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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200
The FX5200 is a low-end DX9 card, but it may lack enough raw power to run
DX9 features. The 4200 is from the previous generation; it's pretty fast (and sometimes overclockable to near spec 4600 performance levels). It's DX8 only. You don't mention your CPU/RAM, so I can't guess whether your card is entirely the limiting factor. If you can talk yourself into wasting more cash, I'd suggest a Radeon 9500pro, if you can still find one, or a 9600. Keep your hard-earned cash with ATI in Canada. ;-) Bob Knowlden Spam dodger may be in use. Replace nkbob with bobkn. "Mitchua" wrote in message le.rogers.com... I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new video card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but with the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my price range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus FX5200 ($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't know if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic (comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year warranty) GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering here? Thanks for your help, Mitchua |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message
... The FX5200 is a low-end DX9 card, but it may lack enough raw power to run DX9 features. The 4200 is from the previous generation; it's pretty fast (and sometimes overclockable to near spec 4600 performance levels). It's DX8 only. You don't mention your CPU/RAM, so I can't guess whether your card is entirely the limiting factor. I have an AMD 1800+XP @ 1621MHZ, 512MB DDR, Asus A7V266-E mobo, and the Radeon 7000 64MB OC'ed to 173MHz. I think it's a pretty good bet the video card is the limiting factor :-) If you can talk yourself into wasting more cash, I'd suggest a Radeon 9500pro, if you can still find one, or a 9600. Keep your hard-earned cash with ATI in Canada. ;-) The 9000 and 9200 are in my price range. Would they beat the FX5200? I've always gone with ATI but I don't want to lay down $300 for one of their Radeon PRO series...yet :-) Bob Knowlden Spam dodger may be in use. Replace nkbob with bobkn. "Mitchua" wrote in message le.rogers.com... I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new video card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but with the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my price range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus FX5200 ($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't know if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic (comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year warranty) GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering here? Thanks for your help, Mitchua |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I just purchased from
www.newegg.com a Sapphire 9000 for a little over $50.00 (US DOLLARS). This is an ATI product and when I installed it on my sons Asus A7N8X Deluxe motherboard it has functioned without any problems. It is about 3 times faster than the ATI Radeon 7000 VE which I also Own. If you have the VE then you might try uninstalling all the drivers and first downloading and installing DX 9.0b from Microsoft. The new drivers for that card require it and seem to work pretty well. I recommend you check out the link below. This is at Toms Hardware. It shows a chart with a wide range of video cards so you can compare them in a logical manner. http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...2.html#aquanox This is the most recent comparison of video new video cards it is a guide and not a straight comparison. It is different and recommends buying a specific card for the free video games it offers. I guess that could be a possible option. My kids liked playing Baldurs Gate we got one time free with a video card. http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...714/index.html Hope this helps a little bit. "Mitchua" wrote in message le.rogers.com... I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new video card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but with the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my price range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus FX5200 ($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't know if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic (comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year warranty) GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering here? Thanks for your help, Mitchua |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"~misfit~" wrote in message
... "booster" wrote in message le.rogers.com... that 4200 price is very cheap and looks like a poor performer. you certainly won't get the benchmark scores you see for the normal priced ti4200s. If price is a limiting factor then just go with the 5200. it doesn't sound like you want the fastest graphics card, just a technologically better but lower end of the faster cards 5600+,9600+, and so on. The 5200 is faster than the r9000 though. If you're going get a radeon get a 9200 at least I disagree. A ti4200 is a ti4200 regardles of who makes it. It will have the same nVidia GPU as any other ti4200 and should perform similarly. nVidia do exercise a certain amount of control over what happens with their GPUs. I am very happy with my ti4200. It's a Leadtek but if I could have found a no-name one significantly cheaper without the software package that I'll never use I would have bought it. -- From what I've read, the generic makers do need to use certain standards of components. They can't just put on DDR with half the Mhz. Asus has improved on the design but the basic 4200ti is still better than a fx5200, right? I don't buy into that DX9.0 hype...yet :-) --Mitchua |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
$180.00 for any Ti 4200 sounds too steep,since the 5200's came out prices
have dropped.My BSG was only 95.00. "~misfit~" wrote in message ... "booster" wrote in message le.rogers.com... that 4200 price is very cheap and looks like a poor performer. you certainly won't get the benchmark scores you see for the normal priced ti4200s. If price is a limiting factor then just go with the 5200. it doesn't sound like you want the fastest graphics card, just a technologically better but lower end of the faster cards 5600+,9600+, and so on. The 5200 is faster than the r9000 though. If you're going get a radeon get a 9200 at least I disagree. A ti4200 is a ti4200 regardles of who makes it. It will have the same nVidia GPU as any other ti4200 and should perform similarly. nVidia do exercise a certain amount of control over what happens with their GPUs. I am very happy with my ti4200. It's a Leadtek but if I could have found a no-name one significantly cheaper without the software package that I'll never use I would have bought it. -- ~misfit~ "Mitchua" wrote in message le.rogers.com... I'm looking to spend about CAN$100 before taxes (15% here) for a new video card since my Radeon 7000 64MB sucks donkey kong. Everyone tells me how great the Gf4 4200ti is and I've been drooling over the benchmarks but with the Asus and MSI versions being at least $180, it's a little out of my price range. I'm sure I'd see a big preformance increase going to the Asus FX5200 ($112) but the benchmarks are significantly under the 4200ti so I don't know if it's worth buying now. To complicate matters more, I found a generic (comes in white box, made in taiwan, cyberlink CD, VIVO, 1-year warranty) GF4 4200ti for $109. Is a "crappy" generic 4200ti better than an Asus FX5200? Will I really get what I pay for? What should I be considering here? Thanks for your help, Mitchua --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know about the Radeon 9000, 9100, or 9200. They are apparently DX8
cards, regardless of the 9xxx designation. (Reminds me of the infamous nVidia Geforce 4 MX cards - they were essentially updated GF2 cards, DX7 devices, rather than DX8 like the GF4 ti.) Based on http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/video/fx5200vsr9200/, the FX 5200 is at least a little better than the 9200. The 5200 is also a DX9 card, although it may not be a good choice to run DX9 games, when they appear. In my limited experience, the nVidia hardware/drivers are less finicky than the ATI ones. (This is just an impression, not based on wide and rigorous testing.) I'm still pushin' that 9600pro ($178 USD, with free shipping, at www.newegg.com.). Have fun. Bob Kn. "Mitchua" wrote in message le.rogers.com... "Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ... The FX5200 is a low-end DX9 card, but it may lack enough raw power to run DX9 features. The 4200 is from the previous generation; it's pretty fast (and sometimes overclockable to near spec 4600 performance levels). It's DX8 only. You don't mention your CPU/RAM, so I can't guess whether your card is entirely the limiting factor. I have an AMD 1800+XP @ 1621MHZ, 512MB DDR, Asus A7V266-E mobo, and the Radeon 7000 64MB OC'ed to 173MHz. I think it's a pretty good bet the video card is the limiting factor :-) If you can talk yourself into wasting more cash, I'd suggest a Radeon 9500pro, if you can still find one, or a 9600. Keep your hard-earned cash with ATI in Canada. ;-) The 9000 and 9200 are in my price range. Would they beat the FX5200? I've always gone with ATI but I don't want to lay down $300 for one of their Radeon PRO series...yet :-) (snip) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ... I don't know about the Radeon 9000, 9100, or 9200. They are apparently DX8 SNIP I'm still pushin' that 9600pro ($178 USD, with free shipping, at www.newegg.com.). In Canadian dollars that's like $250 + 8% GST + border taxes = more than my life :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:00:39 GMT, "Mitchua" wrote:
From what I've read, the generic makers do need to use certain standards of components. They can't just put on DDR with half the Mhz. Asus has improved on the design but the basic 4200ti is still better than a fx5200, right? I don't buy into that DX9.0 hype...yet :-) I say buy the cheap Ti4200. 1 year warranty, right? The FX5200 does handle heavy anisotropic filtering better than the Ti4200. But with much faster pixelwrites, you have better framerate reserves in the Ti4200. You might not get all the eyecandy of the FX5200, but you'll always be able to have a smooth framerate. Even at high resolutions. And the Ti4200 carries a ton of eyecandy compared to 7000. You'll get onboard transformation engines and pixelshaders. The Ti4200 does all those things like realtime shadows, fire, smoke, fog, local/directed lighting, half reflections in wavy water, on the fly. I'm not so convinced the FX5200 is such a bad choice, but the general suspicion is that it doesn't have the muscle to make its DX9 support relevant. Me, I think it's basicly a question of going down in resolution. Down to 800x600 or even 648x480. That would make eyecandy less relevant, I suppose. But you know it's cheap. That's the bottom line of it. ancra |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:
"Bob Knowlden" wrote in : I don't know about the Radeon 9000, 9100, or 9200. They are apparently DX8 cards, regardless of the 9xxx designation. Something else to keep in mind with Radeon-based cards is that their OpenGL support is extremely bad for all models below the 9500. This is a critical issue for non-gaming OpenGL but is also somewhat problematic for gamers. The lower cards just aren't worth the money. If you buy a 5200 either get a 256mb one or if you get a 128mb one MAKE SURE It has a 128bit Memory bus some only have 64bit memory bus. :-) Greg B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|