FX5200 better than gforce 4?

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:42:24 +0000, Fidcal
wrote:

Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

The FX5200 is a good value. I picked up a 128MB card from CompUSA on
sale under $60 after the rebate and am pleased with it. It's not as
good as my ATI 9600 Pro, but it was also half the price and works well
in my secondary system. It will play Need For Speed Underground
fairly nicely on my P-III 800 box.

It is a bit better than the fastest GF4 MX cards. The FX cards are
newer technology than the GF4 cards and have some DX9 hardware
acceleration. That will be nice as you start to play the newer games.




Enjoy,

TLW

Tim W. wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:42:24 +0000, Fidcal
wrote:

Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

The FX5200 is a good value. I picked up a 128MB card from CompUSA on
sale under $60 after the rebate and am pleased with it. It's not as
good as my ATI 9600 Pro, but it was also half the price and works well
in my secondary system. It will play Need For Speed Underground
fairly nicely on my P-III 800 box.

It is a bit better than the fastest GF4 MX cards. The FX cards are
newer technology than the GF4 cards and have some DX9 hardware
acceleration. That will be nice as you start to play the newer games.




Enjoy,

TLW

3 FPS DX9 .. yeah..wow!

The FX5200 may do DX9 but is to slow to do it on acceptable framerates!

3 FPS DX9 .. yeah..wow!

The FX5200 may do DX9 but is to slow to do it on acceptable framerates!

Totally agreed there! They threw in (or actually didn't bother to take out)
DX9 support just so it look pretty on box compaired to "old-gen" cards.

If you think of DX9 support as nitros for cars, situation will be like this:
Racing a non-turbo 2001 Formula1 car : againt a (nitro-injected) 2003 rover.

Sure rover has nitrous, but engine is no good at using it,

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:04:46 GMT, "Asestar"
)_nospam_ wrote:

If you think of DX9 support as nitros for cars, situation will be like this:
Racing a non-turbo 2001 Formula1 car : againt a (nitro-injected) 2003 rover.

Sure rover has nitrous, but engine is no good at using it,

Not a very good analogy as DX9 isn't supposed to boost speed, its
about eye candy. If you want a car analogy, a 5200 is more like
putting spoilers, racing seats, 1000W audio system, large exhaust
pipes and go faster stripes on a Fiat Panda. It may make it
cosmetically better, but the extra weight will make it crawl.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Yepp... that's definitly better analogy.
But aren't dx9 capable cards (5700, 9600 for example) suppose to be faster
in dx9 games (when come out) than non-dx8 cards (ti4400 or 9500) of similiar
class and speed?



"Andrew" spamtrap@localhost wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:04:46 GMT, "Asestar"
)_nospam_ wrote:

If you think of DX9 support as nitros for cars, situation will be like
this:
Racing a non-turbo 2001 Formula1 car : againt a (nitro-injected) 2003
rover.

Sure rover has nitrous, but engine is no good at using it,

Not a very good analogy as DX9 isn't supposed to boost speed, its
about eye candy. If you want a car analogy, a 5200 is more like
putting spoilers, racing seats, 1000W audio system, large exhaust
pipes and go faster stripes on a Fiat Panda. It may make it
cosmetically better, but the extra weight will make it crawl.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On 4 Feb 2004 10:48:38 -0800, (Dark Avenger) wrote:

Tim W. wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:42:24 +0000, Fidcal
wrote:

Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

The FX5200 is a good value. I picked up a 128MB card from CompUSA on
sale under $60 after the rebate and am pleased with it. It's not as
good as my ATI 9600 Pro, but it was also half the price and works well
in my secondary system. It will play Need For Speed Underground
fairly nicely on my P-III 800 box.

It is a bit better than the fastest GF4 MX cards. The FX cards are
newer technology than the GF4 cards and have some DX9 hardware
acceleration. That will be nice as you start to play the newer games.




Enjoy,

TLW

3 FPS DX9 .. yeah..wow!

The FX5200 may do DX9 but is to slow to do it on acceptable framerates!

Have you actually tried it? No.
Enjoy,

TLW

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:37:34 GMT, "Asestar"
)_nospam_ wrote:

Yepp... that's definitly better analogy.
But aren't dx9 capable cards (5700, 9600 for example) suppose to be faster
in dx9 games (when come out) than non-dx8 cards (ti4400 or 9500) of similiar
class and speed?

Actually, in a DX9 game like Need For Speed Underground, there are a
lot of eye candy features that you can't turn on unless your card has
DX9 support. It's not a speed issue so much as an issue of
capability. Even using an FX5200 allows you to select visual features
that are not available with a non-DX9 card.
Enjoy,

TLW

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:39:49 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar"
wrote:

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

The FX5200 is roughly comparable to the 9600SE card. I have one and it
works fine. I realize that I am relying on personal experience rather
than heresay and benchmarks. Please forgive me...
Enjoy,

TLW

Tim W. wrote in message . ..
On 4 Feb 2004 10:48:38 -0800, (Dark Avenger) wrote:

Tim W. wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:42:24 +0000, Fidcal
wrote:

Short version: Is FX5200 better than gforce 4?

The FX5200 is a good value. I picked up a 128MB card from CompUSA on
sale under $60 after the rebate and am pleased with it. It's not as
good as my ATI 9600 Pro, but it was also half the price and works well
in my secondary system. It will play Need For Speed Underground
fairly nicely on my P-III 800 box.

It is a bit better than the fastest GF4 MX cards. The FX cards are
newer technology than the GF4 cards and have some DX9 hardware
acceleration. That will be nice as you start to play the newer games.




Enjoy,

TLW

3 FPS DX9 .. yeah..wow!

The FX5200 may do DX9 but is to slow to do it on acceptable framerates!

Have you actually tried it? No.
Enjoy,

TLW

Read the benchmark websites.... 20 FPS.. in a bit modern DX8 game.
Battlefields 1942 with mods over it.. be happy if you get 20 FPS.

And that game aint DX9, just DX8. As games will require more and wish
to use more "graphic power" the FX5200 will end up to be a picture
show.

That is simple seen from months before head!

NFSU is NOT a DX9 game. I can run this game with ALL graphic option on my
radeon8500le, which is dx8 card. There are no dx9 games released yet, might
have to wait untill doom3 or hl2 comes out.

"Tim W." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:37:34 GMT, "Asestar"
)_nospam_ wrote:

Yepp... that's definitly better analogy.
But aren't dx9 capable cards (5700, 9600 for example) suppose to be
faster
in dx9 games (when come out) than non-dx8 cards (ti4400 or 9500) of
similiar
class and speed?

Actually, in a DX9 game like Need For Speed Underground, there are a
lot of eye candy features that you can't turn on unless your card has
DX9 support. It's not a speed issue so much as an issue of
capability. Even using an FX5200 allows you to select visual features
that are not available with a non-DX9 card.
Enjoy,

TLW