GeforceFX 5200 or ATI 9100\9200?

[Fireball77]

Okay, my budget is a hundred dollars......I can get either a GeforceFX 5200 128mb(ie. Gainward, BFG, PNY Brands) or a ATI 9100\9200 128 mb(ie. VisionTek, Sapphire Brands) Can you guys help recommend me a card....and I cant buy online, these are what are available to me. Thanks for you guys advice

 

[stardust]

FX5200U

 

[Jeff7181]

GeForce4 Ti4200 64 MB

*EDIT* Sorry, didn't read the whole thing about not buying online... get the Gainward FX5200 =)

 

[kaizersose]

another vote for the 5200. make sure the one you get has 128 bit memory interface.

 

[Pete]

I'd recommend the 128MB 9100, as long as it's 250/250 (the Visiontek should be, the Sapphire is probably 250/230).

I just bought the Vtek 64MB 9100 to pair with my XP1700+, and it runs everything I've tried (mostly recent games/demos, like WC3, NOLF2, UT2K3) at good speeds at 10x7 with 16xAF. It's a big improvement from my IGP GF2MX (obviously a very crippled card to begin with, much slower than your MX400), both in terms of performance and IQ (I went from 6x4x16 to 10x7x32 w/AF at higher FPS).

A 5200 (with 128-bit memory) should be a good card, but I don't expect it to be as fast as a 9100 overall. I expect the 9100's superior fillrate (4x2 @ 250MHz vs. 2x2 @ 250MHz) and bandwidth (8GB/s vs. 6.4GB/s) will win out overall, though the 5200 is suprisingly competitive (Digit-Life's June 2003 3Digest shows it fairly close to a 9100 on some benches, ahead in RtCW, and behind in UT2K3 and 3DM2K1).

 

[Fireball77]

yeah the problem I am having is with mixed reviews......they both have good and bad things about them.....I am not a "serious" gamer...just once and a while.....I did just buy Battlefield 1942.....My Geforce 2 runs it pretty good.....I am also picking up a Geforce 2 Ti....I think that will give me the extra umph I need.

 

[Pete]

My 9100 runs the BF1942 demo well, though I only tried it for a few minutes.

 

[Schadenfroh]

get the 4200,
dont get a 9200, its a 9000

 

[Blastman]

In this budget showdown between a 5200 (128bit) and a 9200 (a 9000 250/200 with 8x AGP) they were pretty close ?

1280x1024 ?

Serious Sam 2 ?9200
CodeCreatures ? 9200
Jedi Knight 2 ? 5200
RTCW ? ? ? 9200
UT2003 ? ? tie
Splinter Cell ? 5200

Once AA/AF was used the 5200 pulled out a bit of a lead over the 9200.

A 9100 would be substantially faster than a 9000 250/200 which is probably slightly better than the 5200 with no AA/AF.

Avoid the Sapphire 9100?s as I think they are all now on 64bit buses. Go Visiontek or another brand.

 

[Fireball77]

you guys are a big help...well I just bought a Visiontek Geforce 2 Ti and a Athlon XP 2000+, that should give me a little boost over what I have now...we will see. If not, then I will get a new graphics card, maybe they will be cheaper, or at least get me to the next computer show in September when I have more options.

 

[Bateluer]

I would have gotten the 9200 myself, it slaps the FX5200 and utterly destroys the GF2 TI, and it has full DX9 support. The 9000 is only a DX8 card, the 9200 is the DX9 part.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I would have gotten the 9200 myself, it slaps the FX5200 and utterly destroys the GF2 TI, and it has full DX9 support. The 9000 is only a DX8 card, the 9200 is the DX9 part.

No, the 9200 is the cut down AGP8X version of the Radeon 8500, meaning it only supports up to about DX8. An FX5200 non-Ultra is about on par with a Radeon 9200. A 5200 Ultra demolishes a 9200, but at twice the cost.

 

[Pete]

9200 = 9000 with AGP 8x support (a useless feature, IMO). They're both DX8.

Anyway, the GF2Ti should be a big improvement over the MX400 (4x2 vs. 2x2 and higher clocks), so enjoy it if it's enough for your games.

Evan, get that review out, pronto!

 

[videoclone]

MAKE SURE YOU GET A 128bit Memory Bus on your Geforce FX 5200

I got coned in buying a 128MB Albatron Gefiorce FX 5200 With a 64Bit mem bus the thing is slower then a Geforce4 440 and just a little faster then a Geforce2mx 400 .... AAAGGGHHHH

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Pete
9200 = 9000 with AGP 8x support (a useless feature, IMO). They're both DX8.

SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DVI/TV-out AGP BULK
Specifications:
Chipset:Radeon 9200
Memory: 128MB DDR
Bus: AGP 8X /4X /2X
256-bit memory interface
Supports the latest Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 and OpenGL® 2.0 feature sets
VIDEOSHADER engine uses programmable pixel shaders to accelerate video processing and provide better-looking visuals
FULLSTREAM technology removes blocky artifacts from Streaming and Internet video and provides sharper image quality
SMOOTHVISION enhances image quality by removing jagged edges and bringing out fine texture detail, without compromising performance
128-bit floating-point color precision allows for a greater range of colors and brightness
Ports: VGA + DVI + SVideo Out

Thats copy/pasted straight from Newegg's spec list on the R9200. Its a DX9 part. Outside the DX version, even the R9000 slaps the 5200 silly in almost every test. The 5200 is a joke of the highest caliber, nobody should spend money on it. If you are that short of cash, then you probably have more important things to worry about, like food.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Pete
9200 = 9000 with AGP 8x support (a useless feature, IMO). They're both DX8.

SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DVI/TV-out AGP BULK
Specifications:
Chipset:Radeon 9200
Memory: 128MB DDR
Bus: AGP 8X /4X /2X
256-bit memory interface
Supports the latest Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 and OpenGL® 2.0 feature sets
VIDEOSHADER engine uses programmable pixel shaders to accelerate video processing and provide better-looking visuals
FULLSTREAM technology removes blocky artifacts from Streaming and Internet video and provides sharper image quality
SMOOTHVISION enhances image quality by removing jagged edges and bringing out fine texture detail, without compromising performance
128-bit floating-point color precision allows for a greater range of colors and brightness
Ports: VGA + DVI + SVideo Out

Thats copy/pasted straight from Newegg's spec list on the R9200. Its a DX9 part. Outside the DX version, even the R9000 slaps the 5200 silly in almost every test. The 5200 is a joke of the highest caliber, nobody should spend money on it. If you are that short of cash, then you probably have more important things to worry about, like food.

I think that statement is incorrect. It's DX8 hardware.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Pete


I think that statement is incorrect. It's DX8 hardware.

ATI's site does not specify, and Sapphire's site lists it as DX 8.1. Still faster, and cheaper than the anything in the 5200 series.

Edit - A np 9600 is 125 at Newegg, and its a full DX9 card, and offers twice the performance of a 5200. The FX5200s are like the GF2MX200s of graphics cards.

 

[chilled]

if u plan on hanging on to the card for a few years, it may be worth noting that the next version of Windows (codenamed Longhorn) will only be able to display full quality graphics with a Dx9 compliant card. i.e. not the R2xx/RV2xx cores.

I say go for the 5200. The R2xx/RV2xx cores are at the end of their development cycle, thus there will is likely to be no performance benefits from newer drivers. I feel there is a lot of performance benefits to be brought for the FX range, some of which will apply to the 5200's.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I would have gotten the 9200 myself, it slaps the FX5200 and utterly destroys the GF2 TI, and it has full DX9 support. The 9000 is only a DX8 card, the 9200 is the DX9 part.

The Radeon 9200 DOESN'T support DX9, it's just a regular Radeon 9000 which runs at 8x AGP. Although I agree with you that the R9200 is a much better video card than the old GF2 TI it struggles against the GF4 MX440 and loses to the Geforce FX5200.

Here are some benchmark scores for my 128mb XFX Geforce FX5200 (250/400), 128mb Sapphire Radeon 9200 (250/400) and 64mb Gainward Geforce4 MX440 (270/400) tested with:-

AMD Athlon XP 2500 BARTON (11x166mhz)
SIS746FX motherboard
512mb DDR333 memory
Detonator v44.03
Catalyst v3.5
SIS AGP v1.15
Windows XP Home edition with SP1

All games tested with max quality settings and with sound enabled for real game results!

(results are fx5200, r9200 & gf4 mx440)

3dmark 2001 se (1024x768) = 7656,6904,6367
3dmark 2003 (1024x768) = 1431,1098,261 (ouch)

Quake 3 (demo4):-

800x600x32bit = 212,194,198
1024x768x32bit = 159,135,145
1280x1024x32bit = 132,111,121

Quake 3 2xfsaa:-

640x480x32bit = 212,145,184
800x600x32bit = 169,98,132
1024x768x32bit = 112,63,86

Quake 3 4xfsaa:-

640x480x32bit = 135,85,96
800x600x32bit = 90,57,66
1024x768x32bit = 55,28,43

Quake 3 4x fsaa & 8x anis:-

640x480x32bit = 112,79,n/a
800x600x32bit = 77,53,n/a
1024x768x32bit = 49,27,n/a

(the gf4 mx440 doesn't support 8x anis)

Serious Sam 2 (Elephant Atrium):-

800x600x32bit = 160,157,152
1024x768x32bit = 120,129,108
1280x1024x32bit = 99,94,87

UT2003 flyby HQ (Antalus):-

800x600x32bit = 96,77,88
1024x768x32bit = 64,51,58
1280x1024x32bit = 43,35,39

UT2003 botmatch HQ (Antalus):-

800x600x32bit = 55,51,n/a
1024x768x32bit = 41,36,n/a
1280x1024x32bit = 28,25,n/a

(I lost the scores for the gf4 mx440 botmatch results)

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Pete

I think that statement is incorrect. It's DX8 hardware.

ATI's site does not specify, and Sapphire's site lists it as DX 8.1. Still faster, and cheaper than the anything in the 5200 series.

Edit - A np 9600 is 125 at Newegg, and its a full DX9 card, and offers twice the performance of a 5200. The FX5200s are like the GF2MX200s of graphics cards.

Why do you say the FX5200 is like a GF2 MX 200? The FX5200 is a video card with full DX9 features and hasn't been cut down anywhere near as badly as the old gf2 mx 200.

I do agree wtih your comment that the R9600 is better than any of the video cards mentioned.

However I disagree with your comment that the R9200 is faster than a FX5200 because I have used both and the R9200 ISN'T faster than the FX5200 I used.

 

[selfbuilt]

For the record, early reviews gave the lowly old 9000nonpro (basically same as 9200) an advantage over the 5200 non ultra on non-AA/AF mode (see Hardware.fr for example).

However, more recent reviews with newer drivers suggest that the 9200 is quite close (or slightly inferior) to the 128-bit FX 5200 non-ultra on non-AA/AF modes (see HardOCP for example). And, naturally, the 5200 is superior for AA/AF modes.

However, I don't believe the 5200 non-ultra can match the 8500/9100 series (or even the 9000pro, for that matter) on non-AA/AF. Since the 9100, 9200, and FX5200 are all about the same price around here (typically 5200s are slightly more expensive, though), the 9100 would still be your best performance bet.

As for the GF2 Ti, I have two of them and they are acceptable entry-level gaming cards (like the GF4MX). However, on a XP2000+ system, you would find the 9100 to be almost twice as fast on many measures (e.g. on a similar system, going from GF2 Ti to 8500LE, 3DMark 2001 scores went from about 4500 to 8500).

 

[Vernor]

support != complaint.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: selfbuilt
For the record, early reviews gave the lowly old 9000nonpro (basically same as 9200) an advantage over the 5200 non ultra on non-AA/AF mode (see Hardware.fr for example).

However, more recent reviews with newer drivers suggest that the 9200 is quite close (or slightly inferior) to the 128-bit FX 5200 non-ultra on non-AA/AF modes (see HardOCP for example). And, naturally, the 5200 is superior for AA/AF modes.

However, I don't believe the 5200 non-ultra can match the 8500/9100 series (or even the 9000pro, for that matter) on non-AA/AF. Since the 9100, 9200, and FX5200 are all about the same price around here (typically 5200s are slightly more expensive, though), the 9100 would still be your best performance bet.

As for the GF2 Ti, I have two of them and they are acceptable entry-level gaming cards (like the GF4MX). However, on a XP2000+ system, you would find the 9100 to be almost twice as fast on many measures (e.g. on a similar system, going from GF2 Ti to 8500LE, 3DMark 2001 scores went from about 4500 to 8500).

The results in that french (ewww) review are worthless, the 42.72 drivers had very well known bugs which were fixed in the next driver release.

I agree with your comment about the radeon 9100 though it's a good video card, much better than the radeon 9200.

*** Here's my advice, forget about all of the current budget video cards from ATI and Nvidia and get a Geforce4 Ti4200 instead. If you shop around you can get them cheap
and they make excellent video cards! ***

 

[selfbuilt]

*** Here's my advice, forget about all of the current budget video cards from ATI and Nvidia and get a Geforce4 Ti4200 instead. If you shop around you can get them cheap
and they make excellent video cards! ***

Agreed, the GF4 Ti4200 is the top performer of the lot, and one of the best bangs for the buck out there. However, around here (Canada) they still cost almost twice as much as the ATI 9100! But if you can get one for only a slight premium over a 5200 or a 8500/9100, then by all means get the Ti4200.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Pete

Why do you say the FX5200 is like a GF2 MX 200? The FX5200 is a video card with full DX9 features and hasn't been cut down anywhere near as badly as the old gf2 mx 200.

I do agree wtih your comment that the R9600 is better than any of the video cards mentioned.

Its the GF2MX200 of Nvidia's product line, and loses out to the competition repeatedly. If you can't afford the 9600np now, wait a month.