5200 vs. 5200 Pro?

[bluemax]

So, what's the difference between the sub-$100 FX 5200 versus the 5200 Pro?
Just clock speed? Pipelines?

What does that translate to in numbers?

(Curious because a fanless wonder would be nice... something faster and better than the Radeon 9000...)

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: bluemax
So, what's the difference between the sub-$100 FX 5200 versus the 5200 Pro?
Just clock speed? Pipelines?

What does that translate to in numbers?

(Curious because a fanless wonder would be nice... something faster and better than the Radeon 9000...)

From THG: "With its FX 5200 series, NVIDIA will be the first manufacturer to bring DirectX 9 technology to the lower price segment. The chip has 45 million transistors and is fabricated using the 0.15-micron process. It also has only four pixel pipelines (2x2)."

From FS: "Looking at pure fill rate and bandwidth figures, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra offers up to 10.4GB/sec of peak memory bandwidth, that?s a 2.2GB/sec increase over GeForce4 MX 440-8X, and 1.6GB/sec more than RADEON 9000."

From FS: "Like previous NVIDIA products, the only difference between the variants is clock speed. NVIDIA hasn?t announced the final clock frequencies for GeForce FX 5200, but GeForce FX 5200 Ultra features a 325MHz core clock with 325MHz (650MHz effective) memory."

The Ultra absolutely smacks around the 8500 and 9000Pro, so the non-Ultra should do the same, if overclocked.

~Aunix

 

[bluemax]

Nice catch! So why the big difference in price? There must be a big difference in RAM and core speeds... mainly RAM I would suppose.
~$150 vs. >$100? Pretty big difference for that market!

Newegg has the 5200s around $80 I believe....

GeForce FX 5200 Ultra features a 325MHz core clock with 325MHz

Memory: 128MB 128-bit 5ns (8x16) DDR (200MHz-400MHz effective)

And the 5200 on newegg for $88 (64MB) and $100 (128MB) are 250 core, 200/400 RAM. That's a pretty significant decrease...
The non-Pro is only 61.5% of the speed quoted in the reviews....
OTOH, that's better than most underclocked Radeon 9000's and that's pretty darn good for a fanless card!

Now all I need is for the price to come down. Hope the TV-out quality is respectable this time.... eVGA.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: bluemax
Nice catch! So why the big difference in price? There must be a big difference in RAM and core speeds... mainly RAM I would suppose.
~$150 vs. >$100? Pretty big difference for that market!

Newegg has the 5200s around $80 I believe....

correct, it's $88 for it @ newegg: link

beats me as to the price difference. Still on nVidia's site they have yet to post specs for the non-Ultra. But as it common with nVidia, one line of cards, the only difference tends to be clock speed. Ti4200/4400/4600, only difference was clock speed. I'm guessing the same will be true with the 5200 line.

Due to the fact that it's on .15micron processing, it will probably have good overclockability like previous nVidia cards. So I'd say go with the non-Ultra, no need to waste money, IMO.

~Aunix

 

[bluemax]

Lol... got me editing my previous post. I think I figured it out... RAM speeds mainly.
I'll have to REALLY consider this card when I get my first paycheck from the new job! Fanless and fast enough for my needs.
Best thing to have in a Shuttle box when you're after quiet!

I wonder how high 5ns RAM will go?

 

[DClark]

Digit-Life just published a review of the 5800 ultra and bare bones 5200 (clocked to 250/200). The article can be found here.

The 5200 was generally between the Radeon 9000 and Radeon 9000 Pro performance-wise.

3DMark2001SE, 1024x768:
5200 (250/200 clock): 7945 marks
9000 (250/200 clock): 6958 marks
9000 Pro (275/275 clock): 8374 marks

Quake3 (quaver) 1024x768:
5200: 152.4fps
9000: 84.7 fps
9000 Pro: 107.4 fps

Serious Sam2 (cathedral), 1024x768:
5200: 63.5 fps
9000: 72.7 fps
9000 Pro: 87.9 fps

RtCW (checkpoint), 1024x768:
5200: 76.4 fps
9000: 74 fps
9000 Pro: 96 fps

UT2003 (antalus), 1024x768:
5200: 63.3 fps
9000: 51.1 fps
9000 Pro: 61.7 fps

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: DClark
The 5200 was generally between the Radeon 9000 and Radeon 9000 Pro performance-wise.

Hahaha

The 5200 absolutely owns the 8500 and 9000Pro: link

~Aunix

 

[DClark]

Hahaha? How about you first know what you're talking about, and then post. The 5200 and 5200 Ultra are two completely different cards. While nVidia may like you to get confused about the price and performance of each card, the 5200 Ultra is in the Radeon 9500/9600 price range, not the 9000 and 9000 Pro.

The 5200 is clocked at 250/200 and sells for around $88 for 64mb and $100 for 128mb. The 5200 Ultra has a msrp of $149 (though it has yet to see the retail shelves) and is clocked at 350/350.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: DClark
Hahaha? How about you first know what you're talking about, and then post. The 5200 and 5200 Ultra are two completely different cards. While nVidia may like you to get confused about the price and performance of each card, the 5200 Ultra is in the Radeon 9500/9600 price range, not the 9000 and 9000 Pro.

The 5200 is clocked at 250/200 and sells for around $88 for 64mb and $100 for 128mb. The 5200 Ultra has a msrp of $149 (though it has yet to see the retail shelves) and is clocked at 350/350.

Have you ever heard of the word overclock?

kthx,

~Aunix

 

[bluemax]

Heyyyyyyy... that's impressive! It's definately AT LEAST as good as a 9000 Pro if not a touch more... all that fanless! And could still be overclocked at least a little bit.... more if someone used better than 5ns RAM.

It's a bit more expensive, but I'd call it a success! With nVidia making some new game partnerships, it's real tempting.
Of course, it's also very tempting to go with ATI for its renowned TV out quality, sharp 2D display and decent dual-monitor capability.

Dangit... Gotta' love the crazy way my brain works! (or doesn't...)

 

[DClark]

Read the link I supplied in my first post to this thread. It includes overclocked results of the 5200 (they got it stable to 315/205, or a 65mhz core increase and 5 mhz memory increase).

Including the overclocked results:

3DMark2001SE, 1024x768:
5200 (250/200 clock): 7945 marks
5200 (O/C to 315/205): 8569 marks
9000 (250/200 clock): 6958 marks
9000 Pro (275/275 clock): 8374 marks

Quake3 (quaver) 1024x768:
5200: 152.4fps
5200 (O/C to 315/205): 161 fps
9000: 84.7 fps
9000 Pro: 107.4 fps

Serious Sam2 (cathedral), 1024x768:
5200: 63.5 fps
5200 (O/C to 315/205): 65.8 fps
9000: 72.7 fps
9000 Pro: 87.9 fps

RtCW (checkpoint), 1024x768:
5200: 76.4 fps
5200 (O/C to 315/205): 90.8 fps
9000: 74 fps
9000 Pro: 96 fps

UT2003 (antalus), 1024x768:
5200: 63.3 fps
5200 (O/C to 315/205): 70.2 fps
9000: 51.1 fps
9000 Pro: 61.7 fps

Though you can say "overclock it" to anything; unless you compare an overclocked card to its overclocked counterparts, you're just fooling yourself.

 

[sash1]

The Ultra is only 325/325, so you're numbers are a bit off.

"Though you can say "overclock it" to anything; unless you compare an overclocked card to its overclocked counterparts, you're just fooling yourself."

Umm... no? You have neither owned nor used the card, so don't comment on how it will overclock. All you have seen is a stupid review.

~Aunix

 

[DClark]

My mistake; it's the 5600 ultra which is clocked at 350/350 while the 5200 Ultra is at 325/325 - I was erring on the side of nVidia's advantage.

As for your comment about overclocking, all I can do is shake my head. You don't like the fact that a reviewer couldn't get a good stable memory overclock so you have to slight the review? It's using 5ns memory, for crying out loud. I don't doubt that future reviews will show higher memory overclocks, but the fact remains that they currently don't.

I'm tired of arguing in a budget segment from which I will never buy, against a person who is clearly hoping that the GeForceFX 5200 will be the be-all and end-all of the budget segment and does not care to see the numbers for what they are. You win; the 5200 will overclock to 500/500 and will be faster than a Radeon 9500 Pro. ATi will finally realize how futile it is to try to battle against the mighty nVidia, and will decide to take on easier opponents by introducing a new processor to go up against the Pentium 4 and AthlonXP. Following that, they will also announce that they will be creating their own operating system to go head to head with Microsoft.

 

[sash1]

"You don't like the fact that a reviewer couldn't get a good stable memory overclock so you have to slight the review?"

Umm... yes? I've used the card. Stop making crap ass judgements. I've gotten an extremely stable OC @ 305/560.

Originally posted by: DClark
I'm tired of arguing in a budget segment from which I will never buy, against a person who is clearly hoping that the GeForceFX 5200 will be the be-all and end-all of the budget segment and does not care to see the numbers for what they are. You win; the 5200 will overclock to 500/500 and will be faster than a Radeon 9500 Pro. ATi will finally realize how futile it is to try to battle against the mighty nVidia, and will decide to take on easier opponents by introducing a new processor to go up against the Pentium 4 and AthlonXP. Following that, they will also announce that they will be creating their own operating system to go head to head with Microsoft.

Pretty much the response I'd expect from you

I've never hinted that it will beat the 9500Pro, again, you're making crap ass judgements. I will never fuggin buy this card. I own the Parhelia, and will not buy anything else until Matrox releases their next video card. I'm just stating facts to the people who don't understand how things work (you) and to people who want to know more (bluemax).

~Aunix

 

[chizow]

Sheesh, some people don't know when to quite.

AunixM3 spelled out the differences in like the 3rd post:

But as it common with nVidia, one line of cards, the only difference tends to be clock speed. Ti4200/4400/4600, only difference was clock speed. I'm guessing the same will be true with the 5200 line.

The 5200 cores have ~47 million transistors, the 5600 cores have ~80million transistors and the 5800 cores have ~125millon transistors. The 5200 lacks the compression units and a few pipeline stages of the 5600 and the 5600 has 1/2 the rendering pipes as the 5800. The differences within sub-families (Ultra vs. non-Ultra) is directly related to core and memory speed. Thats it. Like Aunix mentioned, the difference in the past has been much less dramatic, as the core throughout a line would be the same, making signficant core overclocks on the lowest-end parts a given. The only reason to expect less is b/c of of TSMC's fab'ing problems, which might lead to additional binning of GPU sub-families. My guess is that the difference is simply what the stock cooler looks like as well as the resulting operating temperature.

Btw, the theoretical max of 5ns RAM is 200MHz or 400MHz DDR effective. Its not uncommon for memory to outperform its rated theoretical max however.........

Chiz

 

[DClark]

AunixM3, I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Your argument is that the 5200 has more value than the 5200 Ultra because the 5200 starts at $88 ($100 for the 128mb version) and because it can be overclocked. Newsflash - the 5200 Ultra can be overclocked too, and it's starting at 325/325, levels that the 5200 can't realistically expect to reach through overclocking.

The fact remains that during all this talk of overclocking, cost, and value, the GeForce4 Ti4200 is faster than both the 5200 and 5200 Ultra in most instances, and is close enough in price that it is a better value than either of the new GFFX budget cards. Neither the 5200 nor 5200 Ultra is a good card. I have many reasons for saying that, but the simplest reason is that in review after review after review, the 5200 series is clearly a step down from its predecessor. I know how things work - they work like this: "Dx9 costs money - how fast do you want to go?"

 

[bluemax]

Seeing as how the regular 5200 performs reasonably well and is significantly cheaper than a TI4200, I can bet we'll see them in HP's and Compaq's everywhere. I'd call that a success.

It's at least 2x better than an MX-440. That's good.

It's no TI4200 killer, but for $88 is it supposed to be?
With a little time, they should come down in price too... but the reason it got MY attention is that AS OF NOW, it's the best card you can get (short of the insane Zalman cooler w/ 9700 Pro) with nothing more than a passive heatsink for silent running.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: DClark
AunixM3, I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Your argument is that the 5200 has more value than the 5200 Ultra because the 5200 starts at $88 ($100 for the 128mb version) and because it can be overclocked. Newsflash - the 5200 Ultra can be overclocked too, and it's starting at 325/325, levels that the 5200 can't realistically expect to reach through overclocking.

The fact remains that during all this talk of overclocking, cost, and value, the GeForce4 Ti4200 is faster than both the 5200 and 5200 Ultra in most instances, and is close enough in price that it is a better value than either of the new GFFX budget cards. Neither the 5200 nor 5200 Ultra is a good card. I have many reasons for saying that, but the simplest reason is that in review after review after review, the 5200 series is clearly a step down from its predecessor. I know how things work - they work like this: "Dx9 costs money - how fast do you want to go?"

Maybe it's different where you live but in the UK the FX5200 is much (around £40-£50) cheaper than a GF4 Ti4200. The FX5200 Ultra however looks like it will be more expensive than a GF4 Ti4200 and from the reviews shown the GF4 Ti4200 is clearly faster and therefore much better value.

 

[Qblunt]

I just bought this at live warehouse for $95 on sale this past weekend.
GEFORCE 5200 ultra

It doesnt say ultra on the page but if u look at the specs it is. The ultra comes in 128 mg of ram and its at 350MHz RAMDAC when the non ultra is 250 as stated above. I assume its a n ultra and not a typo. I emailed live warehouse if the specs are correct for the card for $95 and they said it was so I bought it.
And here is a direct link to leadtek site on the card.
Leadtek 5200 spec sheet
If you compare their graphics core, Memory bandwidth, fill rate verticles per second it matches identically to nvidia's website showing you the stats on the 5200 ultra.
Link to nvidia spec on 5200 ultra
5200 ultra spec on nvidia

 

[Keysplayr]

What are you all arguing about?
More importantly, why?
I do not see a point to any of this.
Would someone care to tell us what their point is and why they are trying to make it?
Very interested.

Thanks,
Keys

 

[DClark]

Qblunt, The RAMDAC has nothing to do with a card's clock speed. RAMDAC stands for "Random Access Memory Digital To Analog Converter"; it's how the graphics card "talks" to the monitor to get it to display an image.

LeadTek's website doesn't mention clock speeds, but it does mention that the A340 TDH uses 4ns (250mhz) memory, so it should overclock much better than an FX5200 which uses the 5ns memory. My guess is that it may be clocked to 250/250 stock. I'm not sure how they're claiming 10.4Gb/s of memory bandwidth with 4ns memory though; with a 128 bit memory interface, 10.4Gb/s equates to a 325mhz memory speed (which would need 3ns memory). 4ns memory on a 128 bit interface should have a max bandwidth of around 8Gb/s

But it still is a non-Ultra version of the 5200; it's just not as bad as the 250/200 clocked FX5200s.

 

[sash1]

"Qblunt, The RAMDAC has nothing to do with a card's clock speed. RAMDAC stands for "Random Access Memory Digital To Analog Converter"; it's how the graphics card "talks" to the monitor to get it to display an image."

Exactly. You got the 128Mb version 5200nu. Only advantage is it has 4ns RAM instead of the 5ns.

both the 5200nu and 5200ultra have 350MHz RAMDAC! The 5200ultra has a 325Mhz core clock and the 5200nu has a core clock of 250Mhz.

~Aunix

 

[bluemax]

Um.... you DO know that the RAMDAC speed has **nothing** to do with the 3D performance of the card, right?
350MHz RAMDAC has been standard for almost every card going for *years* now....

 

[bluemax]

AUGH! My first double-post in ages! :Q This Celeron 533 is so sluggish! :| (Good thing it's not mine!)

Well, good chance for me to say: DClark, that's a nice lil' card you got. How much was it?

 

[jjyiz28]

difference is just clock speeds. but it still makes a pretty moderate diff. compare a 4200 and a 4600, diff is just clock speeds, but with the much greater clock speeds of 4600 translates into moderate gains. just like there is a big diff albeit if it is only clock speeds going from 250/200 to 325/325. with 5 ns ram, no way are you going to overclock it to 325(3 ns). any card can be overclocked, except 5800 ultra (heh), so saying you could overclock a non to ultra is dumb. the ultra can be overclocked too, and so on so on.

the only way the 5200 ultra and non will be faster then the 9000 is if you use AA or some other filtering. if not, the ultra but not the non are more or less the same performance with 9000. anyways who uses filtering on a budget card. i'd be more worried about upping the fps before i get to worry about making it look all pretty.