• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ATI Radeon 9100 vrs Nvidia fx5200 (non ultra)

A

AnthonyM

Member
Well i have a quandry, i'm setting up an inexpensive bedroom computer from parts i already have.

its going to be a kt7a with 512 megs of pc133
an xp1700 (overclocked to around xp2000 speeds)
I like the speed and the price of the 9100 but its not dx9 complient
the fx5200 is pretty much the exact same price as the 9100 and it IS dx9 complient....

any advice?

BTW both are 128mb versions
 
I'll assume you want a card for gaming?

The 9100 is the same as the 8500, which spanks the 5200 thoroughly.

See if you can find a 8500LE or something, they're relatively cheap.
 
Originally posted by: AnthonyM
thanks! i've been looking for reviews on the plain 5200 but all i found is the ultra

will i miss dx 9 support?
Click to expand...

all geforcefx have directx 9 support. nvidia learned from their mistake with the geforce4mx
 
Right, but i was wondering if I bought the 9100 would i really miss directx 9 support... but from what i'm reading it won't even matter for another year atleast. so I guess i've made up my mind, 9100 it is thanks all!
 
Originally posted by: AnthonyM
Right, but i was wondering if I bought the 9100 would i really miss directx 9 support... but from what i'm reading it won't even matter for another year atleast. so I guess i've made up my mind, 9100 it is thanks all!
Click to expand...

No, depending upon who you ask, the 5200 isn't even fast enough for DX8 games...so DX9 support is pretty much worthless for such a budget card. the 8500/9100 is definately the way to go, especially over a non Ultra 5200.
 
If you can wait a little while, once the 9600s hit I'm sure many people (including me) will be upgrading, so you'll probably see plenty of 8500s on ebay.

9600s should be out any day now.
 
Well, up until NV released their new FX cards a month ago, even all their top end GF4 4200-4600 cards were only DX 8 cards - and they sold a pile of those over the last year. I can?t realistically see DX 9 being ?that? important for up to 3 years otherwise all those people would have completely outdated graphics cards.

I?m in the same boat. I was just about to buy a 9100 this week but I want to see how much the 9600?s (non-pro?s) will cost and what type of memory is shipped on them. There might be some potential real good overclocking there. I hear the non-pro?s will be clocked 325/200, but I?m hoping the memory is a little faster than that. I don?t know how/if ATI bins their GPU?s, but I would think the better ones will go into 9600 pro?s if they are binning. Still, I would think the 9600 non-pro could reach close to 500mhz even if they are binned.

The downside is that new graphic cards are always more expensive when they debut and the 9600 will probably cost a lot more than a 9100. The 9600 will probably be no faster than a 9100 either at stock speed.
 
Originally posted by: Blastman

The 9600 will probably be no faster than a 9100 either at stock speed.
Click to expand...

I should add, that?s in current games.

If 3D Mark 2003 is a good indication of performance in DX9 games, the 9600 might be quite a bit faster in some DX 9 games. But I wonder if that will even be fast enough. Consider those frame rates on a high end system in 3D Mark 2003. At THG an Athlon 2700+ only got ?

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/radeon_9600-26.html

Game 2 Battle of Proxycon
9700 pro ? 30.6 fps
9500pro ? 21.1

Game 4 Mother Nature
9700 pro ? 27.0
9500pro ? 22.9

My Celeron-T 1.0A @ 1.33 even with a 9600 is going to choke on those games. They?re not really even decently fast enough on that 2700+ with a 9700pro.

Hmmm ???. when is the P4 4.0Ghz Prescott and ATI 10000pro going to be out. LOL.


 
Originally posted by: AnthonyM
thanks! i've been looking for reviews on the plain 5200 but all i found is the ultra
Click to expand...

Check out this review at hardware.fr (in french, and the site seems a little slow today). It benches both the ultra and non-ultra versions of the FX5200. Basically, the non-ultra is about 25% slower on all tests.

As such, the Radeon 9000 Pro is roughly equivalent, although the 8500/9100s are clearly faster (and a lot cheaper around here). Of course, both those cards are DirectX 8.1 ... but I agree with the other comments that DX9 is probably not going to be so relevant on the lower end cards.

I run the 9500Pro, and it's a great card, as I'm sure the 9600 will be as well. If you really want DX9, go with one of those.
 
Thanks everyone for all the great advice, I was really stuck!
my main gaming computer is a tbred 2400@ 2.35GHz (187x12.5) with 512mb and a radeon 9500pro 128mb @310/310
upstairs is a celeron 566@850 with 256mb of ram (board limitation)
since i had that extra kt7a with 512mb just sitting around i wanted to throw a chip and quiet cooler on it, the graphics card was just a bonus i decided to throw in incase i had a lan party or friends over and needed an extra capable computer.


Ciao and thanks again
Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top