GF4MX440-T8X AGP Performance

MSI web site: http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/vga/vga/pro_vga_detail.php?UID=370&MODEL=MS-8890
Specifications Performance numbers for AGP memory performance is 3.2 GB/sec, which is lower than the 4X MX440 (6.4GB/s) and MX440SE (5.3 GB/s)models.
Is this a typo?

I HAVE BEEN HAD! X( X( X( No wonder this card's performance sucks; they amputated its legs at the knees!
Here is the response I recieved from MSI Technical Support regarding the accuracy of the specs for an 8890:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your inquiry.
MS-8890 is with 64bit memory interface and mclk is 200*2.
So the memory bandwidth is 200*2*64/8=3.2GB/s.
Please feel free to let us know if you still have any further problem.

Similar Messages

GF4MX440-T8X(8890) 3D Mark 2001 Score

Purchased GF4-MX440 based card based on Tom's Hardware's VGA performance chart(s).
3D Mark 2001 score for a card based on this chipset should be around 5600. However, I am only getting 3600, which a lot less than I was expecting.
(My other computer has a GF2MX200 based card and the numbers 3D Mark 2001 reports 2300 is consistant with Tom's numbers.)
FIC AT31, AMD AthlonXP 1900+, 1 stick of 256MB DDRAM, XP Home.

Hold on there, you start talking "word problems" with hoses and trains leaving the station and my eyes glaze right over
What I was going on was your statement about "...how could 128 vs 245....Soyo (Via chip?) vs. ECS (SIS chip)....." make a 10-15% difference.....
and your "signiture," which says your GF4MX440 is on the ECS board with a Duron.......
System1: FIC AT31, AMD AlthonXP 1900+, ELSA GF2MX200, 256MB DDR, WinXP
System2: ECS K7S5A, Duron 1.3, MSI GF4MX440-T8X, 196MB SDR, Win98SE
System3: ECS K7S5A, Duron 1.1, CreativeLabs TNT2 Ultra, 128MB SDR, Win98SE
.......I failed to see that you seem to be saying here:
"The fact that I was getting essentually the same 3D Mark 2001 score (3700) on XP1900+/256-2100DDR and Duron1.3/196-133SDR systems........."
........that you did take the card and move it to 2 different machines and run the benchmark.......
.....so, yes, I agree with you, it would seem that the card is the limiting factor....at least between those two motherboard/CPU combos you tested in.
So the next thing to look at, I think, would be the original Tom's test....what were the conditions of that test? For instance, was the score of 5000 while running in "AGP8x" mode?
Your statement..........".....The nature of a video benchmark is to minimize the effect of overall system performance has, and maximize (measure) pure video rendering performance....." is not exactly true.....
.....It only minimizes the performance effects caused by the system.....when all cards are tested in the same system. If you do not have EXACTLY the same system-setup, you will not get the same results.
That's why Tom's (and all the others) specify exactly what the "Test Setup" was, right down to the brand and CAS-value of the RAM.
In your statement....."What is important (or essential) is that the overall system performance be adequate to feed the video card with data so as not to starve the video card of test data...." seems to assume that there is a simple threshold you can cross (in CPU power maybe?) where anything above some Ghz number automatically excuses the overall system configuration from being considered as a possible cause of a performance bottleneck.
But I'm mostly arguing a principle here, that we not too hastily excuse our systems from examination.
But maybe it really is your card that's at fault? What about the "SE" version of the MX440? I saw someone here mention they had unintensionally purchased the "SE" version on a card....which I had not heard of.....so I went and looked into it....
The "SE" version of the MX440 was designed with the same idea as the "m64" version of the TNT2.....instead of the TNT2's full 128-bit memory architecture, the "m64" was designed as an economy model with a 64-bit memory achitecture, which sliced into it's performance very noticably.
nVidia has done the same thing with the "SE" version of their GeForce4 MX440, cutting the MX440's 256-bit memory architecture down to a 128-bit.
The guy I saw here on this forum mentioning he had bought one accidentally, was talking about an MSI card too, ....I don't remember for sure, but I think he said it did NOT state this on the box, but the driver identified the chip on his card to be the "SE" version.
Could that be what's going on?
Stenn

AGP Performance

I upgraded my computer to a cel 2.6 512 DIMM, 6528LE MSI.
The system is working fine, no crashes, no hangs and i'm doing huge cpu usage operations like ripping DVD 40% faster then my old athlon XP 1700+.
I've been experimenting problems with AGP performance. My old Athlon was rendering 135 FPS on Quake3 normal resolution with a GF 5200 MSI and now i can't do more than 110 FPS.
i've upgraded my FX5200 to a FX5700LE MSI to improve performance but i get no progress, now i'm doing 111 FPS.
I've tried 3 diferents NVidia drivers, latest 1.7 BIOS, latest Intel Inf, DX9.0a, 9.0b and 9.0c.
What should i do???

Quote
Originally posted by Bruno Teles
Ok, but i should expect more of 845 then kt133a.
You are wrong there, unledd you are talking about a 845D (with PC2100 DDR).
The original 845 with SDR did not preform well at all, an AMD CPU on a KT133A would outpreform it's intel equivilant on a 845 chipset (XP2600+ vs P4 2.6GHz for example).
This is because the AMD CPU can get more work out of the same memroy bandwidth.

MSI MX440-T8X AGP compatibility

Hi, I was wondering if MSI MX440-T8X would work on an old agp 1.0 slot, i know 4x cards should (though not sure), but this one is 4x/8x. Thanks you a lot

It could work 4x without 8x.

MX440-T8X AGP Enable?

When I click on the MSI information tab in the display properties, the AGP Traffic Enable check box is unchecked. In fact all the check boxes in the AGP information area are unchecked. How do I enable AGP support for the Video card?

You need to install the chipset drivers for your motherboard, and then should reinstall the VGA drivers.

Agp setting

i have a msi 694t pro motherboard and just bought a G4mx 420 video card. both of them support 4x agp mode. so i set it to 4x in the bios but then i went into the display properties to set it to 4x and it wont let me for some reason.

The Apollo Pro 133A and the Apollo Pro 133T both use the VT82C596B South Bridge Chip. That is the Chip that controls the AGP. It was a problem in 1999 and it is a problem now.
Take a look at what Anandtech had to say in 1999.
Quote
As a purely gaming solution, the Apollo Pro Plus 133A isn't what we hoped it would be. The AGP performance tests indicate that VIA's AGP 4X implementation is around 30% slower than Intel's AGP 4X implementation on the i820. But wait a minute, isn't everyone always saying how big of a joke AGP is? The fact of the matter is that AGP still isn't used intensely during today's games and the AGP texturing benchmarks Intel supplied us with are exaggerations of what actual gameplay would involve, simply to illustrate the performance potential AGP 4X offers over AGP 2X.
In the future this may very well change and gamers may begin to truly notice a performance increase on AGP 4X platforms versus AGP 2X platforms. But as time goes on, the amount of local memory on video cards will definitely increase, with most boards shipping with 32MB now and the trend towards 64MB+ in the future, will we ever really become dependent on AGP?
Chances are that we won't, and VIA's slower AGP implementation will mean that only the slow points in games take the performance hit, when textures are already being sent over the AGP bus. So, instead of having a range of frame rates from 30 fps to 90 fps, the lower end of that range would drop to 20 fps.
Take Care,
Richard

AGP Support KT3 Ultra2 + WinXP

I'm using an ATI Radeon9700 Pro with WinXP and a KT3 Ultra2 Mobo (Athlon XP 2100+).
If I look at the video card properties it's listed as running on PCI Bus 1, not the AGP Bus.
I went to the ATI Website and found the following information:
Not only do you need display drivers for an AGP graphics card, you also need drivers for your motherboard which enable AGP functionality for the motherboard chipset.
These drivers may be referred to using any of the following names:
AGP Driver
AGP Miniport
AGP VXD Driver
Chipset Driver
GART Driver
VGART
Often you will see the name of a motherboard chipset in connection with these terms. For example:
ALi GART Driver
AMD AGP Miniport
Intel VGART
VIA AGP Driver
I've installed the latest VIA 4 in 1 driver, but the card still shows up on the PCI Bus.
Is there something else I need to do to get full AGP performance from the card?
Any help would really be appreciated !
Thanks,
Joe

make it an agpx4 video card
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/service/forum/index.php?threadid=10477&boardid=13&styleid=&page=1#2
now im just wondering here its not a tried thing
but some agpx8 board users have found it means they can run it agp x 4 but had trouble agp x 8
i wonder if the mod would make it work agp for you
its only tiny bits of selotape

GF4 MX440 T8X still not working

So here it goes again. Maybe you remember my problem with the above not working. Meanwhile I bought a new PSU (Enermax) with 350W (185W combined) and 33A 3.3V.
My system: Elitegroup ECS P4VXASD (VIA P4266, Socket 423), Intel P4 @ 1.4GHz and 256MB SDRAM
The VGA probably gets recognized by the MB as after turning on the power I do not get a VGA missing signal (short beeps), however, there is no video signal and the system stops booting. I also tried the MB manufacturer's forum and I saw that some people had the same problems as me even with Radeon based VGA cards but their questions remain unanswered. Could there be a VGA vs MB incopatibility problem?

Hmm... you got a point on the latter question..
Well..
1. Live Update 2 came with your GF4MX440 T8X card, within the driver's CD, assuming the whole package is retail. If it's not in there, search through the other CDs.
2. Well... try your video card in a friend's computer. If the card itself is in perfect working order, then try updating the VGA BIOS from there.

Low benchmarking score...unusual!

I just recently got my system working again, because my i865PE Neo2-S mobo died about 2 weeks after I bought it. Just after I bought it I ran 3DMark03 and I got a score of 3361 (which is not bad) with all the settings on default, HT enabled, and memory runing in dual channel. I ran 3DMark03 again last night with all the same settings again and I got a score of 1276 (however this time I ran 3DMark03 with the latest patch). I have no idea why I my score is half of what it was earlier as nothing has changed. My RAM timing settings are: 3-3-3-8 (as set by BIOS default). I thought of reverting back to BIOS v1.3 but I don't see how BIOS can affect the system's performance, AGP performance in particular. By the way I have the latest ATi drivers and everything else is up to date. I even have extra fan in my case.
If there is anything anyone can suggest it would be very much appreciated.

Pls run DXDIAG vom the Command Line. Jump to the Help Tab and click on the Last Option. Now enter manually the highest Refresh Rate your Monitor supports under the current resolution. Maybe you experience the well known ATI-60 Hz Bug. I had the same problems. To check InScore Framerates run the Tool FRAPS
http://www.fraps.com/
which tells you the Realtime Framrate in DirectX Apps. If you see that your Framerate is somehow fixed to 60Hz in some tests you should check the solution above or go to your Driver-Monitor-Tab and disable the option there (ASUS 9800XT won't show this feature in the ATI Driver Tab!)
You can also change this value if you go to the registry under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/ATI TECHNOLOGIES/DESKTOP and change the key DXOVERRIDE to the Hz Value you want. In a Subtree under Desktop you will also find 2 x EnableDxOverride (One for every Monitor). Change this value to 1.
Hope that helps.
Digit
from Germany

__**MY**__ SCP fix for Audigy 2 + Sempron and VIA chip

Hello all,
I've read most of the gigantic threads about SCP, tried many fixes, messed with a lot of settings and here's what fixed:
- Uninstall all programs and drivers for your soundcard (kX, CL, etc). Remeber to remove programs from "Add & Remove Programs" and uninstall your soundcard in Device Manager. I've used Driver Cleaner Pro from DriverHeaven to remove all trails of old drivers as well.
2 - Reboot. In BIOS, i've messed with delay PCI transaction, AGP fast write, AGP performance, PCI timing thing... and never made any difference. Right now i'm running PCI delay transaction DISABLED and PCI timing value 64.
3 - Boot into Win (using XP, dunno about Vista). Click cancel when it prompt to install the soundcard. If it automaticly installs the soundcard, uninstall it and make sure it stays dead.
4 - Install the latest kX package and drivers, currently 3538m (http://www.driverheaven.net/general-discussion/2897-3538m-released-5.html). I've only installed the required modules. Check each module description and it will tell you what's required.
5 - Probably reboot again here
6 - Back to Win, go into Control Panel > Sound and Audio Devices. In the audio and voice tabs, select the Wave __HQ__ for all devices except for 'midi music playback'.
Ok, so now, with a little bit of luck, SCP should be gone. If not, reboot and verify. I get a crack or a pop once in a while, but omg it was much worse. I have no idea why some settings make SCP worse and others aliviate the issue.
I'm sure a clear statement from someone that knows what's going on with the hardware itself is still missing. Anyway, feel free to include some _REAL_ and _DECENT_ info to this thread.
Regards,
mksm

It sounds like the driver installation is corrupt. Try uninstalling all your Creative software and then reinstalling it from the CD. The 5. option should reappear. Then you should be able to upgrade to the latest version via the web update.

Very Low 3dMark2001 score w/ MSI GeForce4 MX440SE-T

HELP!!
My System:
AMD Athlon xp 2000+
ASUS A7V333
256 DDR 333MHz Kingston RAM(Latency 2.5)
(MS-8878)MSI Geforce4 MX440SE-T
And With that system I am getting very low scores about 4070 at 3Dmark2001 SE! It seems to me impossible, it is near to my old Geforce 2MX.
I think there is some problem with my configuration, but yet I couldn't find anything.I tried alot of things, checked all drivers they are all up to date.(Via 4in1 drives:latest hyperion thing,NVidia WHQL certf. 40.72. etc..)I enabled fast write, enhanced agp performance control from bios and eveything I know from display settings i.e. Antialiasing disabled, d3d tweaked and still the problem persists.
I need someone who can help me under these hard and strange conditions.. ?(

I have to agree with sqersch, I've run at 60 mhz and got way more than 60 fps, refresh rate doesn't have alot to do with card performance. Sure you get a fps boost when you increase the refresh rate but nothing significant and it certainly doesn't "cap" the frame rate, it can just improve it slightly. Besides about the only thing you would want to increase the refresh rate for is so that it would be easier on the eyes, (less flicker). As for the guy complaining about his benchmark, what exactly do you expect to get with an mx version of a geforce 4? I'm not saying that score isn't wrong, just wondering what score you hope to achieve with an mx card.
Geforce system specs:
Msi Kt3 Ultra 2-R with amd athlon xp 2200+ (overclocked to 1.98)
Msi geforce 4 ti4200 128 mb (overclocked to 300/590)
512 mb ddr @333mhz
Ac97 advance audio (crappy gotta get audigy!!!)
3com 10/100 netcard
Volcano 9 smartfan 2
4X 3.5" case fan
windows xp pro sp1

KT880 Slow 2D Performance with Leadtek 6600GT AGP

Issues:
2D speed is so slow I can see the background color of most websites as the content is "drawn" line by line over top.
Mouse scrolling causes the screen to fragment slightly
The odd time on a cold boot (system off over 10-20 minutes minimum) I get a beep code of 2 long, and 5 to 7 short. I say five to seven as every time it happens it catches me just as I am walking out of the room.
Fixes Attempted:
Multiple clean installation of W2K using various combination of Leadtek/VIA Hyperion/Nvidia drivers
Different BIOS options selected (Fastwrite on/off, AGP aperature 64/128/256, FSB 1:1)
Tests Performed:
Memtest 95+ ran it all day while I was at work
3DMark2005 run multiple times
Vulcan3D run all day while at work
PCPitstop 2D test reports ~42MP/s (compare this to onboard SiS video at work which is 121.85 MP/s)
I have read the information about PSU issues up top, and I am leaning towards trying this next.
My current rig is:
MSI KT880 Delta-FSR (VIA 5.04 Hyperion installed)
Leadtek 6600GT 128MB (78.05 forceware beta installed w/DirectX 9.0C)
AthlonXP 2800+
1GB Micron RAM (PC2100)
30GB IBM (DTLA 307030) + 120GB WD (WD1200JB)
NEC DVD-RW (ND-2510A)
Soundblaster Live! 5.1 (Most recent drivers)
Onboard Gigabyte LAN (Most recent drivers downloaded from Microsoft Website)
Windows 2000 (Clean installed with SP4 and all critical updates)
Power supply: Vantec ION 400B (400W / +3.3V 26A / +5V 30A / +12V 16A)
Now I have seen that 18A should be minimum on the 12V rail, but I have some questions about that. What about a dual rail powersupply like the Enermax EG475P? It has +16A on 12V1 and +15 on 12V2 - would that be enough power?
The other power supply I am looking at is the Vantec ION2 460N which has specs of: 460W / +3.3V 28A / +5V 30A / +12V 30A
Unfortunately due to cost, and local availability these really are my only two options that look like they might fit the bill.
I am really crossing my fingers that a PSU upgrade will solve my 2D issues as I could not get this card to work properly in 3D in an older system. Now it works awesome in 3D, but 2D is so slow I can watch the screen "wipe" in Internet Explorer.
Dave

Quote from: osnavi on 10-November-05, 04:28:59
"...I am just wondering could that account for the 2D speed being so slow?..." Question answered in my last post: First..memory. 2nd PSU.
I apologize about seeming like I was ignoring you - I posted at the same time as you, and did not mean to ignore your recommendations. In any case I tried something that fixed it... and also ends up I may not have had to buy a PSU. Although it will not hurt in resurrecting my old system for a backup computer. In the BIOS for my system there is an option "Vlink 8X Supported". I set this to disabled on a whim because I recall that was what the default was in my BIOS (only changed it because the manual showed it as enabled), and now my system is running 8X faster than it was in 2D. I still plan to upgrade the memory, but from what I can see I will have to do it fast as only one vendor around here is still carrying it when they all had it last week.
I intend to install the new PSU this weekend as I know that earlier this week I did find that as a recommendation for the beep codes I get on startup. I could swear it was on this board that I found that information, but cannot seem to find it using Google at all anymore.

KM2M and MX440-T8X (problem with AGP)

Hi every one,
I'm new to the forum... from Chile.
I recently bought a KM2M motherboard and I read in the User's Manual that the AGP port goes from 2X to 4X... BUT... if you connect to it a 8X video card with correct drivers, it would run at 8X (KM2M Quick User's Guide pg. 3-14).
So, I bought a MX440-T8X (MSI 8935)... but the AGP port runs only at 4X!!!!
I installed all the drivers properly and updated them at MSI homepage.
What else can I do??? Has anyone suffer the same problem???
Thanks in advance !!!
Greetings.

i dout you will not get any were
i bet you
if they had 8x agp on the box or website you might
any way as im finding you will have to argue with the dealer first
least ways thats how it is were i live
as your contracts with him
also i just read the manual
your wasting my time
page 2.25 is quite clear agpx4
as is summary page 1.2
the onboard vga is called a savage 8
thats all i can see re 8
but thats nothing to do with the vga slot

Any performance difference between these two 6600gt agp cards?

Is there any performance or spec differences between the two 6600GT AGP cards: NX6600GT-VTD128 and NX6600GT-VTD128SP ?
Only difference I see is one comes with Riddick and one with XIII. If there's no difference, which game is better? :p
Also are there any big known bugs with this card? I'm currently running an AMD XP2800 on a MSI K7N2 mobo.

Pipo,
The difference is in the Memory Speed. 900Mhz vs 1000Mhz on the SP.
Take Care,
Richard

Can I use Intel 815EP AGP 4X Pentium and plug in 5 Nos NI 6002 PCI counter Timer cards, instead of going for expensive PXI based solution? Hope there will be no degradation in performance - when used for constructing an Energy Meter test Bench.

I was recommended to buy NI 6002 with PXI series, 5 Nos cards($875x 5 nos), and additionally a PXI rack costing about $ 2195 + some min--- card to interface with the computer costing another $ 875. Compare this with $ 675 x 5 Nos for 5 Nos PCI based NI 6002 + some cablesa nd connectors for synchronisation.
First option is extremely expensive. But NI marketin manager will be glad that he sold more harware. But I want the truth. Why can't Intel 815 Pentium board be used?

I am addressing the question if using PCI-6602s instead of using PXI-6602s will affect the performance, and the answer is NO. 6602 counter/timer devices comes in two different form factors, PXI/Compac PCI and PCI. The accuracy and performance is the same for both the PXI and PCI 6602s. However, using PXI solution will allow users an easier time with synchronization since that is the provided in the backplane of the PXI chassis. Additionally, if you ever need a higher accuracy solution you can add the 6608 device which has 75 parts per billion ppb vs 50 ppm of the 6602 devices. With 6608 plugged in the second slot of the PXI chassis (the one next to the controller), the high accuracy timebase is automatically shared acrossed the backplane of the PXI chassis which mean
s that other 6602 devices in the chassis will share the same accuracy of the 6608. If the difference in the accuracy is not a concern and you are currently not ready to invest in the PXI platform, then you can go with the PCI 6602 devices.
Best Regards,
June Zhu
National Instruments
Digital and Timing Product Support Engineer

GF4MX440-T8X AGP Performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for