# ASUS GeForce GT 440 1 GB



## W1zzard (Feb 1, 2011)

NVIDIA's new GeForce GT 440 sets out to deliver acceptable performance in the low-end segment around $100. ASUS GT 440 comes with a custom designed, black PCB and a stylish heatsink. The card also comes with higher clocks out of the box to gain an extra performance advantage.

*Show full review*


----------



## mtosev (Feb 1, 2011)

Nice price. Was expecting that the price would be <85EUR.


----------



## mtosev (Feb 1, 2011)

BTW is this an error









HD 5450 fastest card?????


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 1, 2011)

mtosev said:


> is this an error



looks like it .. i'll rebench and fix asap


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 1, 2011)

card seems slower than the gt240 seems like asus should have stuck with 430 and added something edition wise instead.


----------



## Frick (Feb 1, 2011)

Looks like the 8800GT I bought for €10 was well worth it, and still is!


----------



## mtosev (Feb 1, 2011)

Frick said:


> Looks like the 8800GT I bought for €10 was well worth it, and still is!



oh. That GFX was free.


----------



## GSquadron (Feb 1, 2011)

This card is crap


----------



## Calle2003 (Feb 1, 2011)

I might as well overclock my GT 430 (that I currently run as a PhysX card) to a GT 440.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Feb 1, 2011)

The ASUS model is just a waste - why would you pay for 1GB of video memory and a slight overclock in a card of that performance class?  I would think the 512MB GDDR5 Galaxy GT 440 (reference clocked) on Newegg for $84.99 is a much better deal and might approach the 5670 in performance per dollar.


----------



## KainXS (Feb 1, 2011)

it costs more than a 5670
it uses more power than a 5670
its slower than a 5670

wtf

I hope your estimate is wrong wiz cause if it is this card is fail


----------



## cdawall (Feb 2, 2011)

i wish there was like an old 9800GT on the performance chart just so i could see how the oldies compared...lol or a 8800 Ultra from back in the day


----------



## Bot (Feb 2, 2011)

what is up with the OEM card?


----------



## Semi-Lobster (Feb 2, 2011)

The 5670 is faster, cooler, and less expensive. Who would buy this!?


----------



## ViperXTR (Feb 2, 2011)

this retail GT 440 doesnt look very appealing, the GT 440 OEM tho, looks interesting, specs wise...


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Feb 2, 2011)

This card is fail


----------



## Over_Lord (Feb 2, 2011)

an overclocked GT430??? Why didnt nVidia just name this GT540??? banghead


----------



## Yukikaze (Feb 2, 2011)

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.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Feb 2, 2011)

Anything less than a 5770 is not good for gaming


----------



## Zubasa (Feb 2, 2011)

hardcore_gamer said:


> Anything less than a 5770 is not good for gaming


Save for the 5750 maybe.


----------



## Frick (Feb 2, 2011)

hardcore_gamer said:


> Anything less than a 5770 is not good for gaming



Depends. I had a 4670 and it kicked arse on 1280x1024. I had it until 8 months ago and it was good even then.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 2, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> 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



there are no cost savings. the little pcb and copper is not significant. you could design gpus with only x4 in mind but there would be so much drama, uncertainty "will it fit?" that it probably wouldnt work out


----------



## damric (Feb 2, 2011)

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.



Zubasa said:


> Save for the 5750 maybe.



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.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Feb 2, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> 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.



I could imagine this being any of four reasons:

1.) There may be a performance improvement in 1 obscure game at an insanely high resolution, which may rationalize the manufactures in making these for PCIe x16.

2.) The PCIe x16 slot provides much more mechanical strength to the card than a PCIe x1 slot, reducing breakage in systems that come pre-assembled and shipped with the card installed. 

3.) Using a smaller slot will result in the uneducated putting the graphics card in the southbridge slots in motherboards, which will result in incompatibilities, possibly less performace, and definitely lots of tech support calls when systems do not boot/do not detect cards.

4.) Specialty PCIe x1 models can be produced and sold at an extraordinary price compared to standard models.


----------



## sliderider (Feb 3, 2011)

Which AMD card are they marketing this against? You would think if they were going convolute things in the $100 and under segment they would at least create a card with better performance than the HD5670.

You can get a HD5770 for as little as $110 and get much better performance for your money.

You know, it really makes me wonder what this market segment is all about in the first place. No card available for $100 or less is going to give even passable gaming performance and if you just need a basic video card for business or an HTPC there are much cheaper alternatives available. If you have $100 for a video card and want to play games, there are much faster cards available used on ebay.


----------



## puma99dk| (Feb 3, 2011)

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....


----------



## sliderider (Feb 3, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> 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.


----------



## Zubasa (Feb 3, 2011)

sliderider said:


> 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


----------



## Yukikaze (Feb 3, 2011)

sliderider said:


> 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 (Feb 5, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> 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


----------



## GSquadron (Feb 5, 2011)

5970 should be the worst card ever than


----------



## Over_Lord (Feb 6, 2011)

damric said:


> 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


----------



## mudkip (Feb 6, 2011)

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


----------



## Gzero (Feb 7, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> 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.


----------



## Yukikaze (Feb 7, 2011)

Gzero said:


> 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.


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 7, 2011)

Gzero said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2011)

Gzero said:


> 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.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 8, 2011)

This mean wow is back in for future card reviews or is it being relegated to the low end?


----------



## danipisika (Feb 12, 2011)

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 ???         (i thought this card will beat also the gt 240....)


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 12, 2011)

hardcore_gamer said:


> Anything less than a 5770 is not good for gaming



at low low resolutions a HD5670 is fine for gaming


----------



## Gzero (Feb 14, 2011)

btarunr said:


> 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.


----------



## qu4k3r (Feb 21, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2011)

Gzero said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'
> 
> 
> # Cell FlexIO bus interface
> ...



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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## Casecutter (Apr 27, 2011)

*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


----------



## wteSmithy (Jul 13, 2011)

Calle2003 said:


> I might as well overclock my GT 430 (that I currently run as a PhysX card) to a GT 440.



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.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 14, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 14, 2011)

^ - 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...


----------



## mudkip (Aug 20, 2011)

Steevo said:


> 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


----------



## Latvietis96 (Aug 30, 2011)

Ah whatever. I had some credit card problems and i wasnt able to buy stuff in the net, i went to my local store and brainlessly bought the most expensive card that was there- the asus gt440 1gb gddr5 (there wasnt much selection- ati hd3450, gt220, gt520 and the gt440) for $ 136. Since I find Ps3 and xbox gaming OK, this card performs well on my screen- 1360x768, I run black ops maxed with 4x anti alliasting at 30-60 fps, gta 4 at medium, shadows very high, max res with 29 fps average, while my cpu (pentium d 3.7 ghz) is bottlenecking stuff. (yeah im gettin a core 2 duo e6600 soon)


----------

