Xabre or GeForce4 MX440? (GOT SOMETHING ELSE!!!)

[kevmev12]

Hello. Now that I have an MSI KT3 Ultra2 motherboard, the last thing I need to get to complete my custom computer is a video card. I am now deciding on a Xabre 400 or a GF4 MX440. I have read the reviews about how Xabre 400 can beat the MX440 but the thing that worries me the most is that the Xabre can only do AGP 2x on a motherboard with a VIA chipset - the KT3 Ultra2 has a VIA chipset. Since I'm only a novice with video cards, that means it's going to run slower on a VIA chipset motherboard compared to the MX440 right? I was wondering if this is a hardware limitation or a driver limitation and whether I should buy the Xabre anyway and wait (and hope) for a new driver that will eliminate this problem. I don't want to spend more than $200AUD (or about $100USD) on a video card, and I have been told a Radeon 8500LE is a good card but here in Australia, it's still quite expensive. I just want a good performance card around my price range and are fast enough to play all the current games. Anyone with any opinions or suggestions or ideas I would love to hear from. Thank you for reading this.

 

[MournSanity]

Radeon 8500 LE.

 

[Dragon365]

First off, good luck finding a xabre, they are not widely available. Secons, I would go with the GF4, not because of the AGP thing, but because the drivers will be more stable. You can always overclock it too...

 

[holdencommodore]

I wouldn't worry about the Xabre only running in 2X - there's not a lot of difference between 2X and 4X anyway.

The Xabre is quite good for the price, but the drivers are still abit too raw at the moment. The Xabre is available at Aus PC Market for $198AU.

In contrast, a Leadtek 64MB MX440 is available for $184AU where i live.

A Radeon 8500LE will cost around $270AU (not sure on brand- think it's PowerColour), while a PowerColour Radeon 7500 Ultra is around $195 (faster memory).

Best choice would be a Radeon 8500LE IMO.

Cheers

 

[AnAndAustin]

Precisely, there is VERY little perf diff between AGP2x and 4x.

The Xabre400 is better than the GF4MX cards, it supports DX8 hw funcs and is generally faster. However, the Xabre is very new and immature, esp in the driver and compatability dept, it is a small risk.

I have no doubt you should look at the next cards up, they don't cost much more and are hugely more capable (and lastable) than these DX7 cards. GF3TI200, Rad9000, Rad9000pro, Rad8500LE and Rad8500. The Rad cards really need to be retail and true ATI (built not powered) otherwise perf, o/c and image/build quality are often compromised. I'm in the UK but many Aussies refer to this:

AusPC Market

Leadtek GF4MX440 64MB TVout $214.50
Prolink GF4TI4200 64MB TVout $308
Triplex GF4MX440 64MB TVout $209
Triplex SiS Xabre400 64MB TVout $198

 

[AnAndAustin]

Also try:

TechBuy

Sparkle GF4MX440 64MB TVout $165
Powercolor Rad7500 64MB TVout @230/270DDR $214.50 (GF2TI/GF4MX440 perf)
Sparkle GF3TI200 128MB TVout $244.20
Hercules Rad8500LE 64MB TVout $304.70
Sparkle GF4TI4200 64MB $308

The 4200 is excellent, and the 4200-64MB ones often reach GF4TI4600 speeds when o/c'ed. Expect to get from 250/500 to 300/620! If you have to stay very close to budget then the Rad7500 seems best, with the GF4MX440 cards close behind. The GF3TI200 at $244 will give you a whole lot more, esp since they get to GF3TI500 speeds!

 

[nemesismk2]

Out of a Xabre or a GF4 MX440 get the GF4 MX440 because I've used a Xabre and it's a pile of sh*t.
The image quality is rubbish (no anisotropic filtering either) and it's so called DX8 features are so poor they are almost useless. SIS have taken so many short cuts in regard to image quality that most games don't look anything like they should.

Why do you think there are very few Xabre400 reviews which compare image quality?

 

[kevmev12]

Thanks for everyone's replies. Firstly, I don't understand why the Radeon 8500 series is so damn expensive here in Aus, but very affordable and within my budget in the US. I've read a lot of posts here in this forum and there is a lot of support for the Radeon 8500LE but the cheapest I can find within Aus is $325 - about $100 over my budget.

Secondly, I am having second thoughts about the Xabre because of the image quality issue raised by nemesismk2. The safe choice would be the MX440 because of reliability but I do want a card that is more powerful than the MX440 but also cheap in price - which was why the Xabre attracted me in the first place. It seems that the Radeon 8500 is better than the MX440 (right?) but the price difference between here and the US is just a bit weird.

If I can get a 8500LE here in Aus for around the $AUD200-235 (max) mark, I would be very happy. How about the 7500 Pro, is the 7500 series any good? So now my choice has expanded to 3 cards: MX440, Radeon 8500LE (if the price is right), and the Xabre... so far I'm thinking the MX440 but only because of price. Otherwise I would go for the Radeon 8500LE.

That was just some random thoughts... thank you for reading this far into my ranting.

 

[gtd2000]

kevmev12
It was the same situation when I lived in Hong Kong - Ati products were always much more expensive that the offerings based on Nvidia chips.

People in the states were forever saying (not everybody) that the GF2MX was a POS and that the Radeon LE was the card to buy. Well in Hong Kong the Radeon LE was double the price of the MX card The GF2MX was a fine card especially for counterstrike or halflife players - and even blew away full spec Radeon 64's in those games

I would go for a solution that provides good performance (that you will actually use!) and stable well tested reliable drivers. From recent history this would point me in the direction of Nvidia.

A lot of people go for the fastest card that they can afford. I take a different approach - go for the card that will satisfy you gaming needs right now. Don't buy a card now for games that are coming out in the future - the price of that faster card will fall very quickly as time passes. You can then sell your current card and buy the faster version if it will not play the newer game.

Of course if you just want to spend all you money go out and get the fastest card

 

[kevmev12]

gdt 2000

I think you made a really good point, especially on the performance of the card that I will actually use! I want a card that is capable of playing all the latetest games well, but I know I won't need it anyway because I'm not a big gamer. Instead of looking too far into the future of what I want my video card to do, I should go for something that will do the job well (general games, DVD movie play-back, office apps and general usage) - and from general observations from other posts in this forum the MX440 does it very well - and is stable and reliable; which is pretty much the main reason why nVidia has such a huge slice of the market. I think you've pretty much talked me into a MX440!

Does anyone have an argument AGAINST the MX440 for the $AUD200 price tag? I'm looking at a Leadtek MX440 for $180. How about the Radeon 7500 Pro... how does that card compare to the MX440?

 

[gtd2000]

kevmev12
I guess I should say G'day
Or in my home country of Scotland - how're ye daen?

Back to the choice of card.

1st Question - What type games do you actually play?
2nd Question - What resolution do you normally play at and colour depth (16/32bit?)

I use a Leadtek GF2 Pro (overclocks to Ultra speeds) - it plays RTCW at 1024x768 with all options smoothly.
Thats good enough for me right now anyway.

If you are a Half Life / Counterstrike player then you really needn't look any further than a GF2 MX 400 - it will play the game at the fastest max speed of the game anyway. I'm not suggesting that you buy an MX card nowadays - I'd say a GF2-GTS card is the minimum card to purchase if you choose Nvidia.

You will find that some cards perform better for certain games than others.
Look into this aspect closely - if first person shooter/ 3D gaming is a serious issue .

Most cards have very good 2D image quality nowadays - so you don't really need to worry about that normally - unless you are using very high resolutions?

I'd check out that Sparkle card that AnAndAustin listed for AUS$165

 

[Braveheart77]

I'm actually having a trouble like your one. I'm searching for low price good performing card and I've been investigating about Xsabre/MX440/Rad7500/Rad8500/Rad8500LE.
Based on reviews I've seen, I can tell you this short tips:
Xsabre: bad image quality/awful aniso filtering
MX440: well performing with today games but lacks of directx 8.1 compliance (partial vertex shaders and no pixel shaders support). seems like a GeForce2 with improved memory management and some minor changes.
Rad7500: very competitive against the MX440. similar features (still lacks of dx8.1 compliance).
Rad8500: welcome to the dx8.1 world. great memory bandwidth and full featured. between GF3Ti200 and GF4Ti4200 performence.
Rad8500LE: no significant differences with Rad8500.

I recommend you to theck the "GPU Shootout with Unreal Tournament 2003 Part II: CPU Scaling" in the video reviews section.
I'm going for MX440 or Rad7500 which are priced near 100USD in my country (Argentina). The other ones start at 180USD(Rad8500).

Good luck.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Prices vary wildly from country to country. The GF4MX440 gives VERY near GF2TI and Rad7500 perf but offers better AA. The GF4MX440 and Rad7500 offer better image quality, DVD playback, dual display and TVout than GF2 cards. The Rad9000 and 9000pro sport FULL DX8 hw (like Rad8500) and are excellent cards, not as fast as a Rad8500/LE but still way faster than GF4MX440.

Techbuy do the Sparkle GF4MX440 for $165, excellent value. The Rad7500 should be comparatively priced to the GF4MX440 and GF2TI cards and is also an excellent card. Techbuy also do Sparkle GF3TI200 128MB for $244, excellent perf for the cash and very fast AA and high quality Aniso, obviously you get full DX8 hw funcs. Both Techbuy and AusPC do a GF4TI4200 for $308 and is by far the fastest and best all-round card. They offer by far the best perf, excellent AA & Aniso, excellent image quality, great dual monitor support, enhanced TVout and of course offer full DX8 hw funcs.

Gfx cards perf at STANDARD clock speeds

 

[AnAndAustin]

In short, GF4MX440 is a slightly enhanced GF2TI. GF4MX440 and Rad7500 are evenly matched but the GF4MX440 is a tad faster and offers better AA. These are all DX7 cards, and will struggle with the newer games, but if your CPU is slower than 1ghz it makes little sense to get anything more than these US$60 cards.

The next step up is to get the DX8 cards, very important in most modern and all new games. The SiS Xabre400 is a bit of a gamble, but should be priced around GF2TI range but is faster and offers some DX8 hw. The next level of cards are a big leap in perf over the cards mentioned thus far and are around US$100 (50% pricier than DX7 cards). In perf order you have the Rad9000, GF3TI200 and then Rad8500, these cards are pretty close so see what the prices are like. If you can afford US$140 (64MB) or US$160 (128MB) then GF4TI4200 cards offer excellent perf and are the best all-rounders. If you want the best then you should only consider the Rad9700 for US$400. HTH!

 

[holdencommodore]

If you can't quite afford a 8500LE, then go for the MX440 for $165 - the 7500Pro would be about $30 more.

I too hate it how the ATi cards (and hardware in general) is so expensive is Australia.

I'm looking foward to seeing what prices the new Trident XP4 cards will be in Australia..

Cheers

 

[kevmev12]

gtd 2000

I play all sorts of games, don't really have a specific preference although I lean a little towards FPS and driving games. Still love old games such as Warcraft 2, Worms 2 and NFS3... I like old games - even give Sim City a spin sometimes! I'm not getting the video card based on what games I play, just want a good all-rounder card that goes well with all games; new or old. As for colour depth, it's whatever looks good to me. I'm not a big gamer like most people here, so all those technical jargon like "anti-aliasing" or "anisotropic filtering" is a little lost on me. But I'm learning as I go along... mostly from all you good people here! Like I now know that DX8.1 compliance is pretty important now for video cards and new games... those DX updates never meant much to me before because my old computer had on-board video.

I'm now pretty much torn between the MX440 and the Radeon 8500LE. THe decision would seem obvious to US readers but Aussie readers would know that the Radeon 8500LE is so damn expensive here - then why I am even considering it with my budget of $200-230? Well this question is more directed towards Aussie readers and other international people - should I buy a Radeon 8500LE from the US? I've started to look around US-based online computer stores and I have even emailed some of them to ask if they take international order. I've found the Radeon 8500LE 128Mb for $US112.37 (which is just under $200 AUD), and I am seriously considering getting it. My problem is the warranty and whether the card contains features intended for US customers only (like NTSC or anything else). Is it worth getting it overseas? Should I just stay with the MX440 and buy it here? Although as I have stated in my last post, I probably won't even need most of the features in these cards but the fact is I still feel slightly ripped off because for $200AUD I could get the MX440 here but in the US that same amount of money could get me the Radeon 8500LE... What does everyone else think?

 

[holdencommodore]

Make sure you check the shipping costs before buying. Seen the Radeon 8500LE (64MB) for $260, which is $10 cheaper than last week .

The 8500LE will be more "future proof" compared to the MX440, which means you won't have to upgrade for a while, so the extra money could be worth it in the end.

Cheers

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well with any relatively modern card (even GF2MX) you want to avoid 16bit, in some games and scenarios it's slower than 32bit which is what these cards are optimised to use.

Buying from outside your country involves a lot of risk and hidden costs, not worth it IMHO.

The GF3TI200 offers perf very nearly as good as a Rad8500LE and is also much better at AA & Aniso. The Rad cards are better than GF2/GF3 for image quality, DVD playback (a non-issue really with a CPU above 600mhz), dual display and TVout. But if you aren't a tech head there is no noticable diff between them, since GF3TI200 falls within your budget it makes sense to get one. GF4MX440 is a decent card, it just lacks DX8 hw support and is far slower than a GF3TI200. I gave you a few links and price quotes, are they no good to you? If you list the prices of what are open to you then we can guide you better.

With TVout and gfx cards there should be no probs as these cards can switch between PAL and NTSC etc, all voltages are controled by the PSU so that isn't an issue either.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Image Quality refers to the stability/clarity of the final image output to the monitor, only above 1024x768x32 is it noticable to most people, and that's if your monitor can handle high refresh rates (72Hz+).

DX8 hw funcs/support means the card has DX8 enhanced features built in to the hw, very important for modern games, plus DX8 cards tend to be a lot faster too.

Anti-Aliasing (AA) is the removal of 'jaggies' or 'pixel step effect'. Your screen is made up of small squares which is fine for lines which are perfectly horiz/vert, but with any kind of diagonal lines/edges you actually get steps rather than a line. Take a close look at these: | / _ . Radeons and GF2 use an old technique which is very sharp but VERY slow while GF3, GF4, Xabre and Rad9700 use a modern technique which is much faster.

Anisotropic Filtering essentially sharpens textures, esp when viewing them from a medium to long distance and is VERY useful with modern AA techniques which are fast but slightly blurrier, Aniso clears this up very nicely.

 

[gtd2000]

Well with any relatively modern card (even GF2MX) you want to avoid 16bit, in some games and scenarios it's slower than 32bit which is what these cards are optimised to use.

I was always led to believe that the Nvidia cards ran slower in 32bit? Especially the MX card? Just wondering in what scenario or game it will run faster in 32bit vs 16bit?

Actually, back to the card issue - if you have been playing games using onboard graphics - you will be blown away just with the performance of the GF2 MX card compared to your old set up

Of all the cards suggested you will be very impressed I'm sure - stick to your budget.

My GF2 Pro cost me US$142 around this time last year - it was originally US$300 when it first came out - you can can now pick one up for around US$80 at the cheaper end.
It still plays games as fast as it always did - and it still cuts the mustard in recent games like RTCW. For me there is no need to upgrade at this point in time.

Go for bang for the buck - get the fastest card you need for the minimum cost.
The reason I say this is because by the time u actually need the faster card it will only cost a fraction of its original price

Look at the GPU comparision charts that were mentioned earlier - there is sometime very little difference in performance of garphics cards with "slower" CPU's. The difference is normally not in relation to the difference in cost.

As mentioned before - whatever you get - you will be impressed - unless you have driver issues.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Slower card of TNT2 & 3dfx generations, esp with 16MB RAM really benefit from 16bit colour. For modern gfx cards like GF3, GF4TI & Radeon8500 you only want to consider 32bit colour, and prob AA as well! Of course actual perf diffs do depend upon the card and CPU used. With 'slower' CPUs and higher end gfx cards you really want to max out gfx settings with AA, Aniso and of course 32bit colour in order to use the full GPU potential that the CPU may not tap.

3Dmark2001 using a mid-range AthlonXP and default res of 1024x768:

Voodoo4 32 = 1600 & 9.5FPS (Car Chase High Detail)
Voodoo4 16 = 2250 & 14.5FPS

GF2 GTS/Pro/TI 32 = 6000 & 41.5
GF2 GTS/Pro/TI 16 = 6100 & 40

GF3 32 = 8800 & 51
GF3 16 = 7500 & 44 (Yes slower I double checked)

GF4TI4200 32 = 10500 & 55
GF4TI4200 16 = 9500 & 51 (Again slower!)

 

[AnAndAustin]

You would expect most benefit to come in higher resolutions where the bandwidth is more limited (eg 1600x1200):

GF3 32 = 5000 & 39
GF3 16 = 6400 & 47.5

Or with AA enabled for the same reason (1024x768):

GF3 32 = 5200 & 38
GF3 16 = 5500 & 40

Obviously you get fewer comparable results when shifting from the default 1024x768x32 as fewer people run or submit them but this should still be quite accurate.

If it's perf you're after then lowering the resolution or detail settings a little may be more pleasurable than 16bit colour, do bear in mind that on GF3 & GF4TI cards you may be actually slowing things down by switching to 16bit! Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it all really comes down to personal preference .

 

[AnAndAustin]

16bit colour, accurately 16bit 'shades of colour' uses 2 to the power of 16, ie 65536. 32bit uses 24bit colour (the other 8bits are reserved) which gives 2 to 24, ie 16777216 shades (16.8 million). This is most probably due to any relatively modern game actually using 32bit samples for textures and game detail which means that they can be used without translation, but by switching to 16bit you are freeing up bandwidth (less colours means less data to be processed) but you then have to convert 32bit to 16bit before processing. This 'scaling' of colour often leads to distortion and 'banding' (where shades of colours should be smooth but visible different colour bands can be seen).

IMHO, if you have a modern gfx card then you really should consider 32bit as default and alter detail levels or resolutions in order to make the game smoother. With so many detail options and gfx card capabilities it does take some experimenting to find the balance between high performance and high quality but it really comes down to what is personally acceptible and preferable to you.

 

[kevmev12]

I remember the good ole' days when I used to play Need for Speed: High Stakes on my old computer with on-board video, I think I used the software acceleration thing... I used to think that was pretty neat since I actually got the game to look like the pictures on the back of the box! Soldier of Fortune wasn't too bad as well, a little slow but still playable. Until of course I play it for a long time and the background started to go crazy, it was almost like a scene from the movie "Yellow Submarine" with all those psychedelic colours - I was told the reason for that was the motherboard chipset was starting to overheat (!!!). So yes, I am really looking forward to finishing my new computer with whatever video card I get and run those old games on them and see what they look like (or what I've been missing out on!).

Thanks for the links and the price quotes AnAndAustin, I have noted them down and are comparing them. I've been doing A LOT of research into prices for video cards, checking websites - local and world wide, going to the few small computer shops in and around the Sydney area (shouldn't have bothered!), and going to sunday computer markets. That pretty much what I've been doing for the past 2 weeks, just researching and coming here and reading posts and your replies... this is the one component in my computer that I've spent the most effort on. The one brand that I am thinking of getting if I were to go for the MX440 is the Leadtek (or Winfast) GF4 A170 64MB MX440 ($180) as this brand is quite popular - it's in all the local sites and most stalls at the markets. I was thinking that I should go for brands that I recognise, and Leadtek is very widely advertised in computer mags. Hence brands like Sparkle or Daytona or X-Micro, I'm a bit iffy because I've never heard of them. Like the Radeon, AnAndAustin did make the point that I should go for true ATi Radeons, not just other brand cards powered by them: I've taken that point to heart and I don't even look for Radeons by other brands like Sapphire (I saw that at a stall last sunday).

holdencommodore (they are cool but I had a ride in my cousin's new Holden Monaro the other week... the words I GOTTA GET ME ONE OF THESE comes to mind!), where did you find a Radeon 8500 64Mb for $AUS260? Perhaps buying the card from overseas isn't such a good idea, especially if it stuffs up.

By the way, my new computer will be running an Athlon 2000+ with 512Mb of Kingston ValuRam PC2100 on a KT3 Ultra2 motherboard - if that makes any difference to what card I should get.

I've been to a lot of forums for a lot of different things, and this is by far the friendliest! Thank you to everyone giving me their opinions and advice, never thought I would actually learn something by posting here!

 

[AnAndAustin]

Wow, Axp2000+ is going to be killed by using anything less than a GF3TI200 or Rad8500LE. Unless gaming is of VERY little importance you need a balanced config and the gfx card is definitely the WRONG place to skimp. Check these 3Dmark2001 scores out for an idea why:

Duron1.2ghz:
GF4MX440: 5000, 30, 42, 40, na
GF3TI200: 7200, 39, 62, 52, 40
GF4TI4200: 8400, 37, 93, 50, 44

Axp1600+:
GF4MX440: 5900, 44, 49, 51, na
GF3TI200: 8400, 48, 71, 60, 51
GF4TI4200: 10200, 50, 101, 65, 58

Axp2000+:
GF4MX440: 6600, 51, 53, 57, na
GF3TI200: 9300, 59, 74, 71, 55
GF4TI4200: 11300, 58, 114, 73, 61