ASUS GeForce GT 440 1 GB

[W1zzard]

To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GT_440/

[mtosev]

Nice price. Was expecting that the price would be <85EUR.

[mtosev]

BTW is this an error


HD 5450 fastest card?????

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by mtosev

is this an error

looks like it .. i'll rebench and fix asap

[yogurt_21]

card seems slower than the gt240 seems like asus should have stuck with 430 and added something edition wise instead.

[Frick]

Looks like the 8800GT I bought for €10 was well worth it, and still is!

[mtosev]

Originally Posted by Frick

Looks like the 8800GT I bought for €10 was well worth it, and still is!

oh. That GFX was free.

[Aleksander]

This card is crap

[Calle2003]

I might as well overclock my GT 430 (that I currently run as a PhysX card) to a GT 440.

[The Von Matrices]

The ASUS model is just a waste - why would you pay for 1GB of video memory and a slight overclock in a card of that performance class? I would think the 512MB GDDR5 Galaxy GT 440 (reference clocked) on Newegg for $84.99 is a much better deal and might approach the 5670 in performance per dollar.

[KainXS]

it costs more than a 5670
it uses more power than a 5670
its slower than a 5670

wtf

I hope your estimate is wrong wiz cause if it is this card is fail

[cdawall]

i wish there was like an old 9800GT on the performance chart just so i could see how the oldies compared...lol or a 8800 Ultra from back in the day

[Bot]

what is up with the OEM card?

[Semi-Lobster]

The 5670 is faster, cooler, and less expensive. Who would buy this!?

[ViperXTR]

this retail GT 440 doesnt look very appealing, the GT 440 OEM tho, looks interesting, specs wise...

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

This card is fail

[thunderising]

an overclocked GT430??? Why didnt nVidia just name this GT540??? banghead

[Yukikaze]

What I really want to know is why doesn't the GPU industry switch video cards in this price range to a PCIe x4 interface (and the lowest performing cards to PCIe x1). It has no effect on the performance of those cards, the PCBs will be cheaper (less copper), and every OTHER expansion slot industry is doing it constantly to put devices into smaller slots (especially things like NICs and RAID controllers). They will still work in all longer slots, and also fit into smaller secondary and tertiary slots.

[hardcore_gamer]

Anything less than a 5770 is not good for gaming

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by hardcore_gamer

Anything less than a 5770 is not good for gaming

Save for the 5750 maybe.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by hardcore_gamer

Anything less than a 5770 is not good for gaming

Depends. I had a 4670 and it kicked arse on 1280x1024. I had it until 8 months ago and it was good even then.

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by Yukikaze

What I really want to know is why doesn't the GPU industry switch video cards in this price range to a PCIe x4 interface

there are no cost savings. the little pcb and copper is not significant. you could design gpus with only x4 in mind but there would be so much drama, uncertainty "will it fit?" that it probably wouldnt work out

[damric]

Great Review. Pointless Card. AMD has the market locked up on the low power cards for HTPC. Nvidia doesn't really have anything competetive until the $120+ range, but they are looking really good in the high end segment.

Originally Posted by Zubasa

Save for the 5750 maybe.

Yeah my 5750 rocked. I had it clocked 960/1350 with a pencil mod I was scoring as high as stock 4890 in 3dmark. A buddy of mine had his crossfired at 1GHZ and scored 5k in 3dmark11, which is stock GTX 480 scores. Pretty good bang for buck I'd say.

[The Von Matrices]

Originally Posted by Yukikaze

What I really want to know is why doesn't the GPU industry switch video cards in this price range to a PCIe x4 interface (and the lowest performing cards to PCIe x1). It has no effect on the performance of those cards, the PCBs will be cheaper (less copper), and every OTHER expansion slot industry is doing it constantly to put devices into smaller slots (especially things like NICs and RAID controllers). They will still work in all longer slots, and also fit into smaller secondary and tertiary slots.

I could imagine this being any of four reasons:

1.) There may be a performance improvement in 1 obscure game at an insanely high resolution, which may rationalize the manufactures in making these for PCIe x16.

2.) The PCIe x16 slot provides much more mechanical strength to the card than a PCIe x1 slot, reducing breakage in systems that come pre-assembled and shipped with the card installed.

3.) Using a smaller slot will result in the uneducated putting the graphics card in the southbridge slots in motherboards, which will result in incompatibilities, possibly less performace, and definitely lots of tech support calls when systems do not boot/do not detect cards.

4.) Specialty PCIe x1 models can be produced and sold at an extraordinary price compared to standard models.

[sliderider]

Which AMD card are they marketing this against? You would think if they were going convolute things in the $100 and under segment they would at least create a card with better performance than the HD5670.

You can get a HD5770 for as little as $110 and get much better performance for your money.

You know, it really makes me wonder what this market segment is all about in the first place. No card available for $100 or less is going to give even passable gaming performance and if you just need a basic video card for business or an HTPC there are much cheaper alternatives available. If you have $100 for a video card and want to play games, there are much faster cards available used on ebay.