at least for a while, My Radeon 8500le came in on monday, and ive been playing around with it.
Now, compared to my old Geforce4 MX440DDR, this video card really makes me mad that i had ever bought the g4 in the first place Im am amazed by the freakin tv-out quality the radeon has! I thought my tv was just all old and washed up, not anymore!!!
I would go as far to say the speed is twice as fast as the mx440. All my games run how id like them to now, maybe better if i could just figure out how to keep the agp fast writes to stay on. The picture quality even at 800x600 is just plain AWESOME compared to the g4. After seeing this, i would have to say the Geforce4 MX440DDR sucks.
And theres just so many tweaks and settings for the ati, im totally lost! Not a bad thing though... any suggestions for performance-based setups? i need the speed
Again, goodbye nvidia, at least untill AFTER i purchase a follow-up 9700pro and maybe the next
Last edited by krupted; April 24th, 2003 at 05:16 PM.
Yeah, it's funny. Many people gave up on the 8500 because it had such weak driver support early on (remember? it was released before the final drivers). Then ATi made good on its promise about making better drivers, and the 8500 is now a very mature and decent performer. Any GeForce MX model won't be in the same ballpark regarding performance and feature support. While the GF4 Ti line is very capable, it's also more expensive. The 8500 is one of the best budget buys out there right now, IMO.
Give what you cannot keep to gain what you cannot lose.
You're also comparing two different generations and markets of cards. The MX440 is a souped up Geforce2 card and thus is only a DirectX7 card. The 8500 is a DX8 card, so it's not really fair to compare performance. Now an 8500 vs. a Geforce3 is more fair. If you wanted to compare the MX440 to its direct competitor, the Radeon 7500, the 7500 would get stomped.
But yeah the ATi cards have better TV-Out quality by default. In order to get the same quality on an nVidia card you have to buy TVTool.
Ya, the display quality on my Sapphire ATI 7500 64MB DDR is really top notch. I can’t believe a lot of company’s like Gateway were shipping their systems with GF2 MX’s when the display quality of those cards is complete garbage compared to the ATI equivalents like the 7000’s.
Unfortunately I broke the fan on my 7500 and may have overheated it a little. Now I have to underclock from 270Mhz to 216 just so it’s stable.
My top choice for a replacement is the Sapphire 9100 64MB 250/230. The 9100 is basically a rebadged 8500LE. Here in Canada I’ve seen retail Gf4 MX420’s for $140 even at Best Buy. The 9100’s I’ve seen as low as $106 and it is probably twice as fast a that 420. For a budget card those 8500LE’s and 9100’s are easily the best card. I’m waiting to see how much the 9600’s cost before I buy. Now if they would only hurry up and get out.
At default speeds they may be close, but those 440's and 460's can overclock like mad. Look at the highest 3DMark scores for the MX4xx cards and compare them to my 7500 score. Someone broke 11,000 with an MX440! There's no way even a supercooled 7500 could compare to that.
I see 2 downsides to these cards. First, the 440-8x cards like these that overclock that well come with faster more expensive memory so the cards themselves are a lot more expensive - and they are still only DX 7.0 cards.
A Gainward golden sample MX 440-8x goes for $183CAD here in Canada, a Gainward 4200 goes for not much more $213. If I got that high price wise I would have to go for the 4200 or even step up to a 9500pro for $269. The 4200 for $213 still only has 64MB as does the MX 440-8x. If I was going to pay more than what the ATI 9100 64MB cost ($106), I would have to step up to a 128MB card as I consider 64MB “just” adequate for gaming.
how bout the GF4MX440 4X?
isn't that card a much better value over the 8X version, as well as over the other ATI cards aforementioned?
here are the corresponding 3d mark scores and prices (these are local prices.. so yours may be different of course.. but we can see the relative costs)
i dunno.. but the performance/price ratio seems way better for the GF4MX440 4X. i'm getting a new computer... not gonna do much hardcore gaming on it nor overclocking. do you guys think the GF4MX440 would be the best option for me? are there any additional information i haven't accounted for here? thanks.
Last edited by Liteon48x; April 25th, 2003 at 11:50 PM.
I would definitely get a card that was at least DirectX8 compatible. I can already name a couple games on my Radeon 9700 machine that I can't play at all on my Radeon 7500 machine because it doesn't have pixel shaders. I wouldn't look at any generation of cards below the Geforce3/Radeon 8500 level. For aound $100 the best card you could get would be the Geforce4 Ti4200 64MB version (may be even less than $100). It would last you at least another year.
It's a $10 program for adjusting TV-out options on nVidia cards. You can disable macrovision, increase the size of the desktop to get rid of the black borders as well as tons of other stuff. It's definitely worth the purchase. I wish they would do some work with ATi cards, I'd like to have an easy solution for disabling macrovision. Afterall I did buy a license when I had my Geforce3.
hey wraith child... so you'd pick the GF4TI4200 over the ATI RADEON 8500LE? isn't the Radeon 8500LE better value than the gf4ti4200? the gf4i4200 is about twice as much as radeon 8500 LE (oem) and the dif in 3dmark score is 2.5k only. are both dx8?
The Ti4200 is significantly more powerful than the 8500LE, especially when overclocked. But if you can get the 8500LE for half the price of the 4200, then get that. But I have seen Ti4200's for around $85 while the cheapest 8500LE's I've seen are about $70-75.