FX5200 non-Ultra vs. Radeon 9100/9200?

[Gravija]

which of these is better?
im planning to buy the FX5200 for about 100 from newegg
which would be better for a light gaming system?
or should i go for a different card?

thanks

 

[Blastman]

9000 and 5200 ~ equal < 9000pro < 5200ultra/9100

I initially thought the 5200u was quite a bit faster than the 9000pro, but now I?m not so sure, in this test the 9000pro won 3/4 gaming tests.

The Sapphire 9100 64MB 250/230 would make a very good light gaming card and is faster than the 9000pro and a lot cheaper than the 5200, they are only $69US at NCIX.com. My thinking is that 64MB is ?enough? for a DX8 card. The 128MB Sapphire 9100 only comes with 200Mhz memory which in my view is just acceptably fast enough if you need/want a 128MB card. The memory on that card will reach will overclock to 261mhz?.so you shouldn?t have a problem getting it up to at least the 230Mhz , the speed of the 64MB card.

Edit: Add, I am very impressed with the (2D) display quality on my Sapphire 7500 64MB DDR.

 

[bozack]

How does one determine if the 5200 card they are looking at is in fact an "Ultra" card?? I am looking at the PNY Verto 128mb 5200 card that both Compusa and Best Buy have on sale this week for $99 after MIR, however I could also get a Sapphire Radeon 9100 128mb card from Newegg for $85 shipped......

Just wondering which of these would be the best bet, I only play BF1942 Desert Combat.

Thanks

 

[selfbuilt]

If it doesn't say "Ultra", it probably isn't! The only difference is that the reference 128MB Ultra is clocked at 325/325 while the 128MB non-ultra is 250/250. Of course, different makers could be using slower RAM (common on the GeF4 MX cards, and probably here as well). According to the reviews I've seen, the Ultra is about 25% faster (and 25% more expensive).

From my analysis of the various reviews, the FX5200 non-ultra is about intermediate to the Radeon 9000non-pro, 9000 pro overall. The Radeon 8500/9100 is definitely faster (and cheaper).

But faster still is the GeF4 Ti4200. In fact, the Ti4200 is the same price as the FX5200 non-ultra around here, but is almost twice as fast (on average) in games without AA/AF, and still about 40% faster with AA/AF turned on! Clearly, the FX5200 is a rip-off in comparison to its older sibling.

EDIT: To clarify, the 9000non pro is about 20% faster and the 9000pro 40% faster than the FX5200 non-ultra without AA/AF. The 9100 is even faster without AA/AF. But the AA/AF routines are better and faster on FX5200 (compared to the 9000 at least), if you plan on using them.

 

[Blastman]

Just wondering which of these would be the best bet, I only play BF1942 Desert Combat.

The 9100 is going to be a lot faster than just the 5200(non-ultra).

 

[Tot]

So radeon 9100 is as fast as GF4 Ti4200? Or slower?

And radeon 9100 is faster then regular 5200?

And radeon 9100 is same or faster then Ultra 5200?

Thanks

One last question.

AGP radeon9100 will be faster then PCI radeon9100 right?

 

[Blastman]

9100 & 5200U should be very close, they are both slower than 4200 and quite a bit faster than the 5200.

The AGP 9100 will be faster than the PCI 9100 by probably by about 20% judging from the benchmarks I?ve seen.

 

[bluemax]

To put it in perspective: slowest-to-fastest (on average)

GF4 MX-440
GFFX 5200
GFFX 5200 Ultra (in some cases the 5200 Ultra will get close to 8500/4200 speeds... but not that often.)
Radeon 9000
Radeon 9000 Pro
Radeon 8500LE (or 9100)
GF4 TI4200

So the best bang-for-your-buck is one of two choices, the Radeon 8500LE or 9100 for only $50-70 tops, or the GF4 TI4200 for as close to $100 as you can. A sub-$100 4200 is NOT likely. (It has happened, but it's rare.)
If money is tight, get the 8500LE/9100 (I'd go 9100 which is newer and maybe a just a tad faster and fullstream support) and don't look back. By the time you NEED more speed, faster cards like the Radeon 9500/9600 or NV35 stuff will be out.
Enjoy.

 

[Tot]

Hmm, this 20% lower performance for PCI radeon9100 makes me wanna wait for a Pundit system with an AGP and PCI.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: bluemax
To put it in perspective: slowest-to-fastest (on average)

GF4 MX-440
GFFX 5200
GFFX 5200 Ultra (in some cases the 5200 Ultra will get close to 8500/4200 speeds... but not that often.)
Radeon 9000
Radeon 9000 Pro
Radeon 8500LE (or 9100)
GF4 TI4200

What information are you going by to say which is fastest and slowest? I presume you have tested all of the video cards yourself on the same computer?

Here is what I think from using most of the video cards mentioned apart from the R9100 because it gave me too many problems and had to be returned twice!

R9000
GF4 MX440
GF FX5200
R9000 Pro
GF FX5200 ultra
R9100/8500LE
GF4 Ti4200

The Radeons do Anisotropic filtering faster but the Geforce cards do fsaa faster which makes things equal.

 

[bluemax]

What information are you going by to say which is fastest and slowest? I presume you have tested all of the video cards yourself on the same computer?

Here is what I think from using most of the video cards mentioned apart from the R9100 because it gave me too many problems and had to be returned twice!

R9000
GF4 MX440
GF FX5200
R9000 Pro
GF FX5200 ultra
R9100/8500LE
GF4 Ti4200

The Radeons do Anisotropic filtering faster but the Geforce cards do fsaa faster which makes things equal.

Baloney. I read too many reviews to accept that - unless you mention that the FSAA mode that is faster is the blurry-as-a-vaseline-covered-CRT. And on a 9500 or better, the FSAA routines are also handled much faster on the ATI side. On a 9700, there's simply no competition at all. Sorry... but your info is just plain wrong.

And you're not too far off putting the 9000 non-pro below the MX-440, because the two of them are competing for the lowest spot. Vendors are helping there by pairing either card with crappy, low-end RAM. Whichever card has the better RAM will outperform the other, whether 9000 or MX-440 / "SE".

I'd *still* rather get an 8500LE / 9100 than anything other than a TI4200, and even so it's about half the price. If we can get a Hercules retail 8500LE for $85 Canadian, you boys to the south should be able to snag something similar for next-to-nothing.

 

[nemesismk2]

Baloney. I read too many reviews to accept that - unless you mention that the FSAA mode that is faster is the blurry-as-a-vaseline-covered-CRT. And on a 9500 or better, the FSAA routines are also handled much faster on the ATI side. On a 9700, there's simply no competition at all. Sorry... but your info is just plain wrong.

And you're not too far off putting the 9000 non-pro below the MX-440, because the two of them are competing for the lowest spot. Vendors are helping there by pairing either card with crappy, low-end RAM. Whichever card has the better RAM will outperform the other, whether 9000 or MX-440 / "SE".

I'd *still* rather get an 8500LE / 9100 than anything other than a TI4200, and even so it's about half the price. If we can get a Hercules retail 8500LE for $85 Canadian, you boys to the south should be able to snag something similar for next-to-nothing.

Your judging everything by viewing second hand information, is that a reliable method of judging which video card is better?

Why did you even mention the 9500 and 9700?

I do admit that the image quality of the GF FX when using the 43.45 drivers is quite poor. That is what you've probably seen while you havn't used the video cards yourself but viewing websites instead?

The 43.51 drivers although not being anywhere near Nvidia's usual standards do fix alot of problems with the 43.45 drivers especially in regard to image quality.

 

[bluemax]

Your judging everything by viewing second hand information, is that a reliable method of judging which video card is better?

I've owned several cards from ATI and nVidia so I have some personal experience that supports what DOZENS of reviewers have also said. Gee, I'm sorry I couldn't afford to buy every single card on the list to try out before posting anything.

I do admit that the image quality of the GF FX when using the 43.45 drivers is quite poor. That is what you've probably seen while you havn't used the video cards yourself but viewing websites instead?

I was considering ALL nVidia cards when I complained about blurry FSAA. Apparently they finally improved significantly with the GFFX but I wouldn't consider the 5200 fast enough to really get any benefit from it above 640x480....
Don't get me wrong, the 5200 is better than what I have now, but dollars-to-donuts, I'd rather spend LESS money and get MORE performance with a Radoen 8500/9100 card. I'm no dummy.

I wish I could have kept the super deal I got on the Hercules 8500LE... But a deal is not a deal when you're broke and just can't justify a video card.