Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Motherboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

RAM Prices

Compare Prices



Sharky Extreme : Video cards January 21, 2010





Be a Marketplace Partner








 Advertising Info

About the Double-Underlined Links



 - Most Active Threads
 - Technical Support
 - CPUs & Overclocking



Latest News


- Intel's New Atoms Borrow from Nehalem
- Intel Unveils First Integrated CPU Lineup
- Seagate Launches Enterprise Solid-State Drive
- Micron Delivers SATA 6Gb/s Solid-State Drive
- Chip Market Recovering From '08 Collapse
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Microsoft's Dan Odell
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review

Buyer's Guides

- February High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- November Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards


    internet.commerce
    Be a Commerce Partner














    internet.com
    IT
    Developer
    Internet News
    Small Business
    Personal Technology

    Search internet.com
    Advertise
    Corporate Info
    Newsletters
    Tech Jobs
    E-mail Offers



  •   


    VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 MX 440 Review
    By Vince Freeman :  April 19, 2002

    Quake 3: Arena Performance

    Quake 3 remains the de facto 3D game benchmark here at SE, and due to its highly repeatable results, it is still one of the best methods of comparing different video cards. In this test suite we match up the Xtasy GeForce4 MX 400 against our selection of NVIDIA and ATI cards using version 1.30 and the included demo Four. Quake 3 benchmarks were run with the default Normal (16-bit) and High Quality settings, as well as ramping up the detail levels to maximum in our special MAX setting.

    In Quake 3 Normal testing, the Xtasy GeForce4 MX 440 started at the bottom of the pack, and although it did make up some ground, it still finished behind the GeForce2 Ti at 1600x1200. All the cards are bunched up quite closely, with the only real break-out occurring at 1600x1200.

    At the High Quality setting we start to see a changing of the guard. The Xtasy GeForce4 MX 440 starts out ahead of the GeForce2 Ti and by the time we hit 1600x1200, it is even gaining on the GeForce3 Ti 200. This suggests that the GeForce4 MX is more suited to higher detail game testing, which is quite logical given its advanced pipeline and faster LMA II memory architecture.

    The Quake 3 MAX results confirm our findings, as the Xtasy GeForce4 MX 440 makes short work of the GeForce2 Ti and again closes the gap on the GeForce3 Ti 200 as resolutions increase. It's also here that we see the true differential between the NVIDIA entry-level cards and the GeForce3 Ti 500 or Radeon 8500.



    Page 1 Introduction
    Page 2 The GeForce4 MX 440
    Page 3 GeForce4 MX Features
    Page 4 The VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 MX 440 Card
    Page 5 VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 MX 440 Specifications
    Page 6 Performance and Test System
  • Page 7 Quake 3:Arena Performance
    Page 8 Serious Sam & Return to Castle Wolfenstein Performance
    Page 9 3DMark 2001 and Quake 3 FSAA Performance
    Page 10 VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 MX 440 Overclocking
    Page 11 Benchmark, 2D Quality and nView Analysis
    Page 12 Value and Conclusion


    Copyright(c) 2010 Jupitermedia Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Legal Notices | Licensing , Reprints , & Permissions | Privacy Policy



    The Network for Technology Professionals

    Search:

    About Internet.com

    Legal Notices, Licensing, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
    Advertise | Newsletters | E-mail Offers