GeForce 3 Ti200 vs GeForce 4 FX 5200

I have just bought a Dell Dimension 4600 with the Geforce 4 FX 5200 8x AGP
card (128MB). I got 3DMark2001 scores of around 6000 at 1024x768 32 bit.
However, with a GeForce 3 Ti200 4x AGP (64MB) I am getting around 8000!

I have used the latest drivers for both cards and upgraded to DirectX 9.0.

Is the '4' FX chipset inferior to the older '3' Ti200? If not, why is an 8x
128Mb card slower than a 4x 64Mb card?

Is the '4' FX chipset inferior to the older '3' Ti200? If not, why is an 8x
128Mb card slower than a 4x 64Mb card?

The 5200 is slower running DirectX 8 compared to the Geforce 3 Ti200. The 5200
would probably be faster in the test if you turned on Antialiasing for both
cards. 3Dmark2001 uses DirectX 8. The 5200 is also at the bottom end of the FX
line of cards.
If you tried running 3Dmark2003 the 5200 would most likely beat the Ti200
because its more of a DirectX 9 test.

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...

Is the '4' FX chipset inferior to the older '3' Ti200? If not, why is an
8x
128Mb card slower than a 4x 64Mb card?

The 5200 is slower running DirectX 8 compared to the Geforce 3 Ti200. The
5200
would probably be faster in the test if you turned on Antialiasing for
both
cards. 3Dmark2001 uses DirectX 8. The 5200 is also at the bottom end of
the FX
line of cards.
If you tried running 3Dmark2003 the 5200 would most likely beat the Ti200
because its more of a DirectX 9 test.

The GF3-Ti200 is the better card. Even with 3dMark2003, it's been my
experience that the GF3 runs better numbers than the 5200fx.

The GF3-Ti200 is the better card. Even with 3dMark2003, it's been my
experience that the GF3 runs better numbers than the 5200fx.

You sure about that?

I would think having the DX9 features alone would make the 5200 get a higher
score in 3Dmark 2003 compared to the Geforce 3 Ti200.

Here is a 5200 beating a Geforce 4 - 4200 in 3DMark2003. So how can it possibly
beat a Geforce 3 ti200?

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-150-4.htm