Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R9100 vs GF4 MX440

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 3, 2003 4:45:52 PM

I have a GF4 MX440 AGP 8x 64MB that if I want i can swap for a Crucial 128MB Radeon 9100. However I know that the memory will only be running at 200Mhz (400 DDR). So Does the R9100 still perform better?

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>

More about : r9100 gf4 mx440

September 3, 2003 4:51:16 PM

9100 (RS300)is an IGP for a laptop. You might mean the 9200?

<font color=blue>I've got a better idea. Let's go play "swallow the stuff under the sink." </font color=blue>
<font color=green>Stewie Griffin</font color=green> from <i>The Family Guy</i>

TKS
September 3, 2003 5:21:58 PM

No, the Radeon 9100 is the new name for the 8500LE. ATI changed it to make the naming convention a little more realistic in comparison to the R9000 Pro which it outperformed.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2003 6:09:44 PM

Yeah the R9100 should perform better tha the GF4MX (by a pretty good margin). Howevr I'm not sure it's worth any extra money tough as the 'level' of performance won't be THAT significant compared to other potential purchases.

IMHO


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
September 3, 2003 11:35:47 PM

hrm...guess I missed that one...didn't know it replaced the 8500. Anyways...I checked some reviews for them and it seems like a decent one in comparison to your other card. Wondered what vendor you were going with though?

<font color=blue>I've got a better idea. Let's go play "swallow the stuff under the sink." </font color=blue>
<font color=green>Stewie Griffin</font color=green> from <i>The Family Guy</i>

TKS
a b U Graphics card
September 4, 2003 2:08:21 AM

Yes, the 9100 64MB cards are usually faster, with a 250MHz RAM clock (DDR500). But even with the very slow 200MHz RAM it will probably still outperform the MX440.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 4, 2003 3:13:28 AM

usually? the 9100 will be faster than any MX440 even if the memory was 300mhz


its a vastly superior card, and teh pixel shading is on par with the GF4TI series (if the 9100 was clocked at 250/250 or higher of course for the pixel shaders)

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>
September 4, 2003 3:38:54 AM

Yes, without a doubt you should get the 9100. The thing blows high scores on 3D Mark 2001. I managed 9023 score,which is OK.
The issue between this card and an 8500LE isn't quite true. The 8500 LE 128mb smokes the 9100 cause of the DDR ram type used. They don't offer those tiny, square chips on the newer configs, nope.And the 128mb 9100 is actually slower than the 64meg, cause the chips they use are standard rectangled rams at 4-5 ns as opposed to nice 3.3 ns used on the LE model.
I consider LE to definitely be LIMITED EDITION, cause it smoked the original 8500 64mb clocked @275/550 on 3d mark 2001 scores.
(And I avoided that card because of the Lite Edition that everyone said it was, and its clock was slower @250/500....little did I know that the ram used and the jump to 128mb made all the difference)
Trust me, search it out on the web and you'll read it.
If you can find the 128Mb Radeon 8500 LE get that instead cause it will be faster.

AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Xtacy ATI Radeon 9100 64mb
September 4, 2003 3:51:56 AM

Damn, your score is incredible man.
Don't think I'd dump the Ti4200 for a 9100.
better think about it.

AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Xtacy ATI Radeon 9100 64mb
a b U Graphics card
September 4, 2003 4:26:42 AM

I was just kind of wondering if there might be strange instances where the fastest MX440 card would outperform the slowest 9100 card. It does seem possible.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 4, 2003 5:17:20 AM

maybe a MX440 clocked at 275/600


but, i highly doubt it... depends on teh circumstances. if you were running quake3, then sure a MX440 could outperform it. enable 2xAF, as anyone would in that old game engine, and the 9100 would overtake it again

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>
a b U Graphics card
September 4, 2003 6:41:14 AM

Yes, well it would really suck if I told him that card was better than his old one, and then he played Quake 3 and it was a bit slower, and he came in here calling me every name other than Crashman!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 4, 2003 9:35:21 AM

No, Im not going to replace my Geforce 4 Ti4200, The R9100 is for a secondary system which originally had a Geforce 4 MX440, and which im about to buy the Radeon for after selling the Geforce 4 MX. You see, im selling the GF4 for £60 (to some dumbass I know, they deserve it) and then buying the R9100 from crucial for £55. Pretty good deal I think.

Anyway, Im almost certainly going for it, if nothing else then for the DX8.1 support. I dont care if it is a little slower in somethings, im sure it will perform better in most games.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
September 4, 2003 9:39:03 AM

Well, that clockspeed isnt going to happen. This card comes clocked at default 275/275 (DDR, not 550) and the highest I can overclock it to is 300/400, increasing my score from 2600 to 3200 on 3dmark 2001 with a PIII 750 and 256MB of RAM (2-2-2-5-2). Im looking for atleast 4000 from the Radeon, which im guessing I can probably get just from the addition of support for Nature alone.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
September 4, 2003 9:46:36 AM

well, on my 1700+, the 9100/8500le got me almost 8k


if you play BF1942, or any other half modern game teh 9100 will run much better overall

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>
September 4, 2003 10:52:28 AM

can you believe i got 5100 with GFFX5200.

-J<font color=red>//\</font color=red>ECOR™ -
-J<font color=purple>//\</font color=purple>ECOR™ -
September 4, 2003 10:55:01 AM

and it only runs at AGP4x not Agp8x.

-J<font color=red>//\</font color=red>ECOR™ -
-J<font color=purple>//\</font color=purple>ECOR™ -
September 4, 2003 5:03:20 PM

AGP 4x/8x makes no difference. 5100 is pathetic. FX5200 is pathetic. He pulled 9k with his 9100. Ur card sucks arse.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
September 4, 2003 5:25:00 PM

I hit 10000 in 3DMark 2001 with my Radeon 8500LE (CPU 290 MHz and MEM 300 Mhz) with an Athlon XP1800+ clock to XP2200/2300+.

So, I can surely say FX5200 is not even close!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
September 4, 2003 5:38:58 PM

Download the latest Catalyst driver and you may go above the 4000 with that.
Good Luck.

AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Xtacy ATI Radeon 9100 64mb
September 4, 2003 5:43:55 PM

THAT'S RIGHT!!!!
Tell 'em, bro That Radeon LE 128Mb kicks the [-peep-] out of the Radeon series!
You know it, I read it
Tell the Big Grape, cuz he still needs an answer on this!!

AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Xtacy ATI Radeon 9100 64mb
September 4, 2003 5:48:19 PM

OK, Brother, I will tell them all you want!

Humm... What do you want me to tell them exactly?

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
September 4, 2003 6:13:10 PM

Uh, Duh, Uh, Um......
Duh, I guess, uh,
I think it was the LE above 10,000 points?
Uh, That may be IT!!

AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Xtacy ATI Radeon 9100 64mb
September 4, 2003 6:17:48 PM

atfihunred told me to tell you that the LE can break the 10000 points barrier in 3DMark 2001.

Do I need to say that it can't get 2000 in 3DMark03???

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
September 4, 2003 6:49:21 PM

Whooops. Sorry, I didn't mean that.
You're score of over 10,000 points is impressive.
The others here who aren't quite aware of the capabilities of the 8500LE should be aware and know that the card has got better memory BGA, and the O/C strength can surpass that of the original 8500 64mb. Extreme Hardware did a side by side analysis of the cards which was cool. You should check that site for details cause it's a cool in depth article. (search: ATI Radeon 8500LE 128mb)

Damn I can't type today


AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Xtacy ATI Radeon 9100 64mb <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by atfihunred on 09/04/03 02:51 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 4, 2003 7:13:01 PM

I read the article!

You was right, this was a good article... And, I noticed that I can O/C even more my memory! I used to stay under the 300 MHz bar... But, I'm not sure my BGA memory is 3.3ns, I think it's 3.6ns chips. Because, I remember that when I converted ns to MHz it resulted into 275MHz, it why I kept my memory frequency to 300 MHz.

But with 290/300... I can't except lots more from this card. And I'm pretty satisfied with my in game performance!

But, I'll give a try at 300/300, 300/320, 290/330...

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2003 6:17:52 AM

OMG! I'm getting 4000 from a ratty old Radeon LE, overclocked to stock Radeon DDR speed (183/183, up from 143/143).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 5, 2003 7:03:07 AM

mx440 SUCKS! thast why


doenst suprise me that a DDR Radeon256 beats it , not in the slightest

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>
September 5, 2003 1:50:24 PM

Quote:
mx440 SUCKS! thast why

Yes yes it does! I don't think the GF4 MX series supports the Environment Bump Mapping test on 3DMark 2001 either; something the basic Radeon DDR does support. So the ancient Radeon DDR has more advanced features than our friendly GF4 MX. I know that ATi went above and beyond specification-wise for their "DX7" card, although I'm not sure how many extra features they added.

<b>Qui habet aures audiendi audiat</b>
!