cards using the latest catalyst drivers.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: DieHardware

the MX440 beats a Radeon 7500 silly.

I wouldn't say the 440(and certainly not an SDR SE model) beats a 7500 silly. Tom's VGA chart shows the 440 to be faster, but not by a huge margin. And his chart dated April 18/02 can't take into account the improved perforance of ATI cards using the latest catalyst drivers.

You can't take into account the improved performance of the MX440 due to new drivers either, the drivers used in that review are v28.32 drivers while most people are using v40.72 these days.

 

[DieHardware]

You can't take into account the improved performance of the MX440 due to new drivers either, UT2003 for example shows a large performance increase with using the latest drivers.

I haven't seen a large performance increase in any games(I don't think 3dmk2k1se counts) I've tried recently using 40.XXs or 30.XXs Detonators over the already optimized 28.XXs. I think there's been a more significant improvement from ATIs drivers(older vs. newer).

 

[rogue1979]

I have to agree with DieHardware. Since Toms Vga Chart the later Detonators have made a small increase in gaming speed, while the Catalyst 2.5 or 3.0 have made a sizable gain.