Beyond3D's review of the VisionTek XTASY GeForce4 MX440

[Idiot]

hmmmm

a budget card with enough fillrate (ie 128bit DDR, or TBR like tech) with good opengl drivers. left only a few card out there.....

and i think a lot people with powerful CPUs are looking at budget card. And a lot builders are pairing the low end gfx cards with highend cpus... (like those tnt2 m64 on NW or XPs)

 

[pcchen]

On 2002-02-25 11:29, Mephisto wrote:

Same can be said about Dot3. That's why the current sutiation is important, and there, EMBM is strong.

No. Because much more cards on the market now support DOT3 and cube env map. The market is much larger.

So, if a game developer is designing for EMBM, he or she may want to "upgrade" to DX8 PS 1.1, with a little loss of Radeon users. On the other hand, a game supporting DOT3 and cube env map is going to be supported by more than half video cards on the market.

 

[Mephisto]

Because much more cards on the market now support DOT3 and cube env map. The market is much larger.

... market share of features hasn't stopped 50+ developers to implement EMBM although it was only supported by the G400 for a long time.

In the meantime, KYRO I/II, Radeon, Radeon 7500, Radeon 8500, GeForce3 and Geforce4 are supporting EMBM too.

 

[Xmas]

On 2002-02-25 11:35, up wrote:
EBMB has a much greater impact than AA ever will have; with high resolutions (1280x1024 or even 1600x1200) AA is actually no longer needed!

That's simply not true, unless you use a cheap 17" CRT.

 

[Galilee]

Hmm
About EMBM: I don't think I have a single game that supports it. 50% somone said? wow, I must have some strange games :smile:
If there is one feature I can live without, it's EMBM.

 

[Geeforcer]

On 2002-02-25 11:35, up wrote:
Thanx, Reverend!
Excluding EMBM in the G4mx is nothing but a shame for Nvidia...
In combination with texturecompression, EMBM gives so cool graghics - eg. Medal of Honor ;o)

MoA supports EMBM? I got to check that game out sometime.

 

[Reverend]

On 2002-02-25 09:17, DemoCoder wrote:

I can't believe those games were CPU limited at 40fps. Did you try running the same benchmarks on a different card? I get better scores on a 1.2Ghz Athlon and GF2 (non-ultra)

Democoder, first of all, I hope your comments are based on using the same games (Max Payne, F1 2001 and Serious Sam Second Encounter, not the original in the last case) I used in my review as well as, and especially so, the saved games I specifically used. Unless this is the case, your comments will add doubt to the consistency and accuracy of my review.

I just stuck the GeForce3 Ti 500 back in the same machine as the GF4 MX440 review. I did a quick test using Serious Sam Second Encounter's Direct3D mode to test SW vs HW T&L performance. First of all, there was no way I could bump the GF3 Ti500's core up to the GF4 MX440's default core of 270MHz... so I settled on the maximum the GF3 Ti500 could muster, which is 255MHz. I reduced the GF3 Ti500's memory clock to match the GF4 MX440's, which is 400MHz.

The same 27.30 NVIDIA drivers were used.

All are at 640x480x32bits, no AA nor any driver-enabled aniso, etc, etc tweaks, with all Serious Sam graphics options exactly identical between the GF3 Ti500 and GF4 MX440. Serious Sam Second Encounter allows the ability to determine number of TUs to use so I thought I might as well provide the additional info regarding this.

Serious Sam Second Encounter "The Grand Cathedral Demo" (as appear in the GF4 MX440 review) :

Direct3D Software T&L
GF4 MX440 at 270/400 (core/mem) using DUAL=max texture units allowed : 20.7 fps (as per my review)
GF3 Ti 500 at 255/400 (core/mem) using DUAL texture units : 20.9 fps
GF3 Ti500 at 255/400 (core/mem) using QUAD texture units : 21.6 fps

Direct3D Hardware T&L
GF4 MX440 at 270/400 (core/mem) using DUAL=max texture units allowed : 16.7 fps (as per my review)
GF3 Ti500 at 255/400 (core/mem) using DUAL texture units : 31.7 fps
GF3 Ti500 at 255/400 (core/mem) using QUAD texture units : 32.5 fps

I'm not even going to test the GF3 Ti500 at its default core/mem clocks. The GF3 Ti500 is at a lower core clock compared to the GF4 MX400 with the same memory bandwidth in the above test. So what's wrong? Nothing... the GF4 MX440 is simply slow, like I said (more or less) in my review.

Theories (based on specs, or based on a 2+ year old game as reported by other sites) are fine... but until you test it the way I tested the GF4 MX440 you won't really know the true picture.

I stand by my ("occluded" harsh-ish) conclusion - the GF4 MX440 is slow in the games I tested it with in my review regardless of the fact that I used a "slowish" CPU or "outdated" OS. If other folks want to use Quake3, then that's their decision... I used newer games, of which I'm not going into a debate about whether this is right or wrong or, even worse, whether I should use Quake3 simply so folks can "compare" whatever Quake3 numbers I come up with with other sites'.

As for the subject of EMBM, it is *not* easy to implement but only so depending on what you're trying to achieve. *Almost all* (keywords) developers usually use what is interesting to them at a certain time - when EMBM debuted with the Matrox offering, the developers' reactions were the same as those when the original GeForce256 debuted... you use what is available while thinking of a/any fallback mode. "Matrox has EMBM... it looks really nice.. let's use it but make sure things look reasonably nice on those other vid cards without EMBM"... and "The GeForce256 has T&L... let's use what we can while making sure things look reasonably nice on those other vid cards without T&L". Oh come on guys... this is such a stupid thing to argue about. Per-pixel lighting will put EMBM in a coffin... EMBM looked nice when it became available with the Matrox part but "simple" DOT3 has more uses in general. Talking about "3D technology" per se is a world apart from talking about "installed base of games using older=when-it-became-available" which belongs in an entirely different discussion.

The GF4 MX440 will probably satisfy Quake3 gamers... but it probably won't do with some games that have appeared in the two+ (!!) years since, like those used in my review.

_________________
Reverend
Beyond3D
3DPulpit

 

[Reverend]

MOHAA does not support EMBM.

 

[Matt]

Darn Rev, you should've brought that up yesterday. I spent 4 hours squinting at the monitor in hopes of finding that elusive EMBM in MoHAA.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Having not seen a lot of EMBM and DOT3 scenes to compare, I'll just say that I always thought the giant turd in 3dMark wasn't nearly as cool as the EMBM tests.

But... it was a beautiful turd.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bigus Dickus on 2002-02-26 07:31 ]</font>

 

[Entropy]

Interesting comparitive data from the Ti500, Reverend. It does indeed give a better perspective on the performance of the MX440. Interesting incongruency for "hardware T&amp;L" considering 3DMark2001 polygon scores. Perhaps such comparitive data will make it into the reviews in the future? The questions a reader wishes to ask may be others than the reviewer think to answer. Comparitive data helps. A lot.

Entropy

 

[Reverend]

Anyway, I've updated page 5 of the review to reflect my above additional Serious Sam SE testing.

 

[Humus]

On 2002-02-26 07:00, Reverend wrote:
Oh come on guys... this is such a stupid thing to argue about. Per-pixel lighting will put EMBM in a coffin... EMBM looked nice when it became available with the Matrox part but "simple" DOT3 has more uses in general.

Uhm, dot3 and EMBM aren't exactly competing technologies. They are completementary. They are good for different types of effects. You can't use EMBM for lighting, you'll need dot3. You can't use dot3 for refraction or reflections, you'll need EMBM.
With pixel shaders you can combine both effects in the same shader.

 

[Galilee]

But is EMBM widely used? Someone claimed it was in half of the games today, but I have none of them apparently.
Any new games today that supports it?

Unfortunately I have not seen it more, because I like it a lot. Makes great water-effects. But PS can do the same so I guess it's on it's way out.

 

[Mephisto]

But is EMBM widely used? Someone claimed it was in half of the games today, but I have none of them apparently. Any new games today that supports it?

No, I claimed that there are more than 50 games supporting it, not 50%. That's a difference. There is a list of some games over at matrox.com, though it isn't up to date.

You can argue whatever you want, EMBM is widly used, is better for certain effects than Dot3 and is supported on any card except Geforce2/4MX.

 

[nggalai]

Galilee,

I think the poster in question didn't say 50%, but that about 50 devs support(ed) EMBM:

EMBM is supported by 50+ available games, more than DX7 Dot3 and DX7 Cube mapping together!

For a pretty comprehensive list of EMBM-enabled games, check here:

http://www.matrox.com/mga/3d_gaming/enhanced.cfm

ta,
.rb

_________________
www.nggalai.com -- it's not so much bad as it is an experience.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nggalai on 2002-02-26 13:13 ]</font>
________
buy vaporgenie

 

[Doomtrooper]

I thought Rev's choice in games for benchmarks were great, Q3 is three years OLD..who cares about Quake 3. A newer racing sim, a newer 1st person shooter like SS2 (MOHAA would be another good one), much better than look 242 fps on Quake 3 vs 188 :rollseyes:

 

[Nil Einne]

You're probably right in suggesting that most gamers aren't going to pair a XP 2000+ with a MX440. However, I think many gamers will pair a MX440 with a XP1700+. The XP2000+ is so much more expensive that it isn't a good budget option. The XP1700+ is (it's arguably the best price/performance currently). A lot of people getting a new system on a budget will likely end up with the XP1700+ and a MX440 or something similar. Especially those not in the US. The GeForce3 Ti200 may be available for about the same price as a MX440 in the US at some stored in the US but not in a lot of the rest of the world. Maybe it will change in the future, maybe not (but the Ti200 is dissapearing anyway and the Ti4200 is NOT going to be anywhere near the MX440 price). And the difference in price altho maybe only the price of a movie or two with the wife (according to the spam I receive anyway) can be quite a lot in other countries. Def enough to make one choose the MX440 over the Ti200 even if the Ti200 can be a lot better. Rev, living in Malaysia, you should realise that the RM200 (I'm not sure how accurate this is since I didn't pay much attention to it when I was still there) price diff between the MX440 and Ti200 can be a very big sum for many including gamers.

Also, you're all ignoring the fact that there are a lot of gamers who are "softcore" i.e. only play a few games every year. These are undoutedly a very significant portion of the gamers market. Many of them get the computer not just for games but for other things as well. Investing in a better processor makes a lot more sense then investing in a better card for them. Of coz, they still want fairly acceptable performance from their cards.
I'm sure that there will be a lot of people with slow processors (e.g. 1000ghz) who end up getting a Ti200 or something becoz a processor upgrade will cost too much and their TNT or onboard card just doesn't cut it anymore. There will also be a lot of XP1700+ers who get a MX440 coz the Ti200 is just too expensive (esp given they are getting a whole new comp). Especially take into account students etc on a fairly tight budget.

 

[Galilee]

haha, this list is not the best commercial for EMBM How old is this list? hehehe. I have heard of some of the games.
Point being, EMBM is "mostly" useless these days, unless you play 3dmark or really old games.

Ace of Angelsâ„¢
Aquariusâ„¢
Battlezone II: Combat Commanderâ„¢
Battle Isle: The Andosia war
BITM
Carmageddon®: TDR 2000™
Colin McRae Rally 2
Descent 3â„¢
Descent 3â„¢: Mercenary
Destroyer Commandâ„¢
Drakanâ„¢
Dungeon Keeperâ„¢ 2
Echelon®
Echelon®: Wind Warriors
Expendableâ„¢
F1 World Grand Prix
Far Gate
Fur Fighters
Hard Truck IIâ„¢
Hired Teamâ„¢ Gold
Hired Teamâ„¢: Trial
Incoming Forces
Parkan: Iron Strategyâ„¢
Ka-52 Team Alligatorâ„¢
Kyodai
Off Road: Redneck Racing
Offshore2000: Pro Surf Tour
Planet Heat
PowerRenderâ„¢ engine V 3.0*
Private Warsâ„¢
Rollcage® Stage II
Silent Hunter II
Silent Space
Silex engine
Slave Zeroâ„¢
Speed Bustersâ„¢
Spirit of Speed 1937
Sub Command
Jugular® Street Luge Racing
Totaledâ„¢
Warm Up
Wild Metal Countryâ„¢*


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-26 14:27 ]</font>

 

[SirPauly]

I respectfully disagree with Reverend and others on EMBM. However, I am not saying it is a must-have feature, etc.

But to dismiss the titles that have this feature and imply that Dot3 and per-pixel lighting would blow it away, well, that isn't the point.

I am a gamer and I want to play Echelon.... how is Dot3 and per-pixel going to help that game? It doesn't; EMBM does.

For a product that suppose to be about EXISTING games more than FUTURE games and to dismiss a feature that enhances 40 or more EXISTING titles and offer, well, in the future EMBM will not be a big deal and Dot3 and per-pixel is more important. Some feel shaders are more important but this doesn't dismiss Dot3 does it?

Another point is Multi-sampling:

No where did I read about texture aliasing and since this product's x2 AA doesn't touch textures... I think it is important.

The product would need some sort of anisotrophy to help curb texture aliasing and this part was ignored for the reader.