• 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
4,949 (1.03/day)
Likes
1,664
Location
Whatever my internet protocol shows I guess O.o
System Name Lynni and The Great White Dragon in Tempered Glass | Lynni-Stick
Processor Intel Core i7-8086K (Coffee Cups) | Intel Atom X5-Z8300 "Cherry Trail"
Motherboard ASRock Z370 Taichi (Bios: P3.20 Disabled Intel ME modded by R-T-B) | Intel Compute Stick board
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 LED | Fan xD
Memory Geil Dragon 2x8GB@3000mhz 15-17-17-35 (GWW416GB3000C15DC) | 2GB DDR3-L @ 1600mhz
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti FE "Pascal" Hybrid | Intel HD Graphics
Storage OS/Games:Samsung 960 EVO 250GB NVME|Samsung EVO 850 1TB SSD|Data:3xWD Red/Purple 4TB & WD SE 1TB
Display(s) Dell S2417DG 1440p@165hz G-Sync | Philips 50PFT4009/12
Case Phantek Eclipse P400 Black/White | Intel Compute Case
Audio Device(s) Audio-Technica A550Z @ Creative Sound Blaster Z (Retail) | Intel HD Audio
Power Supply Corsair SF600 | Generic Intel Power Adapter (3amp)
Mouse Logitech G502 | Logtech MK270 kit
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Chroma X UK | Logitech MK270 kit
Software Win10 Pro SCU UK x64 | Win10 Home SCU x86
Benchmark Scores 3DMark Skydrive @ 1440p: GS: 25188 / PS: 12238 / CS: 25308: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/11665249
#26
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
282 (0.09/day)
Likes
47
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
#27
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
4,095 (0.92/day)
Likes
545
Location
Hong Kong
Processor Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Motherboard X399 Fatal1ty Professional Gaming
Memory Team NightHawk 3600 4x8GB
Video Card(s) RX Vega 56
Storage Samsung 960 Evo 512GB 3-way Raid 0, Toshiba 8TB HDD
Display(s) Samsung C27HG70
Case Thermaltake Urban T81
Audio Device(s) Xonar Essence STX II
Power Supply FSP Aurum Pro 1000W
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
#28
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
2,494 (0.67/day)
Likes
639
Location
Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
System Name Dire Wolf II
Processor Intel Core i7 7820HQ (2.9Ghz, up to 3.9Ghz)
Motherboard HP 8275
Memory 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz
Video Card(s) Asus GTX980Ti Strix 6GB GDDR5 (eGPU: AKiTiO Node Pro), nVidia Quadro M1200 (GTX750Ti) 4GB GDDR5
Storage HP NVMe 256GB
Display(s) HP Z27q (5120x2880) + Dell P2715Q (3840x2160)
Case HP ZBook 15 G4
Audio Device(s) Musiland Monitor 02 US, Skullcandy SLYR
Power Supply 150W HP PSU (for Laptop) + Corsair SF600 in the Node Pro
Mouse Corsair M65 Pro / Logitech G400
Keyboard Corsair K95 RGB
Software Windows 10 Enterprise 64-bit
#29
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.
 

mtosev

New Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
1,462 (0.29/day)
Likes
146
Location
Maribor, Slovenia
Processor Core i7 930
Motherboard Asus P6X58D Premium
Memory 6gb SuperTalent WB200UX6G8
Video Card(s) xfx radeon hd 5970 black edition
Storage Intel X25-M 80
Display(s) Dell UltraSharp 2209wa
Case Haf 932
Audio Device(s) Integreted sound card
Software w7
#30
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
3,258 (1.00/day)
Likes
316
System Name Mercury KM-81
Processor Phenom II x4 B50
Motherboard ASUS M4A89GTD PRO
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper TX3
Memory 6GB Ram (4GBx1 Corsair 2GBx1 Nanya)
Video Card(s) PowerColor AX6770 V2.0
Storage 2TB WD Black, 1TB Hitachi, 500 GB WD Blue
Display(s) Philips 247E-LPH 24" 1920x1080
Case Mercury
Audio Device(s) Integrated Realtek
Power Supply Corsair 750TX
Software Windows 7 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Maybe it is time to benchmark :D
#31
5970 should be the worst card ever than :p
 

Over_Lord

News Editor
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
764 (0.26/day)
Likes
91
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
#32
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 (0.34/day)
Likes
148
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)
#33
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:
 

Gzero

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
718 (0.14/day)
Likes
52
Location
Scotland
Processor Intel i5 750
Motherboard MSI P55-GD80
Cooling Xigmatek S1283
Memory 4x2gb G.Skill DDR3 1600mhz 8-8-8-24 1t
Video Card(s) HIS 4870 512mb - powerplay modded
Storage Samsung F3 1TB
Display(s) Samsung LE40F86/Viewsonic vx2260wm
Case ThermalTake Tai Chi
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC 889
Power Supply Corsair TX 750W
#34
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
2,494 (0.67/day)
Likes
639
Location
Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
System Name Dire Wolf II
Processor Intel Core i7 7820HQ (2.9Ghz, up to 3.9Ghz)
Motherboard HP 8275
Memory 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz
Video Card(s) Asus GTX980Ti Strix 6GB GDDR5 (eGPU: AKiTiO Node Pro), nVidia Quadro M1200 (GTX750Ti) 4GB GDDR5
Storage HP NVMe 256GB
Display(s) HP Z27q (5120x2880) + Dell P2715Q (3840x2160)
Case HP ZBook 15 G4
Audio Device(s) Musiland Monitor 02 US, Skullcandy SLYR
Power Supply 150W HP PSU (for Laptop) + Corsair SF600 in the Node Pro
Mouse Corsair M65 Pro / Logitech G400
Keyboard Corsair K95 RGB
Software Windows 10 Enterprise 64-bit
#35
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
9,770 (2.71/day)
Likes
1,780
Location
Suffolk/Essex, England
System Name Joseph's Laptop Clevo P771ZM
Processor 4970k @4/4.4ghz
Motherboard *shrugs*
Cooling About 2 kilos of copper fins and pipes.
Memory 2x 8gb
Video Card(s) GTX 970m 6gb
Storage 500gb Msata SSD 2x 2TB storage drives
Display(s) Built in
Power Supply 300w power brick
Mouse Steam controller
Software Windows ten
#36
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
35,895 (8.85/day)
Likes
18,346
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name Dronacharya
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Colorful iGame GTX 1070 Ti Vulcan X
Storage Crucial MX500 500GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590 28-inch 4K UHD
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Antec EarthWatts Pro Gold 750W
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
#37
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
4,668 (1.20/day)
Likes
1,013
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
#38
This mean wow is back in for future card reviews or is it being relegated to the low end?
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
1 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#39
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

Corsair Fanboy
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
12,176 (4.06/day)
Likes
3,720
Location
Seattle, WA
System Name The Battlestation
Processor Intel Core i7 8700k
Motherboard MSi Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling EK Supremacy w/ EK Coolstream PE360
Memory G. Skill Trident RGB 32GB 4x8GB @ 3600mhz 16-16-16-36
Video Card(s) MSi GTX1070 Gaming X 8GB @ 2GHz
Storage Samung 970 EVO 250GB (OS), Samsung 970 EVO 1TB (Games)
Display(s) Qnix QX2710 27" 2560 x 1440 PLS @ 100hz
Case Phantek Enthoo Evolv ATX TG
Audio Device(s) MSi Gaming AudioBoost ALC1220 w/ Sennheiser Game Ones
Power Supply Seasonic Flagship Prime Ultra Platinum 850
Mouse Steelseries Rival 600 w/ Hyper X Mat
Keyboard Corsair K70 w/ MX Browns and Red Backlit
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
#40

Gzero

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
718 (0.14/day)
Likes
52
Location
Scotland
Processor Intel i5 750
Motherboard MSI P55-GD80
Cooling Xigmatek S1283
Memory 4x2gb G.Skill DDR3 1600mhz 8-8-8-24 1t
Video Card(s) HIS 4870 512mb - powerplay modded
Storage Samsung F3 1TB
Display(s) Samsung LE40F86/Viewsonic vx2260wm
Case ThermalTake Tai Chi
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC 889
Power Supply Corsair TX 750W
#41
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
322 (0.09/day)
Likes
321
Location
Valencia, Venezuela
System Name Tropicaliente | Digger
Processor FX-6300 | Q6600
Motherboard ASRock 970 Extreme 4 | Gigabyte X48T-DQ6
Cooling EVGA Superclock | OCZ Vendetta
Memory 2x8GB DDR3-1600MHz | 4x2GB DDR3-1333MHz
Video Card(s) PoV GTX570 TGT UC | HIS HD5670 IceQ
Storage 256GB SSD + 320GB + 500GB + 2TB | 80GB
Display(s) Asus VN247H-P | KVM USB Switch
Case Antec ONE | MyOpenPC Doma Pro PCI
Audio Device(s) on board + Logitech Z623 | on board
Power Supply Coolermaster GX-650 | Antec VP-450
Mouse MS Wired Desktop 600
Keyboard MS Wired Desktop 600
Software Win 8.1 x64 | ESXi 5.5.0: pfSense + Nas4Free + Win8.1 x86 Cruncher
#42
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
27,326 (6.08/day)
Likes
8,209
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling XSPC RayStorm Neo, MCR220-Stack+MCR220+MCR320, D5-PWM+EK X-RES 140
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL16
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's+AMD VEGA FE (sometimes)
Storage Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5
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
Mouse Thermaltake Theron
Keyboard Thermaltake Poseidon ZX
Software W10P
Benchmark Scores Zoom zoom mofo
#43
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)
Likes
8
#44
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)
Likes
8
#45
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
1,920 (0.69/day)
Likes
265
Location
So. Cal.
#46
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)
Likes
1
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
#47
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
10,124 (2.13/day)
Likes
2,509
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.
#48
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
1,920 (0.69/day)
Likes
265
Location
So. Cal.
#49
^ - 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 (0.34/day)
Likes
148
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)
#50
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