NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 ( Very Slow )

DreamMaker wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:48:23 GMT, "Daniel"
wrote:

FX5200 is an entry level card (slow) and your
4600 was top of the line in its day (fast).

i'm sorry but i score in 3dmark01 around 7000+
with a fx5200 no o/c

It comes in more about 4000-5000. You can see a few systems raising
it, a bit. But the majority a the online compare are 4-5 or less. Mine
comes in about 4200-4400, depending.

It's a slow card. I was hoping it wouldn't be hot, even though it does
have a little fan.

I assume the FX 5700 would run much hotter, and the Radeon 9700 XT
hotter still.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:26:01 -0000, "Shaun Pudwell"
wrote:

My wife has a Compaq Presario 1.7Mhz with a GeForce FX 5200. Halo for the
PC runs as slow as it does on my PIII 500 with a GeForce 4 ti 4600. Does
anyone know why this is?

I'm guessing the Celeron 1.7Mhz (Man, that's slower than my 2Mhz
Commodore 128 from 1995!) - anyways, Ghz. If its the Celeron - then
it's marginly faster than your PIII-500.

The 5200fx, is a crap card... sorry. But I've seen it play HALO
surprising well on an AMD2000 (about double the performance of your
Celery 1.7ghz)


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:24:01 -0000, "anon" wrote:

Not true.
If it was a Celeron 2, which it would be if it was running at 1.7 ghz, it
would only run approximately 10% slower than a identically clocked P4.

eh.. huh... BWahahhahah !!

Thats some funny ****! The OLD Celerons were about 15% slower than
the P3s (Not including the original NO CACHE celerons).

Sorry bud, the 2.6Ghz Celeron is not even close to the performance of
ANY P4 CPU... much less the 1.7Ghz Celeron.

****.... even the 2.6Ghz Celeron is a LOT slower than the AMD DURON
1.6 or AMD XP 1700 (1.4Ghz).... A Celeron 1.7 is about as fast as a
PIII-700Mhz.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1

This is general KNOWELGE to those who experince or know anything in
the computer field... only stupid sales men who can't educate
customers sell such ****.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 06:31:38 -0000, "anon" wrote:

Errr, well I'm looking at the benchmarks on anandtech, and a Celeron
2.0Ghz comes out just ahead of a P4 1.8A in the DivX encoding test, 22.3
fps for the celeron, 21.99 fps for the P4.

You're looking at one benchmark. P4 core does well in SINGlE TASKING
jobs - hence, it needs MHZ to fill the pipe to get its performance.
When it comes to REAL WORK, the Celeron 2.6 is still slower than an
AMD XP1700 - which cost quite a bit less.

Click on the NEXT page, and the Celeron 2.6 is fastest Celeron, but
still SLOWER than an AMD CPU 1.2Ghz slower in clock speed and way
slower than the P4 1.8. With this, general usage and Gaming, the
Celeron P4 core is no faster than the last P4 Core celerons.
Customers who buy this **** only bought clock-rate, not performance.

Granted, its not a performer in the same way as a Duron or Athlon, but
thats not what I said...

You said it was 10% slower than a P4 of same Mhz.
QUOTE: " it would only run approximately 10% slower than a
identically clocked P4."

A 10% performance hit is a good deal if it saves you 30~50% the cost
of the CPU. But the 2.0Celeron compared to a current P4 2.0Ghz B
version isn't even half as fast. Geez, for the price of a Celeron
2.6 is about $90, more than the cost of an AMD XP2600 (About $80~95)
is still TWICE as fast in rendering and about TWICE as fast for
playing games. 36fps vs 62fps! (With ATI9800Pro or FX5900Ultra class
card UT2003) Geez, even a $55 AMD 2000 would a good speed bumb
over the $90+ Celeron 2.6.

Link: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=14

Hell, even the XP2600 only got 33.68fps in that test. In other words,
only 50% faster than a celeron 2.0ghz.

33fps in what test? Link? Proof?

GAME AMD 2600 Celeron 2.4 / 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT2003 61.84 36.07 / 32.12
Wolfenstein 67.9 34.2 / 31.4
Quake3 269.2 159.0 /151.5
WarCraft 3 36.43 19.74 / 13.12
SimCity 4 65.58 34.39 / 32.82
GunMetal2 Bench 32.96 27.84 / 24.84 (Is this it?)
H A L O 51.46 33.65 / 31.38
Aquamark3 bench 37.43 28.64 / 26.09
3D Studio Max 4min 7.7mins / 8.9mins (render)

* 3D Benchmarks are designed more for VIDEO CARD torture, rather than
CPU. In most cases, Game play on the Celeron is unacceptable!

As proven by people posting here and this preformance article, which
was done with a $400 ATI 9800Pro - when most people who buy such
machines tend to buy $100 fx5200, maybe a 9600/5600 card. Which means
you can cut these scores by half (5600/9600) or almost 1/4 for the
$100 cards.

So those playable 36fps you see on UT2003 for the Celeron2.6 drops to
around 15fps.. or worse.

And saying a 1.7ghz celeron is only slightly faster than a P3 500 is just
complete BS.

Who said that? Quote me. because as far as I know, you're the only
one saying that. Oh, what I posted to you was that it would compare
to a PIII-700Mhz. But to the Original Poster, based ON his hardware
configuration specificly, that its not much faster.

Note: The ONLY Intel P4 chip under $120 is the P4 1.8Ghz.

Wild claims like that require some proof. You'll need to post the benchs
that show a Cel 1.7 is roughly equivalent to a P3 500, b4 I'll believe
it...

I didnt compare the Celeron 1.7 to a P3 500. Learn to read better...
and stop selective choices of info for your "material of proof"...

Sorry you bought a Celeron, get ****ed off at Intel and the store that
sold you the system with semi "false advertising" of using Mhz as a
gauge of "speed"

Benchmark attached for ease of reference.

You attached nothing, I don't complain if someone posts a binary file
that is in relation to the subject.

But I think LINKS are better... saves time.

Oh, for fun - since I have the pages up...

UT 2003 1024x768 BOTMATCH (FPS) - ATI 9800Pro

118.73 - AMD 64 FX51 (2.2Ghz) = $700
113.48 - AMD 64 3400+ (2.2Ghz) = $400
107.67 - AMD 64 3200+ (2.0Ghz) = $275
101.05 - AMD 64 3000+ (2.0Ghz) = $220 (512k Cache)
100.50 - Intel P4EE 3.2Ghz = $950
90.29 - Intel P4 3.2Ghz = $400
84.31 - Intel P4 3.0Ghz = $270
61.84 - AMD XP 2600+ (2083Mhz) = $85
61.16 - AMD XP 2500+ (1833Mhz) = $82 (Mine)
58.92 - AMD XP 2400+ (2000Mhz) = $70
54.85 - AMD XP 2200+ (1800Mhz) = $60
49.06 - AMD XP 1700+ (1466Mhz) = $45
44.77 - AMD Duron 1.6Ghz = $40
43.58 - Intel P4 1.8Ghz A (not org P4 1.8) = $115
36.07 - Intel Celeron 2.6Ghz = $90
34.84 - Intel Celeron 2.4Ghz = $70
33.70 - Intel Celeron 2.2Ghz = $67
32..12 - Intel Celeron 2.0Ghz = $63


So the valid reason to buy a slower chip at a higher price is... ? ? ?




--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 06:31:38 -0000, "anon" wrote:

Wild claims like that require some proof. You'll need to post the benchs
that show a Cel 1.7 is roughly equivalent to a P3 500, b4 I'll believe
it...

Benchmark attached for ease of reference.

okay... I see the attachment...

Yep.. a weblink would have been easier.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 06:31:38 -0000, "anon" wrote:

Errr, well I'm looking at the benchmarks on anandtech, and a Celeron
2.0Ghz comes out just ahead of a P4 1.8A in the DivX encoding test, 22.3
fps for the celeron, 21.99 fps for the P4.

Granted, its not a performer in the same way as a Duron or Athlon, but
thats not what I said...

Hell, even the XP2600 only got 33.68fps in that test. In other words,
only 50% faster than a celeron 2.0ghz.

And saying a 1.7ghz celeron is only slightly faster than a P3 500 is just
complete BS.

Wild claims like that require some proof. You'll need to post the benchs
that show a Cel 1.7 is roughly equivalent to a P3 500, b4 I'll believe
it...

Guess you didn't much to go on after all...


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!