FX5200, should it be this bad?

PRIVATE1964 wrote:
Why should they? Its not a GF4 chip based card, its a GF FX chip based
card.


It was a joke get a sense of humor.

They should at least put an easy to understand speed rating system on the box
for the general population to understand.


You forgot to put a g or ;-) after the "joke". Some of us struggle a
little harder with not so obvious jokes. :-)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:35:53 +0100, GLYTCH (A.K.A. PYRO-Maniak) wrote:

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

Thats kinda weird though. I play GTA:VC (practically the same game) on my
5200 with no troubles at all, in 1024x768x32 with the frame limiter off and
its very smooooth.

Maybe the difference is, yours is probably the the version with 128bit
memory bandwidth?

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcatftp.homelinux.org

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

I went through the normal procedure of reintalling direct x, getting new
drivers etc, totally convinced something was seriously wrong but it seems
this really is how bad the 5200 is!!, I swapped the cards and the Athlon
performed just as badly with the 5200, infact either computer with the 5200
was half as fast as my daughters Athlon 1000 with a GF2 ultra.

OK I know the 5200 is not exactly top-of-the-range and it didnt cost me a
lot, but with figures like 10 FPS it is frankly unusable, I really cant see
how Nvidia can still sell a card that is vastly slower than one they were
selling 4 years ago, hell I have a 3dFX 5500 in the cupboard upstairs that
beats it hands-down.

Anyone else have the misfortune to have owned one of these "video cards"?,
are they supposed to be this bad?

Note the use of the past-tense as I cant believe anyone who plays games more
demanding than minesweeper still uses one


Sounds like you got one of those FX 5200's that only have a 64-bit
memory interface. It cripples an already low-end card to the
"performance" levels you are currently seeing. FX 5200's with the
128-bit memory interface fare much better (even if they still aren't
speed demons).

jafar wrote:
Maybe the difference is, yours is probably the the version with 128bit
memory bandwidth?

Probably, ive no idea if mine is 64 or 128, how can i tell? theres no
stickers on the card at all and no markings to suggest.

Matt
--
Collection: http://users.ign.com/collection/GLYTCH_2K4
MSN: GLYTCH_2K4(at)msn.com
Xbox Live: (Coming September)

You think that "the
same family" equals "the same performance".

The performance of a newer family as you call it should be better then the
performance of an older family.
If that is how it is being sold and It is being sold that way because of the
numbering they use for the models which is deceptive.
A lot of people purchased the Geforce 4 MX thinking it was better then a
Geforce 3. Well guess what it's not because it lacks DirectX 8 features that
the Geforce3 has. Do you think they put that on the box plain to see for the
average person buying the video card? Comparing the different models?
Not at all because they know the average person is gonna see Geforce 4 and say
"Hey! newer model it must be faster then mine" That's logical and they know it.
Thats why they sold so many.


I f you want to compare between family such as CPU's then that would be Celeron
compared to Pentium. From that it is pretty easy to see one is different then
the other for some reason because of the name alone. The name alone would make
you question what is different.

An Intel 1.6GHz Northwood P4
and a a 3,06GHz Northwood P4

The average person does not go into a store to purchase a CPU, he might go in
for a video card though so your argument holds no water.

A nonsense argument given the fact that the OP tells us he built his own
PC.

I'm talking about it being deceptive for the average person who does not have a
lot of knowledge about computers. This pretty much is the point the OP tried to
make.

didn't he notice the price difference between an FX5700 and
a FX5200?

Thats not the problem. The problem is the same money you spent on the FX5200
could have gotten you more performance by purchasing an older model. Something
most of the people buying the product would not expect.

You obviously define the word "performance" in only one way: the way _you_
think performance should be, not what people actually want from a
commodity. It obviously consists of constant high performance for playing
games that heavily tax the video card. That's good for you.
But again, don't think that _your_ definition of standard PC use is _the_
standard definition for everyone.
And don't think that every modern game runs under a 16MB TNT. Just an
example, try a recent game in need of hardware TnL.

What else would be the main reason in paying for graphic card? Looks? Yeah next
time I buy a graphic card I will say "I don't care how it performs, I just want
it to look nice and be durable."
There is no reasoning in what you posted.
Your trying to say that someone who goes into a store who only needs a certain
level of performance would not care about having better performance for the
same amount of money or less. That's like me buying a car that has a maximum
speed of 80Mph, even though there is one for the same price that can go 100Mph
because I will only drive it at 60Mph.


Use arguments instead of lousy debating tricks and cheap incantations. If
you don't _have_ arguments to counter him, just tell the other graciously
so.

Your not from the US are you?

You seem to have a weird idea that if you repeat your faulty statements
over and over again they will become true in the end. Of course this is
not the case. Your statement is not true, and will stay that way.

It's a "crap" choice if you want a gamer system, or if it's being sold to
you in a system advertised as gamer system.
Read DaveW's _correct_ reaction in this thread: "[it] is pretty much
agreed to be a waste of money for gamers".


Your not from the US are you?



I understand your attempts to discredit me, as you have not been able to
present decent arguments in return.

Rethink your strategy. It's the strategy of a loser.


Your not from the US are you?

GLYTCH (A.K.A. PYRO-Maniak) wrote:
Red Activist wrote:

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


Thats kinda weird though. I play GTA:VC (practically the same game) on my
5200 with no troubles at all, in 1024x768x32 with the frame limiter off and
its very smooooth. Even my old GF4 MX420 could handle it well, a small
amount of slowdown when the s##t hits the fan but thats about it. What are
the rest of your system specs? Seams very odd that your getting THAT bad
performance. My PC is a P4 (Northwood) 3GHz, 1GB DDR400 Dual Channel, Intel
D865PERL motherboard, 2x Western Digital 800JB HDD's.

Unfortunately, Rockstar did a bad job of optimising GTA3 for the PC
after porting it.
GTA:VC is another matter, it plays way better than GTA3 did. A friend
also has an FX5200 (he got it free and was better than the onboard he
was using before..) and it does mostly play fine as long as the settings
are pretty low.

I've not played GTA3 since I got my 9800 pro a month or so ago, but if
settings were maxed like I have with VC I seriously wouldn't be
surprised to see it slow down noticeably sometimes.

Some of us struggle a
little harder with not so obvious jokes. :-)

; - ) better?
That was another joke by the way.

Not from the US are you?

I can tell because you bring up irrelevant arguments.
Your just someone looking to start trouble over things that are only remotely
related to the original topic.
Probably because you can't comprehend the english langauge. So because you
can't understand what someone has posted you decide to create your own little
sub topic that has no bearing.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:47:26 +0100, GLYTCH (A.K.A. PYRO-Maniak) wrote:

jafar wrote:
Maybe the difference is, yours is probably the the version with 128bit
memory bandwidth?

Probably, ive no idea if mine is 64 or 128, how can i tell? theres no
stickers on the card at all and no markings to suggest.

You could do a Google for your card's model number. I'm sure the specs
will be there somewhere.

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcatftp.homelinux.org

You have learnt a very universally important lesson: Always do some
backgroud research before spending money!!! (especially if you care much
about money that is...) With the internet at your hands nowadays it should
be a piece of cake for you to get quick accurate info

How people can purchase items costing hundreds and sometimes thousands of
dollars without doing *any* research whatsoever is BEYOND ME.