HiI just upgraded from an ASUS Geforce 2 GTS 32Mb AGP to a PANDEX (??) Geforce 4 MX440SE 128Mb AGP and i'd like to hear from others with Geforce 4 cards.I downloaded 3D Mark 2003 and it told me I can only run one game demo. I ran the demo with the GF2 in and the FPS were pretty choppy and in the game demo, in the end my score was 179. I put in the GF4 and seeing as I went from 32mb to 128mb I expected a big improvement but the FPS were basicaly the same and my score was 189. Is it just me or is that a very small improvement? I installed the latest nVidia drivers as well. How do you guys benchmark your 3D cards? My system is AMD XP1600+512 DDRGF4 128Mb DDR (after today)20GB HDD...FS runs at around 18FPS at Meigs field in the Cessna with graphics almost at full and with AA X4. Is that acceptable? It's just a little faster then it was with the GF2.Should I return this card and get a name brand one like ASUS? or is the GF4 MX440 just a crappy card in general?Thank for any input.Mike

Well, aside from "who is pandex"? I would suspect the score.You have a fast system and if it looks good, so what?You are trying 3D mark what? Why not 2001SE, it's probably more relevant.The newest 3D mark is benchmarking the latest and greatest.Go simple.BC

3D mark 2001SE..ok i'll go look for that. I didn't know that was the better one. So you say the score looks good to you? I thought that a difference of 8 points was little but i've never done these sort of tests before so i guess I was wrong.Take care

I didn't say your score looked good, I meant that it didn't apply.Do the 2001SE thingie and then look. But seeing as how you didn't do it with your olde card, you won't see the difference. No matter. With 2001SE, you should beat at least 6000.Report back.BC

Mike.Your problem is the card the Geforce 4 MX440SE 128Mb is only a tad faster than your old Gforce 2.You really need to get at least a Geforce 4 T4200 128Mb (NO MX) The MX cards are just not good enough for flightsims.If you can exchange it please do....Rod.....

OK here are the results with 3D mark 2001SE.Geforce 2 GTS 32Mn.........3954Geforce 4 MX440 128Mb......4789I expected a lot more from a Geforece 4 with 4 times more memory. No wonder it was so cheap..lol MX cards suck.

>I expected a lot more from a Geforece 4 with 4 times more>memory. No wonder it was so cheap..lol >MX cards suck.On board memory has little to do with actual performances, beyond some point. There is little improvement going from 64 to 128. And going from 128 to 256 in actual real world games yields zero improvement. Actually, my 64Mb GF4 4200ti is often faster than 128Mb models, because the 128Mb models used slower memory chips... The exception being games that actually use the 128Mb, but these are still not the norm...The real difference comes from 1) GPU speed (clock+efficiency) 2) on board memory total bandwidth (MHz+bit width). In most modern cards (since the GeForce 1 SDR), the memory bandwidth is actually the limiting factor, because the GPU are now very good.The problem is that the MX cards are completely castrated on the memory bandwidth side. The GPU is also weaker on some areas like multi-texturing. Previous MX boards were "only" weaker on the memory issue, but newest nVidia policies seem to involve castrating the GPU part too (less texture units, less shader units...).So, essentially, you have a good GPU that goes very fast at waiting for the memory to provide that bit of texture/geometry it has been waiting for for ages... GeForce2 were pretty good cards about that memory issue, especially if you had one of the improved versions (Pro/Ultra). So, it's pretty natural you're not seeing that much of a difference...MX boards are just marketing plots to make you believe you're getting the value of a "4" or "FX" board for cheap. In fact, you're often much better off buying a cheap previous generation high-end board (such as a GF4 4200Ti, these are very good value for the money, or even a GF3 Ultra)...

Some of the performance increase gain may be lost if your cpu is less than 2GHZ. I just upgraded to a 128 Meg '4200 from a GeF/2 TI. I guess performance is slightly better now that I look at things closely--FS2004 runs about 5 fps faster given the same settings. And I paid only $90 for it....just installed it last night.MX cards--well my nickname for them is "Marketing Xtreme". They are usually crippled in some way, either on the bandwidth, or the clock speed. Pity you can't locate a 4200 as I did--I am very happy with it. But I can't guarantee a cpu bound sim like MSFS will see a big pickup in fps. What you will be able to do is run it at higher resolutions, or with AA and anisotropy at a higher level. I have my anisotropy maxed now--and textures are now amazingly lifelike and "shimmer" free...As for AA, I keep mine just at X2..... It looks fine enough for me, with no performance hit on the 4200....If you do return the MX and seek a 4200, I found mine at www.shentech.com. I went for the Asylum OEM version without the DVI out--which seems like a rebadged Visiontek. You don't get a fancy box--just a CD and a card. But the price/performance even beats the MX cards sitting in Best Buy.-John

Thanks for the info. I returned thec ard already and I'm checking out the site now, maybe I find a good deal.