Asus V8440 TD and V8460 ultra TD in the test: Two 'Ti' tans among themselves

Asus V8440 TD and V8460 ultra TD in the test: Two 'Ti' tans among themselves

Test system

For the test a system based on a combination of SiS745 chipset and AthlonXP 1700+ with 256MB DDR-RAM was used. We tested under Windows2000, as it represents the basis for the home OS of the future in Microsoft's portfolio and can therefore be easily assessed howThe respective drivers behave reliably and with high performance under this operating system.

Service Pack 2 and the current application update from Microsoft were installed as well as chipset drivers of version 1.09 from SiS. The latest DirectX 8.1 goes without saying. The GeForce4MX cards were tested with the recommended driver v27.30, the GeForce3 and GeForce4 Ti cards with the current reference driver 28.32 from nVidia. For background noise, the subjectively satisfactory onboard sound of the SiS chipset with the 7012.1.03c drivers was used for a change.

We are aware that with a faster base system, the differences between GeForce3 and GeForce4 Ti as well as between the individual GeForce4 Ti models. What is shown here is to be understood as a kind of worst-case scenario. The overall performance and in particular the performance of the GeForce4 Ti can therefore increase significantly.

  • CPU:
    • AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1466MHz)
  • Motherboard:
    • Elitegroup K7S6A with SiS745 chipset
  • RAM:
    • 1 * 256MB KingMax BGA PC2700 DDR -RAM CL2,5
  • Graphics card:
    • Asus V8440 GeForce 4 Ti 4400
    • Asus V8460 ultra GeForce 4 Ti 4600
    • GeForce4 Ti 4200 128MB (250/222MHz)
    • GeForce4 Ti 4200 128MB (225/250MHz)
    • Asus V8200 pure (GeForce3)
    • Asus V8200 T2 pure (GeForce3 Ti200)
    • Prolink Pixelview GeForce4 MX440
  • Peripherals
    • IBM DTLA 307015
    • Pioneer DVD A03
    • Realtek RTL8139c network card (deactivated)
    • Castlewood ORB removable drive
  • Miscellaneous
    • A4 Tech Double Wheel Mouse
  • Software
    • Windows2000 Professional
    • Service Pack 2
    • Application Update
    • D irectX 8.1

Our GeForce3 Ti200 was as beforealready, simulated by clocking down the V8200. Since it is the same hardware, this simulation should be very realistic. Furthermore, we tried to simulate the Ti4200 even before the official announcement and were promptly taken for the wrongly rumored clock rates. That's why we have a Ti4200 with the official frequency of 250/222MHz and one with the previously rumored 225/250MHz clock. We wanted to continue to use this 'unofficial' version in the benchmarks, because this way you can see very well where the limitation is due to the chip and where it is due to the memory. This is very helpful if you want to achieve a higher balance, e.g. by overclocking.

The Ti4200 with 64MB and 250/We have not yet received a 250MHz clock and since it will also have a different design (no µBGA-RAM), the differences to our simulation would be too great. We will submit this in a later test.


As tests, we have once again decided on a somewhat broader range. On the one hand, to get a more representative overview of the performance spectrum of the cards and, on the other hand, to counteract the special driver optimizations of the chip manufacturers for the two most popular benchmarks, Quake3 and 3DMark2001, which have recently become more and more popular. In this high-price segment for enthusiasts in particular, it would be very disappointing if real improvements were only noticeable in the two or three standard benchmarks.

Synthetic benchmarks
  • 3DMark 2000 v1.1
  • 3DMark 2001 SE
  • Templemark D3D v1.06
  • Villagemark D3D v1.19
  • GL Excess v1.1a
  • VulpineGL v1.1p
Game benchmarks
  • Comanche 4
  • Aquamark v2.3
  • Aquanoxv1.17
  • DronezMark
  • Giants v1.4
  • Unreal Tournament v4.36
  • Quake III Arena v1.30
  • Serious Sam v1.02
  • Max Payne v1.02
Benchmarks with FSAA and aniso. Filter
  • Quake III Arena v1.30
  • 3DMark 2001 SE
  • Giants v1.4

Unless otherwise noted, all benchmarks ran in 32-bit color depth and, if possible, 32-bit textures. In general, the highest possible detail settings were used to really challenge the test subjects.

On the next page: Synthetic benchmarks