I wanted to see what the difference was in gaming so I ran Quake 3 on both cards in same system.
The mx440 I get an average of 97 over three runs
On the 4200 I get an average of 132 for three runs.
Interesting note the mx440 was labeled a mx480e it does have 266mhz ram clock running on 128bit bus but the core is clocked at 250mhz. Seems like an odd design choice?

3DMark99 is a really outdated test for both cards, but I guess the features tested might have received more attention on the MX440 still. Just a guess.

We ran 3DMark2000 on TNT/Voodoo3 class cards before any GeForce models were widely out and about, so you could and should probably test with 3DMark2001 to get a better handle on the capabilities of those cards and the differences between them.

sydres wrote on 2024-10-25, 17:46:

I wanted to see what the difference was in gaming so I ran Quake 3 on both cards in same system. The mx440 I get an average of 9 […]
Show full quote

I wanted to see what the difference was in gaming so I ran Quake 3 on both cards in same system.
The mx440 I get an average of 97 over three runs
On the 4200 I get an average of 132 for three runs.
Interesting note the mx440 was labeled a mx480e it does have 266mhz ram clock running on 128bit bus but the core is clocked at 250mhz. Seems like an odd design choice?

Check the nanoseconds. Albatron claims your MX480E is 5ns, so I'd check what the Ti4200 you have uses.

Both are rated for 4ns
The 4200 is stock 250mhz for ram
The mx440 is, if Nvidia's driver is to be believed clocked at 266mhz for ram
Of note the 4200ti is an OEM model with a crappy heatsink/fan but the board seems to be pretty much reference design.
The mx440 I'm not sure but it only has a heatsink and no fan but it is underclocked anyway.

leonardo wrote on 2024-10-25, 21:15:

3DMark99 is a really outdated test for both cards, but I guess the features tested might have received more attention on the MX440 still. Just a guess.

We ran 3DMark2000 on TNT/Voodoo3 class cards before any GeForce models were widely out and about, so you could and should probably test with 3DMark2001 to get a better handle on the capabilities of those cards and the differences between them.

I assumed that might be part of the issue as I know both cards came out much later but my assumption was that the 4200ti should have brute force on its side but the mx440 surprised me as the experience I had with these in the past has been less than stellar.

I went ahead and ran 3dmark 2000 as well as 2001
The 4200ti
3dmark 2000- 9961 3dmarks
3dmark 2001- 6694 3dmarks
The mx440 8x
3dmark 2000-7049 3dmarks
3dmark 2001-3930 3dmarks
Both were run at default settings
These results all seem a bit low from what I can remember getting 22yrs ago on a similar system maybe the fog of time!
The results do clearly show the difference between the two cards.

sydres wrote on 2024-10-26, 12:49:

I went ahead and ran 3dmark 2000 as well as 2001 The 4200ti 3dmark 2000- 9961 3dmarks 3dmark 2001- 6694 3dmarks The mx440 8x 3dm […]
Show full quote

I went ahead and ran 3dmark 2000 as well as 2001
The 4200ti
3dmark 2000- 9961 3dmarks
3dmark 2001- 6694 3dmarks
The mx440 8x
3dmark 2000-7049 3dmarks
3dmark 2001-3930 3dmarks
Both were run at default settings
These results all seem a bit low from what I can remember getting 22yrs ago on a similar system maybe the fog of time!
The results do clearly show the difference between the two cards.

The closest that I can currently compare with is my Radeon 9200 which is not on the level of your Ti4200 - and that card gets ~7500 points in 3DMark2000. So your score is better like I would expect. The MX440 is surprisingly close to the Radeon, but on the other hand the R9200 roughly on par with a stock GF3, so maybe the scores are to be expected.

Oh, and my scores are on a 1.2 GHz T-Bird, so there's that. Maybe your system has some configuration options that are slowing it down?

After some bios tuning
The mx440 gets
7136 in 3dmark2000
3973 in 2001

Ti4200 jumped up to
10695 in 3dmark 2000
7137 in 3dmark 2001

Looks like I was leaving a lot on the table I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't run 3dmark99. Now I just need to figure out why my cmos loads defaults every boot even after changing the battery.

sydres wrote on 2024-10-27, 00:15:

After some bios tuning The mx440 gets 7136 in 3dmark2000 3973 in 2001 […]
Show full quote

After some bios tuning
The mx440 gets
7136 in 3dmark2000
3973 in 2001

Ti4200 jumped up to
10695 in 3dmark 2000
7137 in 3dmark 2001

Looks like I was leaving a lot on the table I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't run 3dmark99. Now I just need to figure out why my cmos loads defaults every boot even after changing the battery.

Do you have the motherboard jumper set for CMOS reset?

No I checked that when I first noticed the thing was resetting to default. I just ordered cr2032 batteries so I can make sure the first replacements weren't from a bad lot cause it worked for a little while and then started default settings thing.
I generally only use this system to test agp cards and pci cards or for games that want more speed than my Pentium III has.