• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

ASUS GeForce GT 440 1 GB

Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
6,388 (1.02/day)
Location
Whatever my internet protocol shows I guess O.o
System Name Lynni The Dark Hero
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Motherboard ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 Chromax.Black
Memory Geil Dragon 4x8GB@3000mhz 15-17-17-35 (GWW416GB3000C15DC)
Video Card(s) PowerColor RX 6800 XT Red Devil 2400/2000MHz@1.050V | Sapphire Radeon RX 590 Nitro+ Special Edition
Storage OS/Games:Gigabyte M30 1TB|Sabrent Rocket 2TB|Data: 850EVO 1TB, 1xExos 16TB 1, 1xWD 10TB & WD 1TB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 27GP850-B 1440p@165Hz | LG 55UK6100PLB IPS 4K HDR | LG 48CX OLED 4K HDR
Case Fractal Design Meshify 2 Tempered Glass White/Black
Audio Device(s) Steelseries Arctis Pro Wireless
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200 watt 80Plus Platinum
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeedy Wireless
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Chroma X UK
Software Win11 Pro 21H2 UK (Build 22000.832)
Benchmark Scores Not benchmarking anymore only Gaming. GPU-Z: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/details/3dq6f
srsly sry but i need to lol here, bcs the original GT440 is build on the GF106 gpu and has 144 Cuda cores and 24 ROPs for OEM marked and the other build on GF108 only has 96 Cuda core and 4 ROPs what about a test vs. the two of them, but srsly i would luv to get GT440 OEM more than the others non-OEM bcs they are better specs.... :twitch:
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
297 (0.07/day)
Processor AMD Phenom II X4 945
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-880GM-UD2H
Memory 6gb DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon HD6870
Storage Seagate 1tb
Display(s) Acer AL2216W
Case Generic
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Ultra LS-550
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.

There WILL be a performance hit by moving the cards to the slower PCIe spec slots even if the cards are slow to begin with. Think about it, you're taking a card that already runs slow in an x16 slot and now you're choking off the bandwith it has access to by putting it in a slower slot. Just because a card isn't good for gaming doesn't mean it's not utilizing the available bandwith of the slot that it sits in. NIC's and RAID controllers can operate at peak capacity in slower slots which is why the industry uses those slots for those things and leaves the PCIe x16 slots for video which needs the additional bandwith.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
4,756 (0.81/day)
Location
Hong Kong
Processor Core i7-12700k
Motherboard Z690 Aero G D4
Cooling Custom loop water, 3x 420 Rad
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 2080 Ti
Storage Plextor M10P 2TB
Display(s) Samsung C27HG70
Case Thermaltake Level 20 XT
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster AE-5 Plus
Power Supply FSP Aurum PT 1200W
Software Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
There WILL be a performance hit by moving the cards to the slower PCIe spec slots even if the cards are slow to begin with. Think about it, you're taking a card that already runs slow in an x16 slot and now you're choking off the bandwith it has access to by putting it in a slower slot. Just because a card isn't good for gaming doesn't mean it's not utilizing the available bandwith of the slot that it sits in. NIC's and RAID controllers can operate at peak capacity in slower slots which is why the industry uses those slots for those things and leaves the PCIe x16 slots for video which needs the additional bandwith.
FYI.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI-Express_Scaling/25.html
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
2,602 (0.51/day)
System Name Dire Wolf III
Processor Intel Core i7 1165G7 (25W)
Motherboard LENOVO LNVNB161216
Memory 40GB DDR4 3200Mhz
Video Card(s) Palit Game Rock GTX1080Ti (eGPU: AKiTiO Node Pro), Intel Iris Xe (iGPU)
Storage SK Hynix 512GB NVMe + Kioxia 256GB NVMe
Display(s) LG 29WK600-W (29", 2560x1080, 75Hz)
Case Lenovo ThinkBook 14s ITL
Audio Device(s) Musiland Monitor 02 US, Tin Audio T2 Pro IEM
Power Supply Corsair SF600 in the Node Pro
Mouse Razer Deathadder Essential White
Keyboard Drevo GRAMR 84
Software Windows 10 Professional
There WILL be a performance hit by moving the cards to the slower PCIe spec slots even if the cards are slow to begin with. Think about it, you're taking a card that already runs slow in an x16 slot and now you're choking off the bandwith it has access to by putting it in a slower slot. Just because a card isn't good for gaming doesn't mean it's not utilizing the available bandwith of the slot that it sits in. NIC's and RAID controllers can operate at peak capacity in slower slots which is why the industry uses those slots for those things and leaves the PCIe x16 slots for video which needs the additional bandwith.

You are making the (false) assumption that it is the PCIe bandwidth that makes the cards slow in the first place. It doesn't. Reducing the bandwidth only affects performance if the bandwidth was being used up in the first place. The reality of the situation is that it doesn't.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
1,497 (0.23/day)
Location
Maribor, Slovenia
System Name i9 rig
Processor Core i9 10900X
Motherboard Asus Prime X299 Edition 30
Cooling Corsair H115i PRO RGB
Memory Gskill 4x8GB 3600MHz
Video Card(s) Asus ROG Strix RTX 2080 Super
Storage Samsung 970 PRO 1tb
Display(s) Dell UltraSharp UP3017
Case Coolermaster mastercase H500M
Audio Device(s) Onboard sound
Power Supply Enermax Platimax
Software Windows 11 PRO
looks like it .. i'll rebench and fix asap

HD 5450 is still the fastest card? wtf



HD 5450 gets more FPS at higher resolutions:laugh:
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,335 (0.71/day)
System Name Dark Stealth
Processor Ryzen 5 1600
Motherboard Gigabyte B450M Gaming
Cooling Snowman dual fan
Memory 16x2 DDR4 Corsair Dominator Pro
Video Card(s) RX 580 4GB
Storage 1TB SSD, 1TB HDD
Display(s) Omen 25"
Case Zalman S2
Power Supply Corsair 750TX
Mouse Razer DeathAdder v1.0
Keyboard Logitech EX100
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores Maybe it is time to benchmark :D
5970 should be the worst card ever than :p
 

Over_Lord

News Editor
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
764 (0.17/day)
Location
Hyderabad
System Name BAH! - - tHE ECo FReAK
Processor Athlon II X4 620 @ 1.15V
Motherboard ASUS 785G EVO
Cooling Stock
Memory Corsair Titanium 4GB DDR3 1600MHz C9
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD5850 @ 1.049v
Storage Seagate 7200.12 500GB
Display(s) BenQ G2220HD
Case Cooler Master Elite 334
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair VX550W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate x64
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.



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.

Yep the HD5750 is actually a brilliant card, overclocks very very well, stock cards especially(voltage killing) and is priced very very low...
If there was a cheaper HD5750 512MB version it would trump HD5670 for bang for buck prize..

On the other note... anybody giving away an 8800GT for free(folding)?? lol
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
1,226 (0.24/day)
Location
The Netherlands
System Name Silent allround
Processor i5 750 @ 3,0Ghz 1.04v / 3.4Ghz 1.11v/ 3,6Ghz 1.15v
Motherboard Gigabyte P55-USB3
Cooling Thermalright IFX-14 + Scythe Slip Stream 140mm @ 600RPM
Memory 2 x 4GB Samsung M378B5273DH0-CH9 @ 2000 MHz 9-10-10-27 T1
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 5870 Vapor-X @ 940/1270
Storage Intel Postville 80GB SSD & Western Digital Green 2TB
Display(s) Dell Ultrasharp U2412M
Case Bitfenix Merc Alpha
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2 with Unified Drivers
Power Supply Nexus NX-5000 R3 530W
Software Windows 7 Home Premium x64
Benchmark Scores Super pi 1M : 8,549s @ 4,7Ghz (Core i7 920)
So it's slower than de GT 240? Thank god I just bought mine and I was like ; wth I should've wait a few more weeks lol.





GT 240 GDDR5 :toast:
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
721 (0.11/day)
Location
Scotland
Processor AMD 3700X
Motherboard MSI P55-GD80
Cooling Fractal Design Celsius S24
Memory 2x16gb Crucial e-die 3000MHZ
Video Card(s) MSI 3070 Trio
Display(s) Lenovo G27Q-20
Case Phantec P400
Audio Device(s) GSP370
Power Supply EVGA G3 750W
Mouse Corsair Harpoon Pro
VR HMD Rift
You are making the (false) assumption that it is the PCIe bandwidth that makes the cards slow in the first place. It doesn't. Reducing the bandwidth only affects performance if the bandwidth was being used up in the first place. The reality of the situation is that it doesn't.

Helps if you have evidence to back up your blanket statements... :shadedshu

Why do you think consoles perform so well? Oh that's right, much more bandwidth available between the cpu + ram and gpu.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
2,602 (0.51/day)
System Name Dire Wolf III
Processor Intel Core i7 1165G7 (25W)
Motherboard LENOVO LNVNB161216
Memory 40GB DDR4 3200Mhz
Video Card(s) Palit Game Rock GTX1080Ti (eGPU: AKiTiO Node Pro), Intel Iris Xe (iGPU)
Storage SK Hynix 512GB NVMe + Kioxia 256GB NVMe
Display(s) LG 29WK600-W (29", 2560x1080, 75Hz)
Case Lenovo ThinkBook 14s ITL
Audio Device(s) Musiland Monitor 02 US, Tin Audio T2 Pro IEM
Power Supply Corsair SF600 in the Node Pro
Mouse Razer Deathadder Essential White
Keyboard Drevo GRAMR 84
Software Windows 10 Professional
Helps if you have evidence to back up your blanket statements... :shadedshu

Why do you think consoles perform so well? Oh that's right, much more bandwidth available between the cpu + ram and gpu.

The evidence has been posted above by another user already: The HD5870 loses an average 5% of its performance running across a PCIe 2.0 x4 link. A slower card takes more time to process information, and thus its need to be fed by information is lower, meaning that its performance loss is less than 5%, and quite negligible at that point.

I have a PS3, so I'll use it as an example: The PS3 has far inferior GPU memory bandwidth compared to just about any modern video card above the 60$ price point, achieving 22GB/sec to its own GDDR3 memory and <= 20GB/sec to the XDR memory (Worse than a HD4670, actually). Which is not surprising, considering how outdated its GPU actually is. The amount of memory in a PS3 is also tiny.

All in all, a PS3 is hopelessly outmatched by a half-decent PC in anything except ease of use (and the subject of exclusives, which have nothing to do with a HW argument) for gaming purposes, so saying that it "performs so well" is simply false.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,898 (1.97/day)
Location
Essex, England
System Name My pc
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus Rog b450-f
Cooling Cooler master 120mm aio
Memory 16gb ddr4 3200mhz
Video Card(s) MSI Ventus 3x 3070
Storage 2tb intel nvme and 2tb generic ssd
Display(s) Generic dell 1080p overclocked to 75hz
Case Phanteks enthoo
Power Supply 650w of borderline fire hazard
Mouse Some wierd Chinese vertical mouse
Keyboard Generic mechanical keyboard
Software Windows ten
Helps if you have evidence to back up your blanket statements... :shadedshu

Why do you think consoles perform so well? Oh that's right, much more bandwidth available between the cpu + ram and gpu.

Perform so well?

I thought they performed badly hence using much lower resolutions and then upscaling them.

Vsyncing video to 25 or 30fps.

Oh and lets not forget in terms of G-flops etc they're pants.

They're consoles not pcs (read here, electronic toy) they're not supposed to be the bees knees and they arnt.






I can run my 6870 in a x4 slot and get barely any performance hit. And you talking about a low end card that does not use all bandwidth being bottlenecked.



I've seen pci-e scaling reviews on other sites too, they all state the same, makes hardly any difference.

I've seen people mod low end pci-e x16 cards to fit in x1 slots with no bottleneck XD
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
43,753 (7.99/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Helps if you have evidence to back up your blanket statements... :shadedshu

Why do you think consoles perform so well? Oh that's right, much more bandwidth available between the cpu + ram and gpu.

No, it's because today's consoles run at 1280x720 (entry-level for PC gaming), and with much tighter geometry/texture/shader data.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
4,686 (0.88/day)
System Name Obelisc
Processor i7 3770k @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling H110
Memory 16GB(4x4) @ 2400 MHz 9-11-11-31
Video Card(s) GTX 780 Ti
Storage 850 EVO 1TB, 2x 5TB Toshiba
Case T81
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply EVGA 850 T2 80+ TITANIUM
Software Win10 64bit
This mean wow is back in for future card reviews or is it being relegated to the low end?
 

danipisika

New Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
1 (0.00/day)
can you please explain me how come gt 440 that has ddr5(so much more bandwidth) and higher clocks than gt 430(only dddr3).... can score quite the same as gt 430 ??? :banghead: (i thought this card will beat also the gt 240....:banghead:)
 

MxPhenom 216

ASIC Engineer
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
12,876 (2.91/day)
Location
Longmont, CO
System Name Ryzen Reflection
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900x
Motherboard Gigabyte X570S Aorus Master
Cooling 2x EK PE360 | TechN AM4 AMD Block Black | EK Quantum Vector Trinity GPU Nickel + Plexi
Memory Teamgroup T-Force Xtreem 2x16GB B-Die 3600 @ 14-14-14-28-42-288-2T 1.45v
Video Card(s) Zotac AMP HoloBlack RTX 3080Ti 12G | 950mV 1950Mhz
Storage WD SN850 500GB (OS) | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB (Games1) | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB ( Games2)
Display(s) Asus XG27AQM 240Hz G-Sync Fast-IPS | Asus VG27AQL1A TUF 144hz IPS| Asus VP249QGR 144Hz IPS
Case Lian Li PC-011D XL | Custom cables by Cablemodz
Audio Device(s) Beyerdynamic TYGR 300R + Beyerdynamic FOX Mic
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum 850
Mouse Razer Viper
Keyboard Razer Huntsman Tournament Edition
Software Windows 11 Pro 64-Bit
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
721 (0.11/day)
Location
Scotland
Processor AMD 3700X
Motherboard MSI P55-GD80
Cooling Fractal Design Celsius S24
Memory 2x16gb Crucial e-die 3000MHZ
Video Card(s) MSI 3070 Trio
Display(s) Lenovo G27Q-20
Case Phantec P400
Audio Device(s) GSP370
Power Supply EVGA G3 750W
Mouse Corsair Harpoon Pro
VR HMD Rift
No, it's because today's consoles run at 1280x720 (entry-level for PC gaming), and with much tighter geometry/texture/shader data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'


# Cell FlexIO bus interface

* 20 GB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory
* 15 GB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory

# Floating Point Operations: 400.4 Gigaflops per second ((24 * 27 Flops + 8 * 10 Flops) * 550)

Not bad for something designed back in 2003/2006.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
346 (0.07/day)
Location
Valencia, Venezuela
System Name Tropicaliente | Digger | A515-43-R19L
Processor FX-6300 | Q6600 | R3 3200U
Motherboard ASRock 970 Extreme 4 | Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 | Grumpy_PK
Cooling EVGA CLC120 | OCZ Vendetta | Stock
Memory 16GB DDR3-1600 | 8GB DDR3-1333 | 16GB DDR4-2666
Video Card(s) PowerColor RX-570 4GB Red Dragon | HIS HD5670 1GB IceQ | Vega 3
Storage 256GB SSD (OS) + 512GB SSD (Games) + 500GB + 2TB + 4TB | 80GB + 320GB | 128GB NVME + 512GB SSD
Display(s) Asus VN247H-P | KVM USB Switch | 15.6" FHD
Case Antec ONE | Generic Black
Audio Device(s) on board + Logitech Z623 | on board | on board
Power Supply Cooler Master GX-650 | Antec VP-450 | Powerbrick ac/dc
Mouse MS Wired Desktop 600
Keyboard MS Wired Desktop 600
Software Win 10 x64 Pro | XCP-ng 8.1: XOA, pfSense, RouterOS, FreeNAS, Zabbix | Win 10 x64 Home
at low low resolutions a HD5670 is fine for gaming
I agree. I have a HD5670 and runs almost everything good, decent playable (30-40fps) with high settings and 4xAA at 1400x900.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,671 (4.67/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores || Into the Blue
Processor 2990WX || 5960X
Motherboard Asrock X399M || Asus X99M WS
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL || TBD
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL16 || EVGA 3200 2x8GB
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's || EVGA 1080Ti FE
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB || OCZ Vector 180 480GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz || TBD
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal || Supermicro S5 (GS5A-753K)
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w || Seasonic Snow Silent 750w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller || TBD
Keyboard Thermaltake Poseidon ZX, Steam controller || Corsair K70
Software W10P || W10P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'


# Cell FlexIO bus interface

* 20 GB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory
* 15 GB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory

# Floating Point Operations: 400.4 Gigaflops per second ((24 * 27 Flops + 8 * 10 Flops) * 550)

Not bad for something designed back in 2003/2006.

That number is a load of crap and still doesn't make up for consoles pushing 720p and the equald of medium/low pc settings the ps3 has a 7800gtx in it not exactly highend gaming anymore
 

Oxford

New Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
26 (0.01/day)
This card is crap, from a competition standpoint.

Right now, on Amazon, it's going for over $100.

The Galaxy 460 768 has been seen for around $90 AR a number of times now.

Even at regular pricing, this card has no reason to exist. The 5670 is a superior card in every respect.

I don't see why a product that has no reason to be brought to market would get an 8.0 score. Anandtech's review was pretty clear about the 430 specs not being designed for gaming. 4 ROPs! Yet, Nvidia evidently thinks it can sucker people into thinking it's adequate gaming card by giving it faster memory. It's a bad design for gaming, inefficient as heck. It even makes the 480 look better in performance per watt.
 

Oxford

New Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
26 (0.01/day)
It really pisses me off that I'm unemployed and jokers come up with garbage like this and bring it to market. Maybe some marketeer did some research and found that fanbois and noobs are dumb enough to buy a product like this and recycling the lame 430 (which probably wasn't selling all that well) is a good use of surplus product. So maybe I'm naive for thinking a product should actually be competitive and well-engineered in order to be produced and sold. The 430 had a reason to exist, however tenuous, so it seems that the only reason the 440 exists is to try to sell the unused chips at a premium to gudgeons.

This product should be priced to be competitive with the 5670 AR deals. It should be cheaper than those deals, with no rebate. If that's not practical, then a better design should be produced and the 108 should be relegated to OEMs until it runs out. If Nvidia thinks fanboi loyalty is going to help its bottom line, it should do things to encourage that sentiment, like release compelling products.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,199 (0.52/day)
Location
So. Cal.
What you Left Out Paints the Real Picture Beneath

I didn't like that there are power consumption for a GT240, but then none for GTS 450.. Then we go to performance and no GT240 numbers, but now GTS 450 appears.

It all a little suspect picking and choosing what to show especially when all running right in the same grouping. Wiz if you don't have comparative data then run it... when it pertinent to painting the market segment. Not having GT 240 DDR5 is shady, if you need to run new B-M for that card you should have.


While while this GT440 must have been "powerful enough for full HD resolutions" but you never mentioned that, or has that only become a requirement in the late month and a half? :shadedshu
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
18 (0.00/day)
Location
UK
System Name ++CUSTOM BUILT MAR. '14++
Processor Intel Core i7 4930K @4.6GHz (EK Supremacy Elite 2011 block)
Motherboard Asus Rampage IV Black Edition (EK-FB KIT block)
Cooling x16 120mm PL2 fans on x2 EK 480 XT rads - two 140mm beQuiet case fans
Memory 32GB Avexir Green LED 2133MHz 1.65v (9-11-10-28 1)
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 780 Ti Classified modded BIOS (EK 780 block)
Storage 2x Samsung 840 PRO 512GB SSD (RAID0) + 2x Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD
Display(s) BenQ XL2420T 144Hz 1ms + Dell 24" UltraSharp U2410 REVA02 + Asus 22" MW221u
Case Corsair 900D
Audio Device(s) Asus ROG Xonar Phoebus
Power Supply SuperFlower Leadex Platinum 1200W Fully Modular 80+ Platinum
Software OS: Window 8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores needs to be updated for new system: 3DMark (2013): Firestrike http://www.3dmark.com/fs/477697
I might as well overclock my GT 430 (that I currently run as a PhysX card) to a GT 440. :laugh:

I have the 8800GTS still but due to that being dual-slot I can't fit it alongside my soundcard to use for PhysX. That meant buying the EVGA GT440 which is single-slot and works brilliantly for PhysX. Picked it up for 60 pounds new which is nothing.

Playing Mafia 2 @1920x1200 maxed out, bench score me average of 60fps with PhysX High. It's installed in my last PCIe slot (x4)GT440 bandwidth is 2GBps. Doubt there is a better Nvidia single-slot card out there.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
11,256 (1.82/day)
System Name MoFo 2
Processor AMD PhenomII 1100T @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair IV
Cooling Swiftec 655 pump, Apogee GT,, MCR360mm Rad, 1/2 loop.
Memory 8GB DDR3-2133 @ 1900 8.9.9.24 1T
Video Card(s) HD7970 1250/1750
Storage Agility 3 SSD 6TB RAID 0 on RAID Card
Display(s) 46" 1080P Toshiba LCD
Case Rosewill R6A34-BK modded (thanks to MKmods)
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Power Supply 750W PC Power & Cooling modded (thanks to MKmods)
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
I didn't like that there are power consumption for a GT240, but then none for GTS 450.. Then we go to performance and no GT240 numbers, but now GTS 450 appears.

It all a little suspect picking and choosing what to show especially when all running right in the same grouping. Wiz if you don't have comparative data then run it... when it pertinent to painting the market segment. Not having GT 240 DDR5 is shady, if you need to run new B-M for that card you should have.


While while this GT440 must have been "powerful enough for full HD resolutions" but you never mentioned that, or has that only become a requirement in the late month and a half? :shadedshu


Anyone with half a brain can see this is just a cheap shot by Nvidia to pick up on fanboi marketshare, anyone with a full brain will realize that certain cards have been benchmarked a few reviews ago and those numbers are used for certain comparisons. And just plain idiots will moan over market segment for cards that are just a waste of time when it already takes a week plus worth of work to get the data for a review.


Much like some low end high memory ATI cards, this one stinks of recycled crap to clear the shelves of old stock.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
2,199 (0.52/day)
Location
So. Cal.
^ - Steevo, Not sure why those with brains (half or full) can’t acknowledge lapses in pertinent data, or choose to just go oh-well.

Not providing such direct comparison means, older B-M with different CPU/chipsets and memory will slant any true value and the legitimacy. Not revealing the preceding model against the current in testing provides nothing or... conceal something.

I don't see the green team market groups release of this was done to compete, or for fanboi market share, just a “fill the hole” with a new number and hope no one notices it’s not competitive. And some may have folded, caved-in to aid in that deception.

Say it ain't so...
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
1,226 (0.24/day)
Location
The Netherlands
System Name Silent allround
Processor i5 750 @ 3,0Ghz 1.04v / 3.4Ghz 1.11v/ 3,6Ghz 1.15v
Motherboard Gigabyte P55-USB3
Cooling Thermalright IFX-14 + Scythe Slip Stream 140mm @ 600RPM
Memory 2 x 4GB Samsung M378B5273DH0-CH9 @ 2000 MHz 9-10-10-27 T1
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 5870 Vapor-X @ 940/1270
Storage Intel Postville 80GB SSD & Western Digital Green 2TB
Display(s) Dell Ultrasharp U2412M
Case Bitfenix Merc Alpha
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2 with Unified Drivers
Power Supply Nexus NX-5000 R3 530W
Software Windows 7 Home Premium x64
Benchmark Scores Super pi 1M : 8,549s @ 4,7Ghz (Core i7 920)
Anyone with half a brain can see this is just a cheap shot by Nvidia to pick up on fanboi marketshare, anyone with a full brain will realize that certain cards have been benchmarked a few reviews ago and those numbers are used for certain comparisons. And just plain idiots will moan over market segment for cards that are just a waste of time when it already takes a week plus worth of work to get the data for a review.


Much like some low end high memory ATI cards, this one stinks of recycled crap to clear the shelves of old stock.

What a narrow minded comment. If there wouldn't be a market for low end GPU's then why would they make it? for most consumers, non enthusiast, a low end card is all they need. Flash, games like Sims are perfectly playable, also low/green cards are being used for HTPC's.

I'm glad i have my GT 240. i can play MW2 on it, runs passively and hackintosh supports it. I don't need a 200-300$, maybe in the future :)
 
Top