A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FX5200, should it be this bad?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old July 20th 04, 04:30 PM
Nada
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Red Activist" wrote:
I recently made a P4 3.0 computer, the place was out of 5700 ultras so I got
a Geforce FX5200 128mb, I figured it would still be on a par or better than
the 2 year old TI 4200 I had in the previous system.

Imagine my surprise to see GTA3(old game with a 700mhz + 16mb D3D card
recommended) running like a slide show on the new computer, I proceeded to
run the game X2-the threat in benchmark mode to compare the new computer to
the old one(athlon 2800 with the TI 4200):

Old Athlon with 4200TI - 53 frames per second
New P4 3.0 with FX 5200 - 10 FPS



The DVDs produce excellent 28 frames per second with that card, though.
  #62  
Old July 21st 04, 04:43 AM
LILfeatha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #63  
Old July 21st 04, 04:59 AM
Biz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #64  
Old July 21st 04, 07:13 AM
Mark Leuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Ahh when wrong accuse the poster of being an Nvidia employee, gotcha


I wasn't wrong. Just tired of trying to reason with someone of limited

brain
capacity. Who seems to twist everything around until he can find another
obscure angle to argue about.


Not at all, you claim what Nvidia did was deceptive which it wasn't, you
obviously do not understand why those cards were made and what companies and
customers they were designed for, you cannot grasp the concept nor in my
opinion do you even want to

ATI does it, Matrox does it, 3dfx did it and S3 is currently doing it for
the same reasons.


  #65  
Old July 23rd 04, 01:41 AM
tooly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Also, could have asked people here for advice


I would rather take my chances reading the box then asking most of the

morons
in these newsgroups anything.



Ok Private...looks like we're outvoted here. I guess I'm still ****ed for
forking out $140 smackaroos for an ati9600pro...only to find it constantly
crashes my system. I did the research at the time...but there's so so so
much out there to sift through. We now learn that ATI drivers are
problematic [especially with some mobo's like my Abit]...but why didn't I
find that information to begin with. Why don't they print that on the
box!!! Why do they even put it on the market when there are issues with
'certain equipment'??!!! Reminds me of game companies who release games
before they are properly debugged...oooh, that makes me mad. So, they hawk
their wares knowing there are issues, relying upon users having to download
patches and drivers and updates and who knows what. Hell, I've bought
mobo's that won't even boot until one first downloads the new bios to
'flash'...the old installed bios actually being 'inoperative' out of the box
[and provided CD obsolete etc].

My fault...sure. But it's hit and miss that one comes upon 'perfect
information' on these NGs and the internet in general. I don't have $140
smackaroos to splurge on 'graphics' anyway...and now I'm forking out another
~$200 smackaroos [not related to downunder bucks ] for an nvidia card.
Will it be worth it? If I see one single choppy frame with the new card
[5900xt] playing the most godawful pixelated game with a thousand shooters
all blasting away at the same time, I think I'm going to ...hmm...well, at
least come here and complain, hehe.

Man...my butt's sore from taking in the 'wrong' place from all these
computer companies...so yea, when they put 'known' crapola on the market
without 'warnings on the label of some sort' [like only for desktop, for
windows, not for heavy graphics gaming or something]...I say get out the
pitchforks and shovels...someone bring the rope...

I'll just fork out another "$300" is what is more likely to happen.





  #66  
Old July 23rd 04, 03:03 AM
PRIVATE1964
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

without 'warnings on the label of some sort' [like only for desktop, for
windows, not for heavy graphics gaming or something]


Thats kind of what I meant by a simple rating on the box.

Tell me in easy terms what it can and can not do.

Like below, Just a rough example.


FX Family-------------------5200---------5600-----5600 Ultra-----5700-----5900
Geforce 4 Family--------------4200---4400---4600





  #67  
Old July 24th 04, 06:58 PM
LILfeatha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

umm u talkin to me ?
im 15...

"Biz" wrote in message ...
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.

  #68  
Old July 29th 04, 01:23 AM
Darthy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:40:05 +0100, "Red Activist"
wrote:

I recently made a P4 3.0 computer, the place was out of 5700 ultras so I got
a Geforce FX5200 128mb, I figured it would still be on a par or better than
the 2 year old TI 4200 I had in the previous system.

Imagine my surprise to see GTA3(old game with a 700mhz + 16mb D3D card
recommended) running like a slide show on the new computer, I proceeded to
run the game X2-the threat in benchmark mode to compare the new computer to
the old one(athlon 2800 with the TI 4200):

Old Athlon with 4200TI - 53 frames per second
New P4 3.0 with FX 5200 - 10 FPS


OKay... so why EXACTLY do you call this an "upgrade"/New computer?

Some games and applications still run faster on that AMD... and the
Video card is an obvious problem.

For what you spent, you could have gotten an AMD-64bit CPU with a far
better upgrade path than the P4s (which are swithing sockets - NOW).


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- Fahrenheit 9/11 - Unless you see it for yourself, don't call it "a bunch of lies"... that would be unAmerican.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist.
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
warnign about geforce fx5200 128MB Augustus Nvidia Videocards 5 June 24th 04 12:05 AM
P3 450 & FX5200?? Dodge Tom Nvidia Videocards 8 May 20th 04 08:10 PM
FX5200 better than gforce 4? Fidcal Ati Videocards 34 February 6th 04 10:39 AM
FX5200 reviews needed. yeeyoh Nvidia Videocards 17 October 20th 03 08:29 AM
ti4600 or fx5200 [NAC]Nubi Nvidia Videocards 4 July 8th 03 05:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.