FX5200, should it be this bad?

PRIVATE1964 wrote:

If you mean DX8 compliance was a big thing for the GF4 Ti
range, then yes.


That's what I meant.

Ah, so my (snipped) reply was relevant. Good, wasn't sure.

If it doesn't make a claim either way, so what?


You brought up a question which I answered with a vaild question but you
didin't like that so you decide to come up with a new question?

Actually, it wasn't me. Look at the sender info. Completely different.
Anyway:

No, it doesn't say it's faster than a GF4 Ti4200. No, it doesn't say
it's slower than a GF4 Ti4200. Therefore, where's the problem? See, it's
not a completely different question at all, just a continuation.
Should they have a huge ream of "Faster than..." and "slower than..." on
the back of every box of every card? If so, what should these
performance numbers be based on? Any benchmark will slightly favour
different architectures, so should they give ammunition to some of these
people that'll complain about anything (or fanboys for a rival company)
saying "Hey look, the scores are opposite to that card in *this*
benchmark! NVidia lied!" and turning away potential users that believe
this to ATI or other competitors? No.

Tried running at a decent refresh rate at a high resolution on a TNT?
Even the GF2 in our non-gaming computer downstairs can't do 85Hz at
higher resolutions, when the monitor is perfectly capable.


I have not been calling the card crapola for it's features. I have been talking
about it's performance. Which is what I answered about, but now your talking
about it's features.

He said that not everyone cares for high FPS, etc. and you said go for a
TNT in that case. I was giving an example of where a TNT would certainly
*not* be appropriate and fits the criteria he gave. Yes, they might just
as well get a TNT for the performance but features are also an integral
part of the card, which makes it significantly inferior to the GF FX5200
for many people that don't gave a damn about games. You seem to keep
making the assumption that anyone that's bought an GF FX5200 has wasted
their money no matter what their circumstances, and this is not true.

Therefore, where's the problem?

The problem is it is slower. If it was faster there wouldn't be any need to put
it on the box. Do you think someone would complain if it was faster and that
wasn't listed on the box?

Should they have a huge ream of "Faster than..." and "slower than..."

Yes actually they should maybe a simple speed rating to show what your getting
for your money. They did that with cpu's why not video cards?

If so, what should these
performance numbers be based on?

A universal benchmark maybe.

Any benchmark will slightly favour
different architectures

They did it with cpu's that have different architectures. I think they could
also do it with video cards.



He said that not everyone cares for high FPS, etc. and you said go for a
TNT in that case.

That's right, but he didn't mention refresh rates or resolution. He meant fps
was not as important, so a TNT fits the bill. The only one who mentioned
refresh rate and resolution is you.

I was giving an example of where a TNT would certainly
*not* be appropriate and fits the criteria he gave.
That was your example not his. I didn't answer you I answered him so how could
expect my answer to be right for your question.

You seem to keep
making the assumption that anyone that's bought an GF FX5200 has wasted
their money no matter what their circumstances, and this is not true.


Yeah I think they have wasted their money if they were looking for performance
as a feature of the 5200.
How many did you buy?
You must have bought a few because you seem to be pretty defensive about such a
crappy card.

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Therefore, where's the problem?

The problem is it is slower. If it was faster there wouldn't be any need
to put
it on the box. Do you think someone would complain if it was faster and
that
wasn't listed on the box?

Should they have a huge ream of "Faster than..." and "slower than..."

Yes actually they should maybe a simple speed rating to show what your
getting
for your money. They did that with cpu's why not video cards?

They do for every video card...

Texel fill rate
triangles per second
memory bandwidth

If you cant figure it out from there, thats your own damn fault..

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
He got exactly what he paid for, he's happy with his card

Thats great.
You sound like someone who is bitter because he found out after he bought
some
hardware he was taken for a ride. So now you have a chip on your shoulder
trying to defend a crappy piece of hardware that you probably bought.

I say crappy for its performance.

I have a 9600XT AIW in one machine, a 4200 in the other. I'm quite happy
with my cards as well

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
If the MX said it would do DX8 you would have a valid point and I assure
you
it didn't

You sound like an employee from Nvidia. This was a big thing when they
released
it.

Ahh when wrong accuse the poster of being an Nvidia employee, gotcha

If the 5200 said on the box it was a faster card than a 4200 you would
have
a valid point and I assure you it didn't

It doesn't say its slower then a 4200 either does it?

Nope

Depends on the application, most people don't care for high res, don't
care
for pixel shaders and don't care about how many FPS Quake runs, for them
a
5200 is perfect just as the old 9000 was what ATI offered.

Then don't bother with the 5200 get a TNT which would be good enough.

I still see a few of those available new in the box, someday you might try
learning how OEM manufacturers work and why the 5200 and 9200 were developed
the way they are, until then I hope you don't try running a business

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Therefore, where's the problem?

The problem is it is slower. If it was faster there wouldn't be any need
to put
it on the box. Do you think someone would complain if it was faster and
that
wasn't listed on the box?

Should they have a huge ream of "Faster than..." and "slower than..."

Yes actually they should maybe a simple speed rating to show what your
getting
for your money. They did that with cpu's why not video cards?

Most people will ignore video benchmarks like they do CPU benchmarks, most
people do not research computer purchases

He said that not everyone cares for high FPS, etc. and you said go for a
TNT in that case.

That's right, but he didn't mention refresh rates or resolution. He meant
fps
was not as important, so a TNT fits the bill. The only one who mentioned
refresh rate and resolution is you.

If the TNT won't fit the bill they'll usually buy another computer with a
5200 or ATI 9200.


I was giving an example of where a TNT would certainly
*not* be appropriate and fits the criteria he gave.
That was your example not his. I didn't answer you I answered him so how
could
expect my answer to be right for your question.

You seem to keep
making the assumption that anyone that's bought an GF FX5200 has wasted
their money no matter what their circumstances, and this is not true.


Yeah I think they have wasted their money if they were looking for
performance
as a feature of the 5200.
How many did you buy?
You must have bought a few because you seem to be pretty defensive about
such a
crappy card.

85% of the market is OEM sales, 15% of the market is people like you and I
who buy aftermarket cards, a large percentage of the 15% buy a card based on
the artwork of the box or the fact that it costs less than $100

If they bought the card and it didn't perform they should take it back, if
they bought it without researching it then they are at fault not the card

"tooly" wrote in message
...

This is easily said...but remember, time is a valuable resource many of us
don't have for video cards. My experience is that the internet provides
mountains of 'trash information' one must swim through before reaching
something that is 'usable'.

Well true, but surely you can go to some well established hardware sites for
reference. Take this for example:

http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.c...phic/20031229/

Also, could have asked people here for advice

Graphics cards are one thing I do not have a lot of time for...but I'm
forced to take the time to wade through 'useless' information [for me
anyway] just to make a simple purchase at the store.

Contrary you have the time to 'waste' on enjoyment of your card...hmmmm
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this card helps you on your job.

Exactly what is the difference from a GForce 1 and a GForce 4 or
a UF from an XT model?

First place to go to is their manufacturers' site. Most of the time there
should be a comparison chart. Then all you do is compare the numbers eg, 2
pipes, 4 pipes...4 is better...but those with 4 costs a bomb...so must be a
new card in the market...so go for 2 pipes. Memory 128MB or 256 MB? etc.

The usual steps in product research is *comparison*! Ever heard this saying
that goes, "ugly is ugly only because there is beauty"? Browse around the
online stores and it will be apparent which is the high end cards and which
are not - if you're not technical, numbers are meaningless until you have
another to compare. There are also many hints too to which are better;
price, buyers' comments, buyers' ratings, frequency of occurence etc.

See...to the common buyer, who can't actually 'sit
in the Laborghinni' or kick the tires, but only have the box to go upon
[and
whatever the box reports, most of it foreign garble], there's no way of
actually knowing if it's really that KIA or not [until of course they get
it
home and it does not do what you 'thought' it would...namely run the damn
game better than the old junker sitting in the driveway]. Ooops, getting
analogies cross referenced...hehe..

*Never* rely on too much on the stuff on the box! No card would actually
write negative stuff about itself - unless someone wants to go out of
business...


What gripes me is getting DX9.0b compatability for tomorrows games. I
hate
buying something 'obsolete' before I even install it. But now...we have
DX9.0c...so where does it end??????

If the hardware doesn't support it then usually the computer does it in
'software' hence kind-of emulates the hardware so as long as your PC is fast
enough it's ok.

You must learn to live with the fact that PCs get out-of-date the day you
buy them! Buying a PC 'is not' an investment...like buying property. Worst,
PCs is one of those commodities with the large depreciation rates :O Worst
than cars!

Texel fill rate
triangles per second
memory bandwidth


Did you notice I said simple rating system?

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.

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.