GeForce4 MX 4000 vs. GeForce 4 MX 440 \ VOGONS

GeForce4 MX 4000 vs. GeForce 4 MX 440

Topic actions

First post, by Major Jackyl

Posted on 2024-08-13, 22:52

Major Jackyl Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 2024-04-05, 15:15
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

Hello everyone! Today, I want to pit my MX4000(s) against the MX440. I was thinking about getting opinions about which is better to use, since I've never used a MX440 before, but since I have an open side panel, I'll use my Dell Dimension 4100 for testing. I decided I want to test them in it's companion system, too, specs to follow.

The attachment 20240810_151953.jpg is no longer available

The attachment 20240523_211958 (1).jpg is no longer available

I will be running 3DMark 2001 (1999 doesn't run on the MX4K) and playing Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, and Battlefield 1942. (In windows 98)
Any suggestions for tests to run are appreciated!

The System is spec'd as follows:
Pentium 3 933
256 MB PC133 (2x128)
Sound Blaster Audigy
D-Link TX-530II Rev.F
Single 40GB Hitachi ATA with 2 partitions, dual-booting 98SE and WinXP.

The attachment 20240813_163953.jpg is no longer available

The attachment Screenshot 2024-08-13 170531.png is no longer available

(Other Test system)
Tyan Trinity KT (S2390)
Athlon 1000
384MB PC133 (3x128)
GeForce MX 4000
Yamaha DS-XG
D-Link TX-530II Rev.G
D-Link USB
9GB Quantum (98) 30GB Quantum (XP)

Trinity is currently buried, but has MX4K in it, so I'll be just running that test today. I do have two MX4K that will need to be tested separately. they are both the same, but have differences.

The attachment 20240812_230728.jpg is no longer available

Tomorrow I will run the 4K in the Dell and the 440 in the Trinity (Probably test the other 4K first, so not as much driver-switching). I've found that 45.23 drivers work well with the 440 and 66.94 have been working good for the 4K. 66 drivers work on the 440, but not great. Skipping in Unreal and some glitching is Serious Sam. 66 drivers actually keep 3DMark 1999 from running as well.

My initial impressions of this 440 are good! These systems ran everything about the same, so I feel like the two of them compare well. The 440 is a bit slower in UT running 1280x1024. It skips a beat running Quake 3 in 1280x1024 as well; runs perfect at 1024x768 (same with UT). All settings on high, by the way. BF1942 is unplayable (with bots) at 640x480, 🤣 Better on low settings.

Main Loadout (daily drivers):
Intel TE430VX, Pentium Sy022 (133), Cirrus Logic 5440, SB16 Value
ECS K7S5A, A-XP1600+, MSI R9550
ASUS M2N-E, A64X2-4600+, PNY GTX670, SB X-Fi Elite Pro
MSI Z690, Intel 12900K, MSI RTX3090, SB AE-7

Reply 1 of 8, by Major Jackyl

Posted on 2024-08-15, 01:54

Major Jackyl Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 2024-04-05, 15:15
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

Didn't get to everything, but got the MX4000 ran through in the Dell again.

The attachment 20240814_203324.jpg is no longer available

The attachment 20240814_203355.jpg is no longer available

In real-world application, the MX4000 wins, hands down. No skipping in anything and can even push resolution. The 440 is not without merit, though. It runs lots of point-and-click/ desktop games that just crash on the MX4000 or newer. The 440 also has the edge on benchmark numbers, but numbers aren't everything here.

Reply 2 of 8, by BitWrangler

Posted on 2024-08-15, 02:08

BitWrangler Offline

Rank l33t++

Rank: l33t++
Posts: 7951
Joined: 2017-10-11, 00:55
Location: Ontario

Surprising, back in the day we thought MX4000s were just a marketing thing to get rid of crap they couldn't even sell as MX420.

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 3 of 8, by Major Jackyl

Posted on 2024-08-15, 03:30

Major Jackyl Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 2024-04-05, 15:15
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

Oh boy. The Trinity does NOT like that card. I tried 3 different driver versions and even reseated it and it still wasn't working right. The screen was artifacting the whole time and pretty much nothing ran. Put the other MX4K in and it's working normally. Both cards acted the same.

The attachment 20240814_210404.jpg is no longer available

I got another system involved, too. I wanted to make sure the MX440 was going to work elsewhere. Luckily, my Compaq was available:
Compaq Presario 5000 series
AMD Athlon 950 2x128MB PC133
Nvidia TNT2(dell)
SB Live! (dell)

It has WindowsME on it, but I don't notice much performance issues vs windows 98, so I'll accept it. Definitely different results...

The attachment Screenshot 2024-08-14 221449.png is no longer available

The attachment Screenshot 2024-08-14 221430.png is no longer available

I'm going to use this Compaq like this for a while to make sure everything is running properly, then move to the next unscheduled test: MX4000 in the Compaq.

Last edited by Major Jackyl on 2024-08-15, 03:42. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 4 of 8, by dormcat

Posted on 2024-08-15, 03:42

dormcat Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 999
Joined: 2021-05-05, 21:59
Location: Taipei, Taiwan

Thanks for the test! I've got a hand-me-down MX 4000 as well but I haven't given it a test, mainly because I've only got 3 MB with AGP slots but 8 AGP cards. 😅

Major Jackyl wrote on 2024-08-15, 01:54:

The 440 is not without merit, though. It runs lots of point-and-click/ desktop games that just crash on the MX4000 or newer.

Now that's interesting. Could you name a couple of those games?

Reply 5 of 8, by Major Jackyl

Posted on 2024-08-15, 03:45

Major Jackyl Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 2024-04-05, 15:15
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

dormcat wrote on 2024-08-15, 03:42:

Thanks for the test! I've got a hand-me-down MX 4000 as well but I haven't given it a test, mainly because I've only got 3 MB with AGP slots but 8 AGP cards. 😅

Major Jackyl wrote on 2024-08-15, 01:54:

The 440 is not without merit, though. It runs lots of point-and-click/ desktop games that just crash on the MX4000 or newer.

Now that's interesting. Could you name a couple of those games?

I was playing a few THQ games (Tetris specifically had isssues) and Microsoft Bicycle, and Jewel Quest actually didn't even open.

Reply 6 of 8, by agent_x007

Posted on 2024-08-16, 12:00

agent_x007 Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 1574
Joined: 2016-01-19, 11:06

MX440 = V8170DDR/D/64M (has DVI port), but which uses DDR with 64-bit memory bus (VRAM is rated at 5ns).
MX4000 = BFG MX4000 with DDR1 and 64-bit (the one with Elixir 5ns memory) and it that can work with both 333MT/s and 400MT/s speeds.

Would be nice to have a GPU-z or AIDA64/Everest Ultimate screenshot with exact parameters...
However, the only difference you should will see between them is based on purely on clock speed.
PS. Try attaching some fans to them, passive cooling isn't going to work without airflow in case.

Reply 7 of 8, by Major Jackyl

Posted on 2024-08-16, 15:11

Major Jackyl Offline

Rank Member

Rank: Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 2024-04-05, 15:15
Location: Robbinsdale, MN

agent_x007 wrote on 2024-08-16, 12:00:
MX440 = V8170DDR/D/64M (has DVI port), but which uses DDR with 64-bit memory bus (VRAM is rated at 5ns). MX4000 = BFG MX4000 wit […]
Show full quote

MX440 = V8170DDR/D/64M (has DVI port), but which uses DDR with 64-bit memory bus (VRAM is rated at 5ns).
MX4000 = BFG MX4000 with DDR1 and 64-bit (the one with Elixir 5ns memory) and it that can work with both 333MT/s and 400MT/s speeds.

Would be nice to have a GPU-z or AIDA64/Everest Ultimate screenshot with exact parameters...
However, the only difference you should will see between them is based on purely on clock speed.
PS. Try attaching some fans to them, passive cooling isn't going to work without airflow in case.

Good idea. Here are the everest data(s):

The attachment Screenshot 2024-08-16 100011.png is no longer available

The attachment Screenshot 2024-08-16 100041.png is no longer available

The attachment Screenshot 2024-08-16 100052.png is no longer available

Looking at the cards' data, they do look pretty dang similar. Only Beef the MX4K really has is AGP8X, so no wonder they all felt the same on these 4X systems.

Also second the fan idea. The MX4000 don't need it running at 4X, but in my P4 system running 8X, I refuse to run it WITHOUT a fan, Definitely a HOT unit. The MX440 has a 80mm pointed at it, since it was getting hot during testing/gaming. My brother always gets those cute little Noctua 40mms, probably what I might do as well.

Reply 8 of 8, by BitWrangler

Posted on 2024-08-16, 15:27

BitWrangler Offline

Rank l33t++

Rank: l33t++
Posts: 7951
Joined: 2017-10-11, 00:55
Location: Ontario

According to what TechPowerup has got for NV17 and NV18 cards, it seems like this is a bit of a lame MX440 maybe an SE and a factory overclocked MX4000

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Go to top of page Go to top of page

Back to Video