omfg! how old r u?

I probably have clothes older than you...


"LILfeatha" wrote in message
om...
hmm, im talking to this guy from PCMECH forums (www.pcmech.com) and
once i get this card:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...150-051&depa=0
its 390/800 even though it says 700 (w00t! pwnage huh ?) anyways, he
is going to tell me how to OC it to a 5950 Ultra.. how sw33t is that
?! omfg i cant wait, so awesome!
"McGrandpa" wrote in message
...
Red Activist wrote:
"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.84...

A 1969 Lamborghini Miura eats any 2004 Kia for breakfast. You can't
compare apples and oranges - an old high(er) end card with a newer
low end card.

A short info spree around Internet would have given you that info.

The FX5200 is a low end card and not suited for regular gamers who
need high frame rates, fast refresh rates and lots of tiny details
at high rez recalculated every nanosecond.
It is an excellent budget choice for the user who plays a casual game
with resolution not set too high. Remember that "PC user" doesn't
equal "gamer".

Instead of gloating over bad performance of the card, one could gloat
over your bad performance on etting info and choosing a suitable card
for your specs before buying one.



Yes I admit I didnt go checking its performance, I normally trust
Nvidia, I kinda expected it to be better than the TI4200 because it
seems a bit illogical to stop making TIs in order to make something
5x worse, incidently the TI was not much more expensive than the 5200
when I bought it a year ago, oh and I didnt go checking the
performance of the 4200 before I bought it either, just as I didnt
the GF2 ultra before that, both times there were about 2 or 3 cards
higher in the range but both lived up to my expectations

Then again I define "worse" as slower, it could be argued that
because its a DX9 card its better, but I cant imagine it being
possible to play any DX9 enabled game with this card anyway.

And the point about it being mis-marketted is very true, lets have a
look at the claims on the box:

"if there was ever a reason to feel sorry for the competition this is
it!"

"Persons having high blood pressure or heart condition should not use
this card, the unmatched graphic quality may be too exhilerating and
realistic for the weak of heart"

Plus loads of awards from magazines including gaming ones for its
performance plastered everywhere

I was running GTA 3 at 640x480 with lowest possible settings and it
was barely playable lol

Gloating is not the same thing as complaining BTW, its not possible
to gloat when you, yourself made the mistake, Im not boasting I
bought a crap video card.

I loath ATI with all their little utiilities they try to install with
their drivers but the ATI radeon for the same price has way better
performance, Ill check before buy a current Nvidia card in furture
now I know I have to.

Thanks folks

ATI has exactly the same numbers of items to install with the Catalyst
driver/control panel set as NVidia does with the Detonator/Forceware
sets. I have upper end cards from both companies right now. Right now,
I'd say that NVidia drivers are better in stability and performance than
the Catalysts are.
I have a R 9800 Pro 128 meg and a FX5900 128 meg. The two cards are
pretty much even on performance. There a couple of things I like better
about the FX5900 than the 9800 Pro.
One, the FX will tell you what temp it's running. Two, you can set the
clock rates right from the drivers easily with the FX and cannot with
the Radeon.
I'd recommend the FX5900U if you can find it reasonably priced. It
won't disappoint you
McG.