View Single Post
  #1  
Old July 3rd 03, 10:02 PM
Tod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FX5200 (non Ultra) vs. ATI 9200?

My Story.
Used a Matrox G400 DH 32MB, great 2D
Then went to Voodoo 5, wanted OpenGL.
Tried 2 different ATI 9100 64 MBs, great cards, no driver problems.
Then tried Nvidia 5200 128MB, the 2D was as good as the ATIs,
but games sometimes would not work, IE 6 would crash.
All using Win98SE, changed to Win XP, still works great.

Went and got a Sapphire ATI 9100 128MB ($89), works great.
Even cheaper now, $70

ATI 8500, 8500LE and 9100 are the same chip
9000 is a slightly stripped down version of that chip.
9200 is an 9000 that supports AGP 8X.



"Harry Muscle" wrote in message
...
I posted yesterday asking for feedback about getting a FX5200 (non Ultra)
card, however, in the mean time I continued doing research and it seems

like
quite a few people say that the ATI cards seem to have better image

quality.
Is this true? I know the FX5200 is suppoed to have better image quality
than the Ti4200, but would an ATI card still be better? I have no problem
sacrificing speed for image quality.

My wife also asked me if we could get a card with Video Input. I know
there's the All-in-wonder cards by ATI, does something like this exist for
Nvidia cards?

So from the research I did, it comes down to either an FX5200 non Ultra vs
an ATI Radeon. The only thing I don't know yet is which Radeon. The
highest model number that I can afford is the 9200. Would that be my best
best or is one of the older cards maybe better (just checking, you never
know).

Thank you for everyone's input,
Harry




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----