VirtuaIceMan wrote on 2022-03-01, 14:08:

I'm not really an electronics kinda person. Is it highly likely to be capacitors?

I think we've got a soldiering iron but don't think I have any testing gear, what would be needed? Multimeter or something? I'm more tempted to get a refund as seller said it's working (but they also said no returns)

No, don't try it if you've no experience... Replacing capacitors takes skill on these boards because clearing the holes isn't as easy as it is on single layer phenolic PCBs... You would also need good replacements.

Nah I wouldn't bother with a refund, that's not going to help you... These cards go for next to nothing, expect to re-cap them when you receive them (and service the fan, for that matter).

The one I got has a big heat sink on instead of a fan and looks brand new on the board.

This one?

You need to find a friend with a Hakko desoldering pump, get the old caps out, and put something like Panasonic FR series in there, or good 5,000 hour polymers (Panasonic SEPx).

Yeah that's it, looks like the board is in good condition though. I have no friends like that 😒

I was hoping it might be something less hardware, like the drivers being too old for DX9 or something. I'll investigate drivers later.

Most of the games I want to run (on PowerVR) work though, my more annoying issue is no CD-audio at the moment: Topic 86631

mockingbird wrote:

There are significant enough changes in the silicon (NV17 vs NV18, NV25 vs NV28).

I stand corrected, the earliest version for support for NV18 and NV28 is 40.71. But the point still stands, if you try anything earlier it won't work.

Again, incorrect. And that's why the "8x" versions of GeForce4 are not a good choice for older builds.

Nuff said.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-03-01, 17:47:

LMAO 4200-8x works with Detonator XP 31.40.png

Nuff said.

Sir, respectfully, I did test this myself, albeit with an earlier driver version... You are testing with a Ti4200 though, not an MX440-8X.

That said, I stand corrected again, it seems (at least on the Ti4200 8x - NV28).

I'll look into it again -- NV18 that is (GeForce MX440 8x).

I'm pretty sure it's not the caps now, I booted into WinXP on another drive and the DxDiag DX9.0a Direct3D tests all ran fine. Something's up in Win98SE...

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-03-01, 17:47:

Nuff said.

Sir, I just went to perform my testing, took out my Ti4200-8x and MX440-8x, then I got to looking at the 31.40 NVAML.INF to add my device ID...

The 31.40 already has explicit support for the 8x series of cards... That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing modifying the 28.32 to work on the Geforce4-8x series.

To recap, you said the following:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2022-01-28, 15:34:

They are not similar. They are identical.

I responded with:

mockingbird wrote on 2022-03-01, 00:53:

Incorrect.

I have both. The oldest driver (28.32 - the earliest GeForce4 driver) cannot talk to the MX440-8X. There are significant enough changes in the silicon (NV17 vs NV18, NV25 vs NV28).

Yes, I was wrong about the earliest driver revision for the 8x cards, it starts with the 3x.xx detonators (I stated 4x.xx detonators), but they are not identical, as you state.

The 28.32 detonators will not work on the 8x series Geforce 4 cards.

but they are not identical, as you state.

*yawn*

it's very similar to the AGP8x MX440, but it was launched a while after so driver compatibility (with old versions) is a little worse I think

They are not similar. They are identical.

The 28.32 detonators will not work on the 8x series Geforce 4 cards.

Well yeah, I missed one part - it works with PCI cards or probably without GART driver installed (aka PCI66 mode). Nevertheless you still can install most crucial parts - DirectDraw/Direct3D and OpenGL libraries from 28.32 and it will work.

As a long time MX440 user, I can't understand some of the modern hate for the card (yeah, when it was released it was misleading - it was not a true GeForce4 card, but we all know that). It's a 2002 budget card that can work as a flagship 2000 card - almost like a GeForce2 Ultra, to be more precise. The performance is a bit lower, but the passive cooling, lower power draw and better DX8 support - and best of all, it's widely available for a low price, which I see as a huge plus when building a retro rig. I have all the respect in the world for cards like Voodoo5 and would totally love to own one - but I can't justify today's market prices for it with my income.

In a sense, I would argue it is one of the better cards you can get for a Win9x machine. Sure it's not collectible, but at least you can replace it when it dies - and I doubt it can die, I've used a few of them and they seem to live forever.

songoffall wrote on 2024-11-23, 18:14:

As a long time MX440 user, I can't understand some of the modern hate for the card (yeah, when it was released it was misleading - it was not a true GeForce4 card, but we all know that). It's a 2002 budget card that can work as a flagship 2000 card - almost like a GeForce2 Ultra, to be more precise. The performance is a bit lower, but the passive cooling, lower power draw and better DX8 support - and best of all, it's widely available for a low price, which I see as a huge plus when building a retro rig. I have all the respect in the world for cards like Voodoo5 and would totally love to own one - but I can't justify today's market prices for it with my income.

In a sense, I would argue it is one of the better cards you can get for a Win9x machine. Sure it's not collectible, but at least you can replace it when it dies - and I doubt it can die, I've used a few of them and they seem to live forever.

main problem is that most MX440s are cutdown models, 64bit ram, very low clocks,
but yeah, the MX440 is cheap and easy to find, works well on 98, and it's fast enough for most games until let's say 2001
not terrible, if you find a MX440 with bga 3-3.3ns ram and such, they can be clocked super high and they are fast
have seen them at like 300/600
that is a massively faster card than a mx440se, 64bit and so on.

songoffall wrote on 2024-11-23, 18:14:

As a long time MX440 user, I can't understand some of the modern hate for the card (yeah, when it was released it was misleading - it was not a true GeForce4 card, but we all know that). It's a 2002 budget card that can work as a flagship 2000 card - almost like a GeForce2 Ultra, to be more precise. The performance is a bit lower, but the passive cooling, lower power draw and better DX8 support - and best of all, it's widely available for a low price, which I see as a huge plus when building a retro rig.

I got my last one NIB for a dollar, shame I couldn't get like 3 at that price 🤣 .... though last year I snagged two of the quadro version cheap off eBay so didn't really need that many.

songoffall wrote on 2024-11-23, 18:14:

As a long time MX440 user, I can't understand some of the modern hate for the card (yeah, when it was released it was misleading - it was not a true GeForce4 card, but we all know that).

I don't think the MX440 cards are particularly disliked for retro gaming purposes. Their performance is on pair with a GeForce 2 GTS at the very least, and models with the 128-bit memory bus can even exceed that.

As you say, most of the hate comes from back in the day, when this was branded as a part of the GeForce 4 line by Nvidia. In reality, it was a souped up GeForce 2, with no programmable shaders. This annoyed game developers as well, so you'd often see system requirements listing "GeForce 3/4 (MX cards not supported)" as the minimum spec for mid 2000s WinXP games.

On topic, I use 30.82 drivers for older MX440 (and MX460) AGP 4x models, and 40.72 for newer AGP 8x models.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-12-02, 05:36:

I don't think the MX440 cards are particularly disliked for retro gaming purposes. Their performance is on pair with a GeForce 2 […]
Show full quote

songoffall wrote on 2024-11-23, 18:14:

As a long time MX440 user, I can't understand some of the modern hate for the card (yeah, when it was released it was misleading - it was not a true GeForce4 card, but we all know that).

I don't think the MX440 cards are particularly disliked for retro gaming purposes. Their performance is on pair with a GeForce 2 GTS at the very least, and models with the 128-bit memory bus can even exceed that.

As you say, most of the hate comes from back in the day, when this was branded as a part of the GeForce 4 line by Nvidia. In reality, it was a souped up GeForce 2, with no programmable shaders. This annoyed game developers as well, so you'd often see system requirements listing "GeForce 3/4 (MX cards not supported)" as the minimum spec for mid 2000s WinXP games.

On topic, I use 30.82 drivers for older MX440 (and MX460) AGP 4x models, and 40.72 for newer AGP 8x models.

I was replying to several posts in this thread calling GF4MX440 junk or something like that, friend 😀)