GeForce4 MX 4000 - WTF?????

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by elroy, Jan 13, 2004.

  1. elroy

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Ante P

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The MX4000 is actually old. It was supposed to be released in 2003 but nVidia had some manufacturing problems.

    I've had the specs for 4-5 months now. It's a silent "launch" and from I was told it's supposed to be a competitor to the Radeon 9200SE (according to nVidia it outperforms it in the majority of tests)

    Too bad they only used 3dmark for their comparison and had no 9200SE in there.
     
  3. elroy

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    1
    Any chance you could post the specs? What's different between it and NV18?
     
  4. DSC

    DSC
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    3
    I wouldn't even touch the PoS 64bit memory bus MX4000. It doesn't have VS or PS unit, doesn't even support EMBM, and has worse performance than the 5200 or the MX440.

    It probably is slightly faster than the 64bit memory bus 9200SE card, but looks much uglier since it lacks the PS unit and EMBM support. NV18B means it's basically NV18 core with some slight tweaks(TMDS transmitter for DVI support and S-Video support integrated on chip) and it just supports 128MB or 64MB of 128-bit DDR organized as 16Mx16. But of course, most of these would probaby be 64bit memory bus cards to be sold off dirt cheap with low performance anyway.
     
  5. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    112
    Looking at those 3dmark2001 scores, I doubt that, even my radeon sdr easily beats that!
    The reason why the score is so terribly low is of course obvious: I thought that the 9200SE broke the record for slowest ram used on newer graphic cards (64bit at 166Mhz (333), but the MX4000 tested there easily beats this with 64bit x 133Mhz (266)! - they are using ram chips which are no longer useful as even main memory...
    Gives a paltry memory bandwidth of 2.1GB/s, any decent integrated graphic chip (igp 9100, nforce2) will be faster.
    About the only positive thing I can see about this card is that they have opted for a passive cooling solution...
     
  6. Ante P

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU Description
    The GeForce MX 4000 GPU brings a new level of graphics performance and display flexibility to the mainstream desktop PC. It incorporates the innovative NVIDIA nVIEW(tm) display technology, the highly efficient Lightspeed Memory Architecture (LMA) II, and the advanced NVIDIA
    Accuview(tm) antialiasing techniques. The GeForce MX 4000 GPU is the most feature rich, cost effective, and highly integrated GPU available for the mainstream market. Table 2 lists the configuration currently available for the GeForce MX 4000

    Code:
    (18P119) graphics board.
    Table 2. Board Configuration
    Specification Description
    Chip 			GeForce MX 4000
    Core clock 		275 MHz
    Memory clock 		200 MHz
    Frame buffer 		128 MB DDR
    			64 MB DDR (optional)
    Memory I/O 		128 bit (8 pieces of 8Mx16)
    			64 bit (4 pieces of 16Mx16 or 8Mx16)
    Memory Type 		8 pcs 8 M × 16 DDR SDRAM
    			4 pcs 16 M × 16 DDR SDRAM (optional)
    			4 pcs 8 M × 16 DDR SDRAM (optional)
    Maximum Board Power 	16.972 W
     
  7. MrGaribaldi

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In transit
    WoW... What a nice card... as long as it's in the server using a 10" monochrome screen...

    But what I wonder about is why Epox, who's just about to start producing GPU's (based on Nvidia chips), would start their lineup with this card...
    Or at least, that's what X-bit labs seems to think that this is the case...
     
  8. elroy

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks for the specs Ante P. I still don't understand why nVidia is releasing this - surely the 5200 would be a decent competitor and be able to be sold at a price point similar to the 9200SE.
     
  9. AlphaWolf

    AlphaWolf Specious Misanthrope
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    8,420
    Likes Received:
    272
    Location:
    Treading Water
    5200 cards are considerably more expensive than a 9200se. 10-15$ may not seem like much but its 20-30% more.
     
  10. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    112
    What exactly is the market though for $40 graphic cards? I can't imagine someone would buy this to upgrade their current graphic card (you'd need TNT or older card to get a noticeable improvement), and if you really need an upgrade because your current solution (for instance some igp) is too slow you'd surely want to pay 20-30$ more to get triple the performance?
    Of course a lot of people don't really need 3D at all or just barely. But why would they want to buy a 40$ POS graphic card instead of a motherboard with an IGP, not only is this cheaper, but both the igp 9100 and nforce2 are faster too...

    What I REALLY wonder is why they want to build BOTH MX440 and MX4000 cards. From the specs it looks like the mx4000 is simply an even cheaper to produce (not the chip, but the board) version of the mx440. As far as users are concerned, those boards should be identical as far as I can see. Or does Nvidia have such a huge pile of old MX440 chips lying around that they require their board partners to also use these instead of the new MX4000 chips :).
     
  11. elroy

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    1
    I just pulled some prices off the net (www.razorprices.com). Note that these prices are in Australian dollars, cos I'm in Australia! These are the cheapest I could find:

    9200SE - $72.00
    MX440 - $69.00
    5200 - $99.00

    So like you said, the 5200 is more expensive than the 9200SE, however the MX440 (i'm assuming it's the SE version) is the same price. So how expensive will the MX4000 be? $AUS 40? I'd imagine that's the price that they'd have to make it to sell them. But I really still don't see the point of this chip. ATi has better 2D, and the 3D of this card can't even touch that of the 9200SE (DX7 vs DX8). And like others have said, even integrated graphics are better. So I don't see a market for this chip at all.

    Thanks for moving the industry forward again nVidia. :roll:
     
  12. Ante P

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the specs I've got it seems as if there will be 275/400 MHz versions too and with 128 bit bus added to that. Should bring some reasonable performance while still maintaining a cheap price (50 USD or so)
     
  13. mustrum

    Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't wait for nvidias nextGen GPU. A repackaged geforce 256 made in 0.13 process.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...