5200FX for a moderate gamer?
 

Hi. I NEED to get a new video card...my last one blew out on me and I'm
stuck using an old Voodoo3 right now. I only have $100 to spend. I know for
$50 more I can get a much better card, but I have what I have and that's it.
=/
So I was looking at ATI's Radeon 9200, but then I noticed the GeForce
5200FX. Same clock speeds, I think same memory pipelines, same everything it
looks like...except the 5200 advertises it's DX9 complant whereas the 9200
does not. Big point I think.
BUT, I've also read reviews where the Ti4200 actually is a lot faster of a
card than the 5200FX.
But, again, I know a lot more games are going to be coming out that are DX9
because of it's easier programibility. Since I can never afford to get a
high-end card, or any card for years at a time, would it be better to get
the 5200 and get better performance from DX9 games or get a 4200 and be a
little faster but not great on future games?
Know that my "good" card before the Voodoo was a Radeon 7500...so it's not
like I'm used to going full anti-aliasing and using all the best features
anyway. I'm a moderate gamer. I like to at least be able to play current
games at good frame rates rather than worry about photorealism.
Knowing that, which way should I lean?

Thanks for any advice!!
Liam

One other question...I've kind of narrowed it down to getting the 5200FX or
the Radeon9200 (or 9600SE if I can find a good price for it.)
And I'm leaning toward the 5200FX...except for one question I have I can't
find the answe to. Is it a 64 or 128 bit memory bandwidth? The Radeon's have
128bit memory...and that might be more important to me than actual speed.
As for FX5200 vs Ti4200...I've run like one benchmark in my life,
MadOnion's, and the number really held no meaning for me. So I'm not the
kind of person who really gets into trying to eke out the best number
possible...I just want to be able to play Battlefield:1942 with pretty
decent quality at a good framerate. And if I can do that and be set for DX9
since I won't be able to get a new card for probably another few
years...then I'm OK with that. =)
Thanks for any feedback!!
Liam

If all you can spend is $100 then get the ti4200. The 5200 is too slow. If
you check ebay, you can get ti4400 for less than $100 sometimes.

Dave


"LRW" wrote in message
news:dIzLb.6604$8H.20661@attbi_s03...
Hi. I NEED to get a new video card...my last one blew out on me and I'm
stuck using an old Voodoo3 right now. I only have $100 to spend. I know
for
$50 more I can get a much better card, but I have what I have and that's
it.
=/
So I was looking at ATI's Radeon 9200, but then I noticed the GeForce
5200FX. Same clock speeds, I think same memory pipelines, same everything
it
looks like...except the 5200 advertises it's DX9 complant whereas the 9200
does not. Big point I think.
BUT, I've also read reviews where the Ti4200 actually is a lot faster of a
card than the 5200FX.
But, again, I know a lot more games are going to be coming out that are
DX9
because of it's easier programibility. Since I can never afford to get a
high-end card, or any card for years at a time, would it be better to get
the 5200 and get better performance from DX9 games or get a 4200 and be a
little faster but not great on future games?
Know that my "good" card before the Voodoo was a Radeon 7500...so it's not
like I'm used to going full anti-aliasing and using all the best features
anyway. I'm a moderate gamer. I like to at least be able to play current
games at good frame rates rather than worry about photorealism.
Knowing that, which way should I lean?

Thanks for any advice!!
Liam

"LRW" wrote in message
news:dIzLb.6604$8H.20661@attbi_s03...
Hi. I NEED to get a new video card...my last one blew out on me and I'm
stuck using an old Voodoo3 right now. I only have $100 to spend. I know
for
$50 more I can get a much better card, but I have what I have and that's
it.
=/
So I was looking at ATI's Radeon 9200, but then I noticed the GeForce
5200FX. Same clock speeds, I think same memory pipelines, same everything
it
looks like...except the 5200 advertises it's DX9 complant whereas the 9200
does not. Big point I think.
BUT, I've also read reviews where the Ti4200 actually is a lot faster of a
card than the 5200FX.
But, again, I know a lot more games are going to be coming out that are
DX9
because of it's easier programibility. Since I can never afford to get a
high-end card, or any card for years at a time, would it be better to get
the 5200 and get better performance from DX9 games or get a 4200 and be a
little faster but not great on future games?
Know that my "good" card before the Voodoo was a Radeon 7500...so it's not
like I'm used to going full anti-aliasing and using all the best features
anyway. I'm a moderate gamer. I like to at least be able to play current
games at good frame rates rather than worry about photorealism.
Knowing that, which way should I lean?

Thanks for any advice!!
Liam



If you are not that bothered about DX9 games, then get yourself an ATI
Radeon 8500.

Very fast card for DX8.1 and lower games. OpenGL not too bad either.

Ti4200 is the way to go..I HAD a FX5600-256mg 128 bit card...my Ti4200 was
way faster...I ditched the FX for a Raedon9600 XT..but it is only the newer
series of Raedons that are real performers..get the Ti4200

The 5200s come in 64 and 128 bit versions. Forget
them and get a used 4200 (Ebay)


Daniel

"LRW" wrote in message
news:9jALb.6363$na.6344@attbi_s04...
One other question...I've kind of narrowed it down to getting the 5200FX
or
the Radeon9200 (or 9600SE if I can find a good price for it.)
And I'm leaning toward the 5200FX...except for one question I have I can't
find the answe to. Is it a 64 or 128 bit memory bandwidth? The Radeon's
have
128bit memory...and that might be more important to me than actual speed.
As for FX5200 vs Ti4200...I've run like one benchmark in my life,
MadOnion's, and the number really held no meaning for me. So I'm not the
kind of person who really gets into trying to eke out the best number
possible...I just want to be able to play Battlefield:1942 with pretty
decent quality at a good framerate. And if I can do that and be set for
DX9
since I won't be able to get a new card for probably another few
years...then I'm OK with that. =)
Thanks for any feedback!!
Liam

"dino" wrote in message om...
Ti4200 is the way to go..I HAD a FX5600-256mg 128 bit card...my Ti4200 was
way faster...I ditched the FX for a Raedon9600 XT..but it is only the newer
series of Raedons that are real performers..get the Ti4200

The real DX9 cards indeed start with the R9500 and the R9700 chipset.
Then the R9600 and the R9800 came

Though there are also SE versions and those generally not as good (
crippled memory bandwidth ) but those who are not crippled perform
fine, even my R9500Pro still runs games great and it's already 1 year
old.

Now that is good stuff!

In case of nvidia.. the FX does DX9, though the FX5200 ( any version )
is to damn slow for it

The FX5600 is subpar...

The FX5700 finally cought the win

The FX5800 was a failed experiment, though fast on some points...
lacks much on others

FX5900 is finally the first that actually has what you can say of "a
gaming card"

The FX5950 is just a basic overclocked FX5900

Again...

XT version in case of nvidia are..trash! The 5900XT though seem to be
reasonable succesfull, though it's limits!

Non Ultra, the basic card
Ultra, faster card
Special Edition ( SE ), ... look it up yourself

Ah yes...

So the market is not really clear, one thing is sure, every month a
new card is king of this newsgroup!

That's some great info!!
Thanks for the feedback!
Liam

Nvidia XT cards are not trash. They just are not clocked as high. They are
not like ATI's SE cards that come neutered with pipes disabled or half the
memory bus.

Dave


"Dark Avenger" wrote in message
om...
"dino" wrote in message
om...
Ti4200 is the way to go..I HAD a FX5600-256mg 128 bit card...my Ti4200
was
way faster...I ditched the FX for a Raedon9600 XT..but it is only the
newer
series of Raedons that are real performers..get the Ti4200

The real DX9 cards indeed start with the R9500 and the R9700 chipset.
Then the R9600 and the R9800 came

Though there are also SE versions and those generally not as good (
crippled memory bandwidth ) but those who are not crippled perform
fine, even my R9500Pro still runs games great and it's already 1 year
old.

Now that is good stuff!

In case of nvidia.. the FX does DX9, though the FX5200 ( any version )
is to damn slow for it

The FX5600 is subpar...

The FX5700 finally cought the win

The FX5800 was a failed experiment, though fast on some points...
lacks much on others

FX5900 is finally the first that actually has what you can say of "a
gaming card"

The FX5950 is just a basic overclocked FX5900

Again...

XT version in case of nvidia are..trash! The 5900XT though seem to be
reasonable succesfull, though it's limits!

Non Ultra, the basic card
Ultra, faster card
Special Edition ( SE ), ... look it up yourself

Ah yes...

So the market is not really clear, one thing is sure, every month a
new card is king of this newsgroup!

"DaveL" wrote in message ...
Nvidia XT cards are not trash. They just are not clocked as high. They are
not like ATI's SE cards that come neutered with pipes disabled or half the
memory bus.

Dave



Mmm, and you wish to claim that the 5900XT has 8 fully working pipelines.......

It hasn't..so ..it's neutered!

But atleast they didn't castrate the memory bus width!