XFX Geforce Fx5200

"KerplunKuK" wrote in message ...
Thanks for that comment. Any help if I stretch myself to £100?

--

Ofcourse, that allows you to just aim slightly higher!

Have a look at other threads discussing the price of the FX5900, available
from £115 upwards; I think that is the smart place to be in terms of most
card for your money. Yes, it's over your budget, but you won't end up doing
what I did - I spent £60 on an FX5200 at Christmas (yeah, I thought it was a
powerful card as well - I didn't do my research!!), and I'm now throwing it
out and replacing it with the FX5900. This looks like a far better balance
for my 2800+ and 1Gb RAM.

Regards,

Pete.
Derby
UK

Ya know, I think the only systems worthy an FX5200 are AGP 4x systems
with just around 256Mb memory and a processor between 800Mhz and 1
Ghz. And a nice old 20Gb hd.

For that it's a nice card... though a ti4200 might be better on such a
system.

For the rest it's a doorwedge!

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:31:02 -0800, "raj" wrote:

any fx 5200 sux ass, get a geforce 4 ti a good performace and will be a
5600ultra, the 5200 is like same performace as a geforce 3 ti 200
undercloked and with 64 bit ram wich is purely ****, like a dx 8 geforce 2
lol
"KerplunKuK" wrote in message
m...
I am looking to replace a Geoforce 4 MX420 64Mb DDR. My price limit is
about £75 tops. I have seen a XFX Geoforce FX5200 AGP8x 256MB DDR DVI
TV-Out for about £60.
Is that a good buy, and is the card any good. I have just started playing
alot of PC games so I want a powerful card. I have got a AMD 2600+ XP
processor and 1.5 gig of PC3200 DDR.
All help and advice appreciated.

Thanks

--

remove SPAM to reply
Victoria Concordia Crescit




I have a GF3 Ti200, and I've seen a 128bit FX5200 slightly
beat it out, but Nvidia made the FX5200 64bit version, and since
that's what most venders push onto unexperienced buyers, most say that
all FX5200 cards are ****. If Nvidia would have spent a little more
attention to this chip, and never created the 64bit version, it might
have been a decent entry level card.
However with the prices of the Ti4200 being comparable to the
5200Ultra, and the chip being as powerful as the 5600, I couldn't
agree more that the Ti4200 is the best bang for the buck at this time.

Is the Ti4200 direct X 9 compatible?



--

remove SPAM to reply
Victoria Concordia Crescit
"Larry Roberts" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:31:02 -0800, "raj" wrote:

any fx 5200 sux ass, get a geforce 4 ti a good performace and will be a
5600ultra, the 5200 is like same performace as a geforce 3 ti 200
undercloked and with 64 bit ram wich is purely ****, like a dx 8 geforce
2
lol
"KerplunKuK" wrote in message
m...
I am looking to replace a Geoforce 4 MX420 64Mb DDR. My price limit is
about £75 tops. I have seen a XFX Geoforce FX5200 AGP8x 256MB DDR DVI
TV-Out for about £60.
Is that a good buy, and is the card any good. I have just started
playing
alot of PC games so I want a powerful card. I have got a AMD 2600+ XP
processor and 1.5 gig of PC3200 DDR.
All help and advice appreciated.

Thanks

--

remove SPAM to reply
Victoria Concordia Crescit




I have a GF3 Ti200, and I've seen a 128bit FX5200 slightly
beat it out, but Nvidia made the FX5200 64bit version, and since
that's what most venders push onto unexperienced buyers, most say that
all FX5200 cards are ****. If Nvidia would have spent a little more
attention to this chip, and never created the 64bit version, it might
have been a decent entry level card.
However with the prices of the Ti4200 being comparable to the
5200Ultra, and the chip being as powerful as the 5600, I couldn't
agree more that the Ti4200 is the best bang for the buck at this time.

"KerplunKuK" wrote in message ...
Is the Ti4200 direct X 9 compatible?



Compatible, yes.. Compliant..No!

So hardware seen the GF4 ti series can do DX8.1 effects!

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:48:39 -0000, "KerplunKuK"
wrote:

Is the Ti4200 direct X 9 compatible?

DX9 will run on pretty much any card out there, including the original
GForce(1) cards.

DX9 doesn't mean squat on the 5200 since it can't handle the job of
DX8 titles.... much less DX9.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

I'm not sure about that. Not that I'm a video card expert, or even a real
enthusiast.

I just tucked one of these cards into AMD 2500+ system, and it works great.
Slow? Maybe in comparison other new gear, but not bad if you are upgrading
from a slower system I was doing an interactivty test with Lightwave 3D
(and Open GL using application) and found that with high poly counts /
textured / animated, the interactivity is quite fine. Of course I don't
play a lot of games, so maybe that is where this card falls down.

So I would offer a different assessment than the one everyone else is. If
all your friends have big Ti and 5600 + cards, this one will seem a bit
slower, apparently, for Unreal at least, and likely for everything. It
rates as half the speed of the next unit up the line, in one report I read.
However, if you spend less time comparing your gear to everyone else's (not
that there is anything wrong with that g) and more time using it, and you
don't upgrade your video card annually, the 5200 is a pretty sweet upgrade
from, say, your old TNT card...

Of course if you have the extra money, get the 5600U or (as suggested) the
Ti card, if you can find it.

"Dark Avenger" wrote in message
m...


Have a look at other threads discussing the price of the FX5900,
available
from £115 upwards; I think that is the smart place to be in terms of
most
card for your money. Yes, it's over your budget, but you won't end up
doing
what I did - I spent £60 on an FX5200 at Christmas (yeah, I thought it
was a
powerful card as well - I didn't do my research!!), and I'm now throwing
it
out and replacing it with the FX5900. This looks like a far better
balance
for my 2800+ and 1Gb RAM.

Regards,

Pete.
Derby
UK

Ya know, I think the only systems worthy an FX5200 are AGP 4x systems
with just around 256Mb memory and a processor between 800Mhz and 1
Ghz. And a nice old 20Gb hd.

For that it's a nice card... though a ti4200 might be better on such a
system.

For the rest it's a doorwedge!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.583 / Virus Database: 369 - Release Date: 10/02/2004

"Tony Gilchrist" wrote in message ...
I'm not sure about that. Not that I'm a video card expert, or even a real
enthusiast.

I just tucked one of these cards into AMD 2500+ system, and it works great.
Slow? Maybe in comparison other new gear, but not bad if you are upgrading
from a slower system I was doing an interactivty test with Lightwave 3D
(and Open GL using application) and found that with high poly counts /
textured / animated, the interactivity is quite fine. Of course I don't
play a lot of games, so maybe that is where this card falls down.

So I would offer a different assessment than the one everyone else is. If
all your friends have big Ti and 5600 + cards, this one will seem a bit
slower, apparently, for Unreal at least, and likely for everything. It
rates as half the speed of the next unit up the line, in one report I read.
However, if you spend less time comparing your gear to everyone else's (not
that there is anything wrong with that g) and more time using it, and you
don't upgrade your video card annually, the 5200 is a pretty sweet upgrade
from, say, your old TNT card...

Of course if you have the extra money, get the 5600U or (as suggested) the
Ti card, if you can find it.



True True, I never said that the FX5200 is bad for everybody, it's
cheap ass and if you just need a cheap ass card and don't game much...
well it will do just fine.