nVidia GeForce4 MX 440 in the test: Inno3D, Gainward, Leadtek and Prolink in comparison

nVidia GeForce4 MX 440 in the test: Inno3D, Gainward, Leadtek and Prolink in comparison

Aquamark v2.3

Aquamark is a DirectX 8.0 benchmark from Massive and, like Aquanox, is based on the Krass engine. A detailed underwater world is shown. AquaNox uses the nFiniteFX engine of the GeForce3 Ti200, which in this case was also operated in this way, as a higher image quality and frame rate jumped out. With more than 160 vertex shaders, special effects such as layered fog, caustics, photorealistic materials,Radiosity lighting and shadows generated in real time. Pixel shaders are used for bump mapping and bespoke lighting effects. However, the frame rates from Aquamark are significantly below those from Aquanox. The GeForce4MX and the GeForce2 Ti were tested with the default setting of 24MB texture size, which was reduced to 16MB for the Kyro II, which only had 32MB RAM. Pixel shader effects have been activated where available.

Aquamark v2.3 32Bit
Aquamark v2.3 16Bit

This shows that the GeForce4MX can compete with its predecessor in the very latest titles despite its lower performance values. GeForce3 Ti200 and Kyro II each play in different leagues.

Aquanox v1.17

As a small premiere in this test, we wanted to know how the retail version of Aquanox now plays on current graphics cards leaves. As was to be expected, the average fps are significantly higher than with the heavily pixel and vertex shader-heavy Aquamark.

The Magellan cutscene was tested according to the settings of the benchmark specification of the 3D center, i.e. with full details, which demand the utmost from every graphics card.

Aquanox v1.17 32Bit
Aquanox v1.17 16Bit

Even without the extreme polygon numbers of the Aquamark, Aquanox manages to play in the highest resolutions and color depths quite wellto withhold from a small elite who are willing to spend monstrous sums on their graphics cards.

The emphasis on the fill rate and memory bandwidth. The Geforc4MX can only keep up with the GeForce2 Ti with difficulty, just like the GeForce3 Ti200, especially in high resolutions, with difficulty in bringing its advantages into the balance. In Aquanox, there is really no substitute for filling rate.

The support for the Kyro II that was announced at the time has probably been discarded in the meantime, otherwise it could have done significantly better here thanks to its 8-layer multitexturing. There is not even a noticeable difference in performance between a 'single-pass' rendered landscape and one in the 'multi-pass'.

On the next page: DroneZmark