What is the GeForce MX 4000 comparable to?

[daveymark]

I've seen this "new" card, just wondering what the deal is with it? Is i tmore like the old mx models or like the new FX models or the old Ti models? I'm confused! I have a 9100 64mb I bought for $20 last week, and it works fine for playing UT 2k4, would this be a decent upgrade? I've seen it for between 50 and 70.

 

[MichaelZ]

HELLLLL NO!

MX4000 is comparable to a P.O.S. or a 5200 or a 9200SE. you do not want to upgrade to anything less than a 9800 Pro 128bit or equivalent 9500 Pro level from your current card.

 

[Rankor]

The GeForce MX 4000 chip is essentially a GeForce 4 MX 440-8X. That's all it is.

 

[OinkBoink]

nope .GF2(a wee bit less than the GTS version)

 

[jswjimmy]

lol, the mx4000 aka the walmart special.



oh crap, i bought my mx200 at walmart.

 

[nemesismk2]

xfx geforce mx4000 review at ultimate hardware

"This video card has many bad points so here goes. Firstly the 128mb memory with this video card is worthless due to the 64bit memory bus which is why it's performance is so bad. Even the 4year old Elsa Geforce2 MX 400 was able to match it's performance which in 2004 isn't an acceptable level of performance. The Geforce4 MX440 which the MX4000 is based on was able to blow it out of the water which makes the "more expensive" MX4000 completely worthless."

I really didn't think much of the MX4000 when I reviewed it, even my old gf4mx440 wiped the floor with it so a fx5200, r9100 or r9200 would be much faster!

In answer to your question, the mx4000 wouldn't be an upgrade it would be a downgrade for your computer.

 

[RS3RS]

What is the GeForce MX 4000 comparable to?

The big, brown, smelly things floating in your toilet

 

[Lonyo]

It's a card for workstations, cheap and cheerful.

 

[PliotronX]

This will pump out superior graphics.

 

[jswjimmy]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
xfx geforce mx4000 review at ultimate hardware

"This video card has many bad points so here goes. Firstly the 128mb memory with this video card is worthless due to the 64bit memory bus which is why it's performance is so bad. Even the 4year old Elsa Geforce2 MX 400 was able to match it's performance which in 2004 isn't an acceptable level of performance. The Geforce4 MX440 which the MX4000 is based on was able to blow it out of the water which makes the "more expensive" MX4000 completely worthless."

I really didn't think much of the MX4000 when I reviewed it, even my old gf4mx440 wiped the floor with it so a fx5200, r9100 or r9200 would be much faster!

In answer to your question, the mx4000 wouldn't be an upgrade it would be a downgrade for your computer.

dam my overclocked gf2 mx200 kills it.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: RS3RS

What is the GeForce MX 4000 comparable to?

The big, brown, smelly things floating in your toilet

lol harsh! they do make 128 bit versions tho, that for under $45 aren't that bad.

 

[Bucksnort]

I'll take a stab, its comparable to pound cake?

 

[jhurst]

comparable to an old pair of socks.....

 

[Gamingphreek]

It maynot be fast but its better than a geforce 4 mx 440 in terms of features. That card supports DX8.1 whereas the mx 440 and those cards only support DX7.

-Kevin

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
It maynot be fast but its better than a geforce 4 mx 440 in terms of features. That card supports DX8.1 whereas the mx 440 and those cards only support DX7.

-Kevin

I think it "supports" DX8.1 the same way that the GF2 and GF4MX cards do -- badly (since it *IS* a GF4MX). The GF4MX *does* support DX8, but does not really support DX8.1.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Nah look at the info for the card. The Geforce 2MX and the Geforce 4 MX with the exception of the 4000 support up to DX 7. The 4000 supports (though very slowly) DX 8.1. It does have pixel shader support... tho if you want that get a entry level next gen card.

-Kevin

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Nah look at the info for the card. The Geforce 2MX and the Geforce 4 MX with the exception of the 4000 support up to DX 7. The 4000 supports (though very slowly) DX 8.1. It does have pixel shader support... tho if you want that get a entry level next gen card.

-Kevin

The MX4000 DOESN'T have pixel shader support at all and I should know because I did the xfx mx400 review I linked to.

Here are my 3dmark 2001 SE results for the xfx mx4000:-

3DMark Score 3497
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 56.0 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 30.5 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 54.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 30.4 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 53.3 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 31.9 fps
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 225.8 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 420.2 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 22.8 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 6.2 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
DOT3 Bump Mapping 27.1 fps
Vertex Shader 31.6 fps
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Advanced Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites 5.2 MSprites/s

DISPLAY DEVICES
Description Primary Display Driver
Manufacturer NVIDIA
Name NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 4000
Total Local Video Memory 128 MB
Total Local Texture Memory 128 MB
Total AGP Memory 126 MB
Display Driver nv4_disp.dll
Display Driver Version 6.14.10.5303
Driver WHQL Certified Yes
Max Texture Width 2048
Max Texture Height 2048
Max User Clipping Planes 0
Max Active Hardware Lights 8
Max Texture Blending Stages 8
Textures In Single Pass 2
Vertex Shader Version N/A
Pixel Shader Version N/A
Max Vertex Blend Matrices 0
Max Texture Coordinates 8
Vendor ID 0x10de
Device ID 0x0185
Sub-System ID 0x00000000
Revision 0xa4

 

[nemesismk2]

Let's get one thing PERFECTLY straight, the MX420, MX440, MX460 and MX4000 are all the same. None of them have hardware pixel or vertex shader support although they do support software vertex shader!

 

[Gamingphreek]

At best buy it has it labeled 8.1 compatible. But ijust checked new egg and it say only DX7.
Ok.

-Kevin

 

[Marsumane]

compatable doesnt mean it can render the effects of 8.1, it just means that when it sees the code, it can render something as a substitue for the shader(s)