FX5200, should it be this bad?

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Want to know why it's crapola?

Because it's deceptive in the way it is being sold.

Not at all...the clock speeds and memory bandwith specs are printed clearly
on the packaging or in the descriptions for the people that cant be bothered
to leave their houses to purchase.
Every website that has benchmarks clearly show what cards perform well for
3d games and what cards should strictly be used for 2D service.




It's very easy for someone to go into a store and see "5200" and think its
better then a card they bought a couple of years before because it's
newer.
They shouldn't have to do any research to expect that it will be better.
Nvidia
has done the same thing before with the Geforce 4 MX. You think your
getting a
DirectX 8 card because all the other Geforce 4 cards are, but in fact your
only
getting DirectX 7 which is beaten by a DirectX8 Geforce3.

Yes, the card is known for it's crappy performance do some searching.

If you spent any money on a 5200 then I feel sorry for you. You could have
taken that same money and purchased a lot more performance.
Let me guess you have a 5200?

1969 Lamborghini Miura and the 2004 Kia comparison


Your reasoning makes no sense. Were not talking about comparing a high
performance auto to a family car. We are talking about graphic cards in the
same family of graphic cards.

How would you feel if you bought that 1969 Lamborghini only to find out it had
a 4 cylinder engine in it when you got it home?


They should. Why would someone expect something to be better without
properly looking at specs and buying blindfold?

Because we are talking about computer hardware and someone should resonably
expect a performance boost when they upgrade to a newer model.
Not eveone should have to do a ton of research to expect that either.

The
card is low performance, and not suited for a gaming system. And there's
_no_ doubt about that.


Thats why I called it crappy. If you don't care about performance then why
spend the money on it? Get a 16Meg TNT.

I asked you about durability and
proper functioning.

I never said it didn't function properly or wasn't durable. Thats not the
biggest reason someone would be buying it for. They would be buying it for
performance.


OK let me say this very slowly so you will understand.

It's crapola for it's "performance".

What are you a Nvidia employee?

he FX5200 is their lowest card in their current
offerings.

They should rename it to Geforce 4-5200 MX+

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
he FX5200 is their lowest card in their current
offerings.

They should rename it to Geforce 4-5200 MX+

Why should they? Its not a GF4 chip based card, its a GF FX chip based
card. Since about the GF2 days, nVidia has marketed many cards in the same
series, ranging in price and speed/memory bandwidth. That has not changed.
The FX5200 is just the lowest card. their cards in teh FX line range from
the 5200 cards all the way up to the 5950 Ultra versions. The only
differences being memory speed/clock speed/memory bandwith(64 or 128-bit)/
and video ram..

i have a 5200 in my system and for what i need it is fantastic - i am not a
heavy gammer so for me it is great, and the price was good for what u get

lets face it - you get what u pay for

just my 1c worth

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.67...
(PRIVATE1964) wrote in
alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia:

Want to know why it's crapola?

Because it's deceptive in the way it is being sold.
It's very easy for someone to go into a store and see "5200" and think
its better then a card they bought a couple of years before because
it's newer.

Your logic is flawed, as I already explained in another answer in this
thread with the 1969 Lamborghini Miura and the 2004 Kia comparison. If Kia
markets a new model for 2005, you automatically assume it's better and
faster then every older car just because it's newer?
No wonder your consumer info sound more like static.


They shouldn't have to do any research to expect that it
will be better.

They should. Why would someone expect something to be better without
properly looking at specs and buying blindfold? Your logic evades me.
Imagine doing that with a processor. Intel presenting a new low end
processor for simple home users - and mr. private1964 will immediately buy
it, because it's newer than all others, so it will be faster.


Nvidia has done the same thing before with the Geforce
4 MX. You think your getting a DirectX 8 card because all the other
Geforce 4 cards are, but in fact your only getting DirectX 7 which is
beaten by a DirectX8 Geforce3.

Yes, the card is known for it's crappy performance do some searching.


That sounds like you're giving an answer to my question, but it isn't. The
card is low performance, and not suited for a gaming system. And there's
_no_ doubt about that.

But I didn't ask you about performance. I asked you about durability and
proper functioning.
You have no proof that the card is mechanically unsound or doesn't
function properly.
You just bloated that the card is "crapola", and can't discern performance
from durability and proper functioning.



If you spent any money on a 5200 then I feel sorry for you. You could
have taken that same money and purchased a lot more performance.
Let me guess you have a 5200?

Derived from your logic about buying stuff and researching, you bought one
yourself, put it in your PC, showed your buddies "I have a new card, so
it's better than all older cards", and they laughed you in the face when
they found out you only had the money to buy a low end card and found you
were stuck with a FX5200. And instead of thinking "I should have been
paying more attention to what I bought" you thought "It's not my fault,
it's the FX5200's fault".

Given the low price and specs there are few if no competitors. The FX5200
is a low budget low end card.

People come here for proper information. Give _proper_ information,
instead of opening your mouth just to let out some random noises.



--
CeeBee


EMH Mark I: "Stop breathing down my neck."
EMH Mark II: "My breath is merely a simulation."
EMH Mark I: "So is my neck. Stop it anyway."

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.84...

A 1969 Lamborghini Miura eats any 2004 Kia for breakfast. You can't
compare apples and oranges - an old high(er) end card with a newer low
end card.

A short info spree around Internet would have given you that info.

The FX5200 is a low end card and not suited for regular gamers who need
high frame rates, fast refresh rates and lots of tiny details at high
rez recalculated every nanosecond.
It is an excellent budget choice for the user who plays a casual game
with resolution not set too high. Remember that "PC user" doesn't equal
"gamer".

Instead of gloating over bad performance of the card, one could gloat
over your bad performance on etting info and choosing a suitable card
for your specs before buying one.



Yes I admit I didnt go checking its performance, I normally trust Nvidia, I
kinda expected it to be better than the TI4200 because it seems a bit
illogical to stop making TIs in order to make something 5x worse, incidently
the TI was not much more expensive than the 5200 when I bought it a year
ago, oh and I didnt go checking the performance of the 4200 before I bought
it either, just as I didnt the GF2 ultra before that, both times there were
about 2 or 3 cards higher in the range but both lived up to my expectations

Then again I define "worse" as slower, it could be argued that because its a
DX9 card its better, but I cant imagine it being possible to play any DX9
enabled game with this card anyway.

And the point about it being mis-marketted is very true, lets have a look at
the claims on the box:

"if there was ever a reason to feel sorry for the competition this is it!"

"Persons having high blood pressure or heart condition should not use this
card, the unmatched graphic quality may be too exhilerating and realistic
for the weak of heart"

Plus loads of awards from magazines including gaming ones for its
performance plastered everywhere

I was running GTA 3 at 640x480 with lowest possible settings and it was
barely playable lol

Gloating is not the same thing as complaining BTW, its not possible to gloat
when you, yourself made the mistake, Im not boasting I bought a crap video
card.

I loath ATI with all their little utiilities they try to install with their
drivers but the ATI radeon for the same price has way better performance,
Ill check before buy a current Nvidia card in furture now I know I have to.

Thanks folks

Red Activist wrote:
I recently made a P4 3.0 computer, the place was out of 5700 ultras
so I got a Geforce FX5200 128mb, I figured it would still be on a par
or better than the 2 year old TI 4200 I had in the previous system.

Imagine my surprise to see GTA3(old game with a 700mhz + 16mb D3D card
recommended) running like a slide show on the new computer, I
proceeded to run the game X2-the threat in benchmark mode to compare
the new computer to the old one(athlon 2800 with the TI 4200):

Old Athlon with 4200TI - 53 frames per second
New P4 3.0 with FX 5200 - 10 FPS

I went through the normal procedure of reintalling direct x, getting
new drivers etc, totally convinced something was seriously wrong but
it seems this really is how bad the 5200 is!!, I swapped the cards
and the Athlon performed just as badly with the 5200, infact either
computer with the 5200 was half as fast as my daughters Athlon 1000
with a GF2 ultra.

OK I know the 5200 is not exactly top-of-the-range and it didnt cost
me a lot, but with figures like 10 FPS it is frankly unusable, I
really cant see how Nvidia can still sell a card that is vastly
slower than one they were selling 4 years ago, hell I have a 3dFX
5500 in the cupboard upstairs that beats it hands-down.

Anyone else have the misfortune to have owned one of these "video
cards"?, are they supposed to be this bad?

Note the use of the past-tense as I cant believe anyone who plays
games more demanding than minesweeper still uses one

I just upgraded from a GeForce 4 MX420 to a FX5200 last week. My system has
the same CPU as urs but dunno bout motherboard and memory setup. Overall i
got about a 30% performance increase above the MX420 using the FX5200. Of
course the MX420 couldnt do pixel shaders of any kind, so a fully DX9 card
was a good buy for £10 i thought. However it is certainly not a high flier,
in some tests in 3DMark2001SE my old MX420 out performed it, only just
though.

Im getting a mates old GeForce 4 4200Ti 128MB with AGP8x on tuesday, and i
expect it to a lot better than the 5200, and completely **** over the MX420.
Based on reasearch ive done and the replies ive had from people on here, if
you want a card in the FX range, dont go lower than a FX5700 with your
system. Other than that the GeForce 4 Ti range will perform better than the
low end FX range.

Matt
--
Collection: http://users.ign.com/collection/GLYTCH_2K4
MSN: GLYTCH_2K4(at)msn.com
Xbox Live: (Coming September)

Red Activist wrote:
I was running GTA 3 at 640x480 with lowest possible settings and it
was barely playable lol

Thats kinda weird though. I play GTA:VC (practically the same game) on my
5200 with no troubles at all, in 1024x768x32 with the frame limiter off and
its very smooooth. Even my old GF4 MX420 could handle it well, a small
amount of slowdown when the s##t hits the fan but thats about it. What are
the rest of your system specs? Seams very odd that your getting THAT bad
performance. My PC is a P4 (Northwood) 3GHz, 1GB DDR400 Dual Channel, Intel
D865PERL motherboard, 2x Western Digital 800JB HDD's.

Matt
--
Collection: http://users.ign.com/collection/GLYTCH_2K4
MSN: GLYTCH_2K4(at)msn.com
Xbox Live: (Coming September)

Why should they? Its not a GF4 chip based card, its a GF FX chip based
card.

It was a joke get a sense of humor.

They should at least put an easy to understand speed rating system on the box
for the general population to understand.

i have a 5200 in my system and for what i need it is fantastic - i am not a
heavy gammer so for me it is great, and the price was good for what u get

lets face it - you get what u pay for

just my 1c worth

You could have gotten better performance by purchasing a cheaper older model.
So you really didn't get what you paid for.