FX5200 reviews needed.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:49:00 -0400, "bluestringer"
wrote:

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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!


Mine works great for me. It is a budget card and definately worth the price
I paid for it. Mine is faster than my old ti4200, side by side testing
proved it for me. After extensive testing, I am very confident it will work
very well in the DX9 games I plan to play.

Perhaps you had a problem with your Ti4200?

The last line is hilarious! Exactly What DX9 games do you expect to
play with a 5200? In test after test by every website - the best
5200 doesn't match the 4200.

Download and run 3DMark2003... that should give you an idea of DX9
performance...

Hey look at these benchmarks... from Anandtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1896&p=16

Take those scores, and the 5200 is about 1/5th that performance.

Then take into account that those scores are based on the AMD 64bit
CPU... and 1GB of RAM, so if you have a 2ghz CPU, you'd need to deduct
the FPS for the slower CPU you have.


I have a 5200here... not quite fair that its a PCI version (not for my
system), It's giving me time to play with it... I'll post some scores
- but in the end, it's about 10~20% faster than the GF2-MX AGP....
along with this shiny new 5900ultra I have here.


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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

"Darthy" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:49:00 -0400, "bluestringer"
wrote:

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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!


Mine works great for me. It is a budget card and definately worth the
price
I paid for it. Mine is faster than my old ti4200, side by side testing
proved it for me. After extensive testing, I am very confident it will
work
very well in the DX9 games I plan to play.

Perhaps you had a problem with your Ti4200?


Naw


The last line is hilarious! Exactly What DX9 games do you expect to
play with a 5200? In test after test by every website - the best
5200 doesn't match the 4200.


The ones I want to. I don't go by website tests, I do my own. Those test
after test were not with my stuff.


Download and run 3DMark2003... that should give you an idea of DX9
performance...

I don't do benchmarks, only games. But just for ****s and grins, I ran it.
No probelm, everything was as I expected. It did fine.




Like I said, MY 5200 Ultra works fine for me. Does everything I want it to
do. Might not be the card for you, but who cares.

bluestringer

"bluestringer" wrote in message
...

"Darthy" wrote in message
news

Download and run 3DMark2003... that should give you an idea of DX9
performance...

I don't do benchmarks, only games. But just for ****s and grins, I ran it.
No probelm, everything was as I expected. It did fine.


Fine?

The fastest 5200Ultra I could find on Futuremark's website scored 10.5, 9.5
and 10.5 fps in test 2, 3 and 4. And that was overclocked.

--
Derek

"Derek Baker" wrote in message
...

"bluestringer" wrote in message
...

"Darthy" wrote in message
news

Download and run 3DMark2003... that should give you an idea of DX9
performance...

I don't do benchmarks, only games. But just for ****s and grins, I ran
it.
No probelm, everything was as I expected. It did fine.


Fine?

The fastest 5200Ultra I could find on Futuremark's website scored 10.5,
9.5
and 10.5 fps in test 2, 3 and 4. And that was overclocked.

--
Derek



Yea, but that wasn't mine. I don't pay much attention to numbers, as long as
it plays my games, then I'm fine with it. I never said it was fast, it just
works for me, and that is fine.

bluestringer

"bluestringer" wrote in
:


"Derek Baker" wrote in message
...

"bluestringer" wrote in message
...

"Darthy" wrote in message
news
Download and run 3DMark2003... that should give you an idea of
DX9 performance...

I don't do benchmarks, only games. But just for ****s and grins, I
ran
it.

Yea, but that wasn't mine. I don't pay much attention to numbers, as
long as it plays my games, then I'm fine with it. I never said it was
fast, it just works for me, and that is fine.

bluestringer

I agree, I had an MX440 overclocked from hell as I've said before.
It would barely run Vice City at 640x480 and only half draw distance.
Then I put in a 5200 non ultra. When I ran benchmark tests it scored
higher but nothing too drastic so I was a bit dissapointed. Well, I
popped in Vice City and instantly could run it 1024X768 with full draw
distance and 2xFSAA. I never expected that to happen.

I'm not some big dumbass computer gamer geek either so I could give a
**** less what card can do better than what card. I own a PS2 and that is
where I get most of my AAA games. As for HL2, I"ll just wait until I
upgrade again or wait for it to come out on the PS3.

There is nothing wrong with the fx5200's at all.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:19:45 +0000 (UTC), destroyer
wrote:

Yea, but that wasn't mine. I don't pay much attention to numbers, as
long as it plays my games, then I'm fine with it. I never said it was
fast, it just works for me, and that is fine.

bluestringer

I agree, I had an MX440 overclocked from hell as I've said before.
It would barely run Vice City at 640x480 and only half draw distance.
Then I put in a 5200 non ultra. When I ran benchmark tests it scored
higher but nothing too drastic so I was a bit dissapointed. Well, I
popped in Vice City and instantly could run it 1024X768 with full draw
distance and 2xFSAA. I never expected that to happen.

I'm not some big dumbass computer gamer geek either so I could give a
**** less what card can do better than what card. I own a PS2 and that is
where I get most of my AAA games. As for HL2, I"ll just wait until I
upgrade again or wait for it to come out on the PS3.

There is nothing wrong with the fx5200's at all.

Theres plenty wrong with the 5200s. But they are low end cards...
Its BS to see a 5200 Ultra going for $179 at CompUSA (Saw that TODAY)
- funny how the same brand sells the 5600 next to it for the same
price... which is easily faster.

Its the priceperformanceexpectation ratio that is a bit screwy
with the 5200. But worse still is the difficulty in KNOWING what kind
of 5200 you may be buying! Nvidia could have been NICE and called the
64bit version the "5100" or "5000"... they could PUBLISH default
standards for their GPU classes.

With the plain 5900 almost hitting $200, they should dump the entire
5200 line.

Nvidia's big ****up now is vastly complicated product line that is
actually WORSE than the GF4 series! They can save some money by
reducing all these various products... make those 2-3 killer
products... we don't need 8 different choices!!

They should have:

5200 128 or 64bit = $ 50
5600 = $ 90
5600 Ultra = $120
5900 = $200
5900 Ultra = $300

Just 5 cards at 5 price points.... we're kinda almost there, but these
should be thier MSRPs - and reduce the line.

They should also stop doing generation releases GF4 / GF5... like in
the old days.



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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Theres plenty wrong with the 5200s. But they are low end cards...
Its BS to see a 5200 Ultra going for $179 at CompUSA (Saw that TODAY)
- funny how the same brand sells the 5600 next to it for the same
price... which is easily faster.


I do agree with you there. I wanted the Prolink 5200Ultra but when i went
shopping I was like.. DAMN GINA!!! If I'm going to pay that much I'll go
buy an Xbox.


Its the priceperformanceexpectation ratio that is a bit screwy
with the 5200. But worse still is the difficulty in KNOWING what kind
of 5200 you may be buying! Nvidia could have been NICE and called the
64bit version the "5100" or "5000"... they could PUBLISH default
standards for their GPU classes.

Well, I agree here too, luckily NewEgg.com actually lists the part number
so you know you are getting the 128bit version.



With the plain 5900 almost hitting $200, they should dump the entire
5200 line.

Well, the 5200 I have cost only a little more than the MX440 and it is a
MUCH better card. As long as Prolink keeps them up at 275/500 and Gainward
makes them overclock like hell I think they are a great 440 replacement.


Nvidia's big ****up now is vastly complicated product line that is
actually WORSE than the GF4 series! They can save some money by
reducing all these various products... make those 2-3 killer
products... we don't need 8 different choices!!

They should have:

5200 128 or 64bit = $ 50
5600 = $ 90
5600 Ultra = $120
5900 = $200
5900 Ultra = $300

Just 5 cards at 5 price points.... we're kinda almost there, but these
should be thier MSRPs - and reduce the line.

They should also stop doing generation releases GF4 / GF5... like in
the old days.

I'd like to see the fx5200 Ultra at about $75 myself.

I think Nvidia learned how to BS everyone from Microsoft. Microsoft is
great at BS. Just look at the Xbox, it's a big pile of dog**** and is only
more powerfull because it has all that directX built into it that has been
optomized for years on end. Recently, the old PS2 has been all up in it's
face with excellent looking games. I personally think each company should
have 3 cards. Low, Medium, High

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 08:19:30 +0000 (UTC), destroyer
wrote:
Well, the 5200 I have cost only a little more than the MX440 and it is a
MUCH better card. As long as Prolink keeps them up at 275/500 and Gainward
makes them overclock like hell I think they are a great 440 replacement.

Nvidia's big ****up now is vastly complicated product line that is
actually WORSE than the GF4 series! They can save some money by
reducing all these various products... make those 2-3 killer
products... we don't need 8 different choices!!

They should have:

5200 128 or 64bit = $ 50
5600 = $ 90
5600 Ultra = $120
5900 = $200
5900 Ultra = $300

Just 5 cards at 5 price points.... we're kinda almost there, but these
should be thier MSRPs - and reduce the line.

They should also stop doing generation releases GF4 / GF5... like in
the old days.

I'd like to see the fx5200 Ultra at about $75 myself.

I think Nvidia learned how to BS everyone from Microsoft. Microsoft is
great at BS. Just look at the Xbox, it's a big pile of dog**** and is only
more powerfull because it has all that directX built into it that has been
optomized for years on end. Recently, the old PS2 has been all up in it's
face with excellent looking games. I personally think each company should
have 3 cards. Low, Medium, High

3 cards is not enough anymore, they want to cover LOW - MED - HIGH
markets.... and theres certain levels that work...

They want the sub $50 market (now GF2/mx420 & 440se area), the sub
$100 market (5200 - but why not simlpy sell the 4200 at this prince
and continue the line... but its EASIER to market in Generations -
rather then Market scale)... look at it this way, THEY still sell lots
of GF2mx cards - today!! But you don't see GF2Pros & Ultras on the
market... same with the GF4mx 420/440 line... yet you dont see GF3 and
GF4 Tis are becoming thin.

Then you have the $150 and under market... semi power users.

$200 for hard cores who won't pay a dime more...

$300+ for rich kids or professional game players or geeks

$400 for boasting rights usually... but even the best games can knock
these puppies down.




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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!