• 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.

Geforce fx 5200

E

estew33

Senior member
Hi All,
I have a radeon 8500 64 Mb. I ordered a 6800gt from BB the other day,looks like I got in on the deal.
Anyway I'm wondering how a gforce 5200/128 MB compares to a readeon 8500W/64 MB.
Does anyone think this GPU is anygood
Thamk's
ED
 
Speedwise, about as fast as a Geforce2 DDR except it has the advantage of better feature support on newer games meaning it could potentially run faster on anything newer than DX7. It is a pretty big step down from the R8500.
 
I'm running a Geforce Fx5200/128mb right now and it is indeed a peice of garbage. I'm just buying my time until I get the new x800xtPE or 6850u. Dont the fx5200's cost about 53$ on pricewatch? It runs decent enough for 60 bucks.
 
After doing more research, I found out that the the fx5200 is a piece of garbage although it has a higher core stepping. No one should ever buy a new FX5200.
 
Lol, the 5200 is a piece of crap. It is crippled from lack of pipelines, and so slow!! My Geforce 2 TI massacred my friends 5200Ultra. I think 3dmark01 scores were something like me-7600 him 5200. But now im really crusin' at 16824 or xomething like it.

-Kevin
 
I have an FX5200 in one of my beaters. The GPU isn't bad, but it sucks when you try something that demands lots of bandwidth. For example, Half-Life (a game that's ~6 years old) runs at 100fps at 1024x768, but if you turn on AA, it turns into a slideshow.

Still a major improvement over my old GF2 Ti though. GF2 just cannot play BF1942; it's just so damn slow. 5200 can handle it at medium quality with no problems.
 
The worst thing about many of the 5200s is that quite a few have 64 bit memory. You really have to try if you want one with 128 bit memory. The 128 bit versions are about as fast as a GeForce 2, but the 64 bit memory ones are only about as fast as a GeForce 2 MX! In other words ... totally butt slow.
 
Originally posted by: Andes
I'm running a Geforce Fx5200/128mb right now and it is indeed a peice of garbage. I'm just buying my time until I get the new x800xtPE or 6850u. Dont the fx5200's cost about 53$ on pricewatch? It runs decent enough for 60 bucks.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's barely faster than a GF2MX or GF4MX (~$30), and a LOT slower than a GF4Ti4200 (~$75 used) or something like a RADEON 9600 (~$100 new). Even at "only" $60 it's got a bad price/performance ratio.
 
Hell, i have it in my main rig, since i didnt have agp til la few montsh ago, woulda had 9700 pro if it wasnt for that..... Now that i have my new built system, im gettign an x800xt....
20 fps in ut2k3 while everyone has 100 or more is no thx!
 
I believe it goes along the lines of the Ultra is 128bit and the non ultra and SE are 64 bit. Either way a Geforce 2 TI is way faster, but it comes at a cost because the Geforce 2 only supports DX7.

READ only the Geforce 2 TI and ULTRA are faster.. the MX is more comparable to a 5200SE or NU.

Geforce 3Ti's and Geforce 4Ti's massacre them.

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I believe it goes along the lines of the Ultra is 128bit and the non ultra and SE are 64 bit. Either way a Geforce 2 TI is way faster
Click to expand...

Since I have a crazy amount of free time on my hands, I'm gonna do some benchmarking right now 😀. 4 cards:
Radeon 7200 (PCI)
GF2 Ti
FX 5200 NU
Radeon 9600XT

I'll use GL Excess at 1024x768x32 running all tests. Be back in an hour 😉.
 
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I believe it goes along the lines of the Ultra is 128bit and the non ultra and SE are 64 bit. Either way a Geforce 2 TI is way faster
Click to expand...

Since I have a crazy amount of free time on my hands, I'm gonna do some benchmarking right now 😀. 4 cards:
Radeon 7200
GF2 Ti
FX 5200 NU
Radeon 9600XT

I'll use GL Excess at 1024x768x32 running all tests. Be back in an hour 😉.
Click to expand...

You can't telll if a card is better only with a benchmarck... post them though to give us a further idea of what they can do.
 
THE BOX GIVE'S THE SPEC'S AS
Graphic's core: 256 bit
memry bandwidth: (GB/sec): 6.4
Fill Rate ( texel's/sec: ) 1.0 Billion W/a B
Vertices/sec : 63 million
Memory data rate : 400 MHZ
Pixel's per clock : 4
Texture's per pixel 16
Ramdacs : 350
The card is made by Interage
Ed
 
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: Concillian
The worst thing about many of the 5200s is that quite a few have 64 bit memory.
Click to expand...

Is there a way to check what mine has?
Click to expand...

Yes there is:
Aida32 --
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,23043,RSS,RSS,00.asp

unzip to a directory and just run the .exe The info you want is under GPU somewhere, I think Video --> GPU. It gives more specs than you ever thought a video card ever had.

The thing about the FX5200 (128-bit memory) is that a GeForce 4 MX 440 is at least as fast as the 5200 Non-Ultra and cheaper. The 5200 has support for DX9 features that you'll never use because the card will perform SO slowly with them in use. Additionally, ALL the GF4 MX 440s have 128 bit memory, so you don't have to worry about buying a 5200 and ending up with a GF2 MX in disguise when you find out you have a 64 bit memory version.
 
Originally posted by: estew33
THE BOX GIVE'S THE SPEC'S AS
memry bandwidth: (GB/sec): 6.4
Memory data rate : 400 MHZ
Ed
Click to expand...

This (indirectly) says the memory is 128 bit memory.

Explanation:
8 bits = 1 Byte

64-bit / 8 = 8 Bytes
8 Bytes per clock cycle.
8 X 400MHz = 3200 MB of per second (3.2GB/sec)

128-bit / 8 = 16 Bytes
16 Bytes per clock cycle.
16 X 400MHz = 6400 MB per second (6.4GB/sec)

So your card is at 400 MHz and has 6.4 GB/sec of bandwidth ... therefore it has 128 bit memory.
 
I read somewhere even the G4 440 MMX is faster then a 5200.

But for £40 Its not bad for some old games, office work.

But you if you hear anyone trying to sell it to you " This card was made for doom 3", er run.
 
OK I'm back with some numbers. Here's the break down

Fill Rate
Radeon 7200: 1841
GF4 MX440: 2798
GF FX5200: 3017
GF2 Ti: 3490
Radeon 9600XT: 8825

Polygon
Radeon 7200: 1024
GF4 MX440: 3207
GF FX5200: 4120
GF2 Ti: 5331
Radeon 9600XT: 10495

VRAM
Radeon 7200: 1483
GF4 MX440: 2072
GF FX5200: 2257
GF2 Ti: 2239
Radeon 9600XT: 5212

CPU/GPU
Radeon 7200: 2433
GF4 MX440: 7565
GF FX5200: 7763
GF2 Ti: 7666
Radeon 9600XT: 8376

Overall Score
Radeon 7200: 1999
GF4 MX440: 4856
GF FX5200: 5260
GF2 Ti: 5640
Radeon 9600XT: 9274



I guess you were right, the GF2 Ti really is faster than the FX5200. I was impressed by the numbers so I ran Neverwinter Nights to check if the score given was accurate, and it was. Using the 64mb texture pack with very high quality (but no grass, no dynamic lights, no shadows), it was smooth; very smooth. My FX5200 struggles in that game when using the 16mb texture pack with fairly low quality settings.

I must have had bad drivers in the past, because when I got that 5200 it was much much faster than the GF2. I wouldn't be surprised if the GF2 driver installation had some error and I was actually using drivers signed by Microsoft 😀.
 
🙂 i told ya ... lol i only knew because about a month ago i upgraded from a Geforce 2TI. It is one hell of a card for how old it is. It overclocks massively... i think i had both the core and memory OCed ~70mhz above stock. After a went a bit farther i got video artifacts. The only thing a FX5200 has going for it... which doesn't really matter is DX9 support. So as a result it might score a bit higher in 3dmark 03 and 01 simply because it supports the DX8.1 and 9. But the Geforce 2 TI is overall faster.

-Kevin

Thx for the benches man... anyone wanna buy my Geforce 2 TI card ($25 sound ok 🙂 )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top