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 » Ati Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FX5200 better than gforce 4?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 3rd 04, 08:42 PM
Fidcal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FX5200 better than gforce 4?

Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

Longer version:
The game I'm looking forward to playing when released (Thief 3)
requires at least gforce 3, NOT MX, DirectX 9, with vertex pixel
shading. In my case it must also work under Win98 1st edition. I
got a card off the net which didn't state the platform and which
I eventually found would only work in Win98 SE and later so I
gave that someone else and went to a local shop instead.

I asked for geforce 4 in the shop and was so pre-occupied with
making sure it worked in Win98 1E that I didn't notice until I
got home it was not geforce 4 but FX5200. I asked on the net and
was told this was inferior even to geforce3. Back to the shop
where the manager insisted that was nonsense and the FX5200 was
better than gforce 4. He was so certain he literally signed my
receipt, "better than geforce 4 - (next level up)"

Questions:

1. Is he right?
2. Is there anywhere on the net I can get an overview of the
evolution of graphics cards in general, the jargon, etc. so I
have some idea what all these letters, numbers, and so on mean?

  #2  
Old February 3rd 04, 09:15 PM
Cuzman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Fidcal" wrote in message
...

" 1. Is he right?
2. Is there anywhere on the net I can get an overview of the evolution of
graphics cards in general, the jargon, etc. so I have some idea what all
these letters, numbers, and so on mean? "


1. He is largely mistaken. The FX5200 may be better than the lowest of the
GeForce4 range, but the Ti4200, Ti4400, Ti4600 and Ti4800 are all
significantly faster than the FX5200, even though they lack the DirectX 9
hardware support that the FX5200 has.

2. The following links are a VGA buyers guide and a comparison of the
latest VGA cards:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...229/index.html


  #3  
Old February 3rd 04, 09:16 PM
dino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

next level up sure..for beginners...I had a FX5600-256meg and it is a slower
card than my Ti4200-128..to beat a G4 TI series you must get at least a
5600Ultra..and that is bare minimum..I got rid of the FX5600 and went with
an ATI9600XT and put the Ti4200 in my kids system..if all you do is
"business" you would be alright..gaming...I think you would be very
disappointed


  #4  
Old February 3rd 04, 09:21 PM
Jon Danniken
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Fidcal" wrote:
Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?


If you don't even know the difference between ATI and nVidia, you might want to just buy a Dell
next time.

Jon

  #5  
Old February 3rd 04, 09:49 PM
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Fidcal wrote:

Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

Longer version:
The game I'm looking forward to playing when released (Thief 3)
requires at least gforce 3, NOT MX, DirectX 9, with vertex pixel
shading. In my case it must also work under Win98 1st edition. I
got a card off the net which didn't state the platform and which
I eventually found would only work in Win98 SE and later so I
gave that someone else and went to a local shop instead.

I asked for geforce 4 in the shop and was so pre-occupied with
making sure it worked in Win98 1E that I didn't notice until I
got home it was not geforce 4 but FX5200. I asked on the net and
was told this was inferior even to geforce3. Back to the shop
where the manager insisted that was nonsense and the FX5200 was
better than gforce 4. He was so certain he literally signed my
receipt, "better than geforce 4 - (next level up)"

Questions:

1. Is he right?
2. Is there anywhere on the net I can get an overview of the
evolution of graphics cards in general, the jargon, etc. so I
have some idea what all these letters, numbers, and so on mean?


The letters, numbers, etc don't mean anything except that some marketing guy
decided that if he used those letters and numbers he'd sell more boards
than if he used some other letters or numbers.

The 5200 is better than the Geforce 4 Ti for certain values of "better".
Unfortunately the values of "better" that apply are not the ones that most
people find useful.

It has hardware acceleration for DirectX 9, where the Geforce 4 has
acceleration only up to the 8.1 level, but the 5200's baseline performance
is in the Geforce 4 MX range, which is to say pretty poor--generally poor
enough that the DirectX 9 acceleration is irrelevant.

Historically the nvidia produced a built to a low price series of boards
called the "MX" boards, which typically been based on technology a
generation or more older than nvidia's high performance line. When the
Geforce FX series shipped there was no new "MX" board introduced. Instead
the 5200, which is based on the curent-generation FX technology but is
crippled in various ways to reduce manufacturing cost, was introduced.

The Geforce 4 line was in its day the 3-D performance leader--that is no
longer the case with newer technology on the market, but it is still a very
capable board, with performance on the same general level as the current
generation of midrange boards such as the Geforce FX5700 and the Radeon
9600, and way above any of the built-to-a-low-price boards such as the MXes
and the 5200.

Your dealer clearly doesn't understand that "new cheap board" does not
always beat "old very high performance board".

Whether you'll get an actual Geforce 4 out of him is doubtful--they're in
increasingly short supply and he probably doesn't have one to sell you.

There are a number of sites that publish performance information about video
boards--whether you can find a direct comparison of an FX5200 with a
Geforce 4 Ti I don't know offhand, but you should if you google "FX5200"
and "Ti4200" find enough test results to be able to make a case that will
convince anyone who actually has working brain cells (which lets out most
computer store managers) that the 5200 does not outperform the Geforce 4 Ti
boards.

You may have to just eat the 5200 and take your custom elsewhere, sad to
say. Having worked in computer retail, I don't hold out much hope of
changing the guy's mind--the people who manage computer stores are
generally dumber than rocks and more stubborn as well--but you may luck
out.



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #6  
Old February 3rd 04, 10:18 PM
Asestar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I asked on the net and
was told this was inferior even to geforce3. Back to the shop
where the manager insisted that was nonsense and the FX5200 was
better than gforce 4. He was so certain he literally signed my
receipt, "better than geforce 4 - (next level up)"


FX5200 is slower than GeForce3 ti500 for sure! however, if it is FX5200
(64-BIT - important) than it's way slower than even GeForce2 GTS/Pro or
Radeon7500.
GeForce4 TI4200 is lot lot faster than 5200 series, even 5200Ultra is slower
than 4200..

The manager is an idiot! Or trying to skrew you


  #7  
Old February 4th 04, 12:00 AM
DaveW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The FX 5200 is the current Entry level nvidia card and is slowww. The GF4
Ti 4200, 4400, and 4600 are all clocked faster than the FX5200, BUT the 5200
is DX9 capable which the GF4's aren't.

--
DaveW



"Fidcal" wrote in message
...
Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

Longer version:
The game I'm looking forward to playing when released (Thief 3)
requires at least gforce 3, NOT MX, DirectX 9, with vertex pixel
shading. In my case it must also work under Win98 1st edition. I
got a card off the net which didn't state the platform and which
I eventually found would only work in Win98 SE and later so I
gave that someone else and went to a local shop instead.

I asked for geforce 4 in the shop and was so pre-occupied with
making sure it worked in Win98 1E that I didn't notice until I
got home it was not geforce 4 but FX5200. I asked on the net and
was told this was inferior even to geforce3. Back to the shop
where the manager insisted that was nonsense and the FX5200 was
better than gforce 4. He was so certain he literally signed my
receipt, "better than geforce 4 - (next level up)"

Questions:

1. Is he right?
2. Is there anywhere on the net I can get an overview of the
evolution of graphics cards in general, the jargon, etc. so I
have some idea what all these letters, numbers, and so on mean?



  #8  
Old February 4th 04, 06:39 AM
GTX_SlotCar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

J.Clarke is right. The 5200 is DX9 capable, but it's unlikely that it would
actually be able to process DX9 instructions.
Also, here's a comparison link for you on a bunch of video cards. It's for
Call of Duty, but that's a pretty good representative of newer games:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...charts-05.html

Gary


--

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com



"Fidcal" wrote in message
...
Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

Longer version:
The game I'm looking forward to playing when released (Thief 3)
requires at least gforce 3, NOT MX, DirectX 9, with vertex pixel
shading. In my case it must also work under Win98 1st edition. I
got a card off the net which didn't state the platform and which
I eventually found would only work in Win98 SE and later so I
gave that someone else and went to a local shop instead.

I asked for geforce 4 in the shop and was so pre-occupied with
making sure it worked in Win98 1E that I didn't notice until I
got home it was not geforce 4 but FX5200. I asked on the net and
was told this was inferior even to geforce3. Back to the shop
where the manager insisted that was nonsense and the FX5200 was
better than gforce 4. He was so certain he literally signed my
receipt, "better than geforce 4 - (next level up)"

Questions:

1. Is he right?
2. Is there anywhere on the net I can get an overview of the
evolution of graphics cards in general, the jargon, etc. so I
have some idea what all these letters, numbers, and so on mean?



  #9  
Old February 4th 04, 11:47 AM
Fidcal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:49:41 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Fidcal wrote:

Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

Longer version:
The game I'm looking forward to playing when released (Thief 3)
requires at least gforce 3, NOT MX, DirectX 9, with vertex pixel
shading. In my case it must also work under Win98 1st edition. I
got a card off the net which didn't state the platform and which
I eventually found would only work in Win98 SE and later so I
gave that someone else and went to a local shop instead.

I asked for geforce 4 in the shop and was so pre-occupied with
making sure it worked in Win98 1E that I didn't notice until I
got home it was not geforce 4 but FX5200. I asked on the net and
was told this was inferior even to geforce3. Back to the shop
where the manager insisted that was nonsense and the FX5200 was
better than gforce 4. He was so certain he literally signed my
receipt, "better than geforce 4 - (next level up)"

Questions:

1. Is he right?
2. Is there anywhere on the net I can get an overview of the
evolution of graphics cards in general, the jargon, etc. so I
have some idea what all these letters, numbers, and so on mean?


The letters, numbers, etc don't mean anything except that some marketing guy
decided that if he used those letters and numbers he'd sell more boards
than if he used some other letters or numbers.

The 5200 is better than the Geforce 4 Ti for certain values of "better".
Unfortunately the values of "better" that apply are not the ones that most
people find useful.

It has hardware acceleration for DirectX 9, where the Geforce 4 has
acceleration only up to the 8.1 level, but the 5200's baseline performance
is in the Geforce 4 MX range, which is to say pretty poor--generally poor
enough that the DirectX 9 acceleration is irrelevant.

Historically the nvidia produced a built to a low price series of boards
called the "MX" boards, which typically been based on technology a
generation or more older than nvidia's high performance line. When the
Geforce FX series shipped there was no new "MX" board introduced. Instead
the 5200, which is based on the curent-generation FX technology but is
crippled in various ways to reduce manufacturing cost, was introduced.

The Geforce 4 line was in its day the 3-D performance leader--that is no
longer the case with newer technology on the market, but it is still a very
capable board, with performance on the same general level as the current
generation of midrange boards such as the Geforce FX5700 and the Radeon
9600, and way above any of the built-to-a-low-price boards such as the MXes
and the 5200.

Your dealer clearly doesn't understand that "new cheap board" does not
always beat "old very high performance board".

Whether you'll get an actual Geforce 4 out of him is doubtful--they're in
increasingly short supply and he probably doesn't have one to sell you.

There are a number of sites that publish performance information about video
boards--whether you can find a direct comparison of an FX5200 with a
Geforce 4 Ti I don't know offhand, but you should if you google "FX5200"
and "Ti4200" find enough test results to be able to make a case that will
convince anyone who actually has working brain cells (which lets out most
computer store managers) that the 5200 does not outperform the Geforce 4 Ti
boards.

You may have to just eat the 5200 and take your custom elsewhere, sad to
say. Having worked in computer retail, I don't hold out much hope of
changing the guy's mind--the people who manage computer stores are
generally dumber than rocks and more stubborn as well--but you may luck
out.


Thanks. This is a bit clearer now and I think the salesman spoke
in good faith but I might have a case for arguing that I did
originally say NOT MX and this FX5200 seems only fractionally
better than the the low end GF4 MX, ie, about that sort of
range. It was a relatively inexpensive card and I can only take
so much hassle before I start wondering if it's worth it. I
should get my brother in law to pursue it. He just grinds away
forever and ever when he feels agrieved until they just give in
to get rid of him!

Wish I'd seen that Tom's Hardware site before - especially that
chart.

Guess I'll sit on the card and accept the loss. I'll try it in
low res when the game comes out to see if it is playable at all
then have a rethink then. By the time the game comes out its
required spec might have gone up anyway as the last report I
heard is already months old.

Thanks for all responses which has been very helpful.
  #10  
Old February 4th 04, 11:57 AM
Stoneskin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Fidcal left a note on my windscreen which said:

Guess I'll sit on the card and accept the loss. I'll try it in
low res when the game comes out to see if it is playable at all
then have a rethink then. By the time the game comes out its
required spec might have gone up anyway as the last report I
heard is already months old.


If I were you I'd take it back and demand a refund. If that fails then
just sell it 'as new' on eBay - you'll probably get back most of what
you paid for it anyway.
--

Stoneskin

[Insert sig here]
 




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
Radeon 9600, FX5200, or Ti4200 LRW Ati Videocards 14 October 10th 03 04:41 PM
Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200 Bob Knowlden General 8 August 9th 03 04:59 AM
Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200 Bob Knowlden Homebuilt PC's 4 August 9th 03 04:59 AM
Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200 S.Heenan Homebuilt PC's 0 August 2nd 03 07:38 PM
A7V8X and Geforce FX5200 issues Bruno Asus Motherboards 0 June 28th 03 09:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.