Okay, I think I'm going crazy, but I installed a friends gf5200 ultra until I can get my hands on an XT from ati, and in some case framerates seem to be faster than with my old 4400ti, even OC'd. My 4400ti fried, inscase you're wondering. But it's faster in 3dmark2001, 3dmark2003, aquanox3 is slower but looks better being the part is dx9 compatible. That's another thing, is it just me or do even older games look better? Some of te lighting and shading looks better, crisper. I didn't get a good OC out of it, Standard core and mem speeds 325/650 oc'd to 365/730. not bad at all, with the dx9 exstentions and better looking graphics, I can't wait for the Xt's to hit the streets.
GF5200 ultra Faster than 4400ti in some cases?
- Thread starter Nyquest007
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I don't think the 5200 ultra is faster than a ti4400 because it couldn't even beat my ti4200 running at stock speeds very often. The only time the 5200 ultra beat my ti4200 was with 3dmark 2003, glexcess (apart from the polygon count test), Serious Sam 2 (citadel and grand cathedral demos only) and with ut2003 (with 8xanis and 4xfsaa enabled).
I saw this card today at Wal-Mart (the fx5200 Ultra) for $154, and I remember thinking that seemed a bit over-priced because I thought it was the low-end offering from Nvidia's FX series of cards. Is it the low-end FX chip and is that price too high?
You know it seems to me that Nvidia could handle this whole DX9 fiasco better by acknowledging to the public that they have blundered, and sale the cards at dirt-cheap prices. If the prices were low enough, even though they aren't "future proof", I guarantee you they would sale like hot cakes.
Slash the prices of all the cards in half, across the board. People would buy them and deplete the inventory, regardless the DX9 situation. This would make Nvidia look good to the public, and let them recoup at least a partial amount of the costs incurred in producing the chips. Then, move on to making a new chip that romps. Accept the short-term losses for the benefit of a long-term success.
I'm not a marketing strategist, but they are kicking themselves in the butt by trying to sell the cards at prices equivalent to the ATI counterparts. Video card enthusiasts are aware that the FX series has deficiencies and would opt for ATI instead (like I did, even though I have always liked Nvidia's previous cards). But then again, I guess they are counting on most of the consumers not being video card enthusists, which means they either don't know better, or just wouldn't care even if they did know about the DX problem.
EDIT/ I realize that the "cut all the prices in half" sounds extreme, but they are suffering a huge loss in the public relations battle right now.
Slash the prices of all the cards in half, across the board. People would buy them and deplete the inventory, regardless the DX9 situation. This would make Nvidia look good to the public, and let them recoup at least a partial amount of the costs incurred in producing the chips. Then, move on to making a new chip that romps. Accept the short-term losses for the benefit of a long-term success.
I'm not a marketing strategist, but they are kicking themselves in the butt by trying to sell the cards at prices equivalent to the ATI counterparts. Video card enthusiasts are aware that the FX series has deficiencies and would opt for ATI instead (like I did, even though I have always liked Nvidia's previous cards). But then again, I guess they are counting on most of the consumers not being video card enthusists, which means they either don't know better, or just wouldn't care even if they did know about the DX problem.
EDIT/ I realize that the "cut all the prices in half" sounds extreme, but they are suffering a huge loss in the public relations battle right now.
5200U: 325/650. Pixel fillrate: 1300MP/s single-texture, 650MP/s MT. Texturing fillrate: 1300MT/s.
4400: 275/550. Pixel fillrate: 1100MP/s ST, 2200MP/s MT. Texturing fillrate: 2200MT/s.
I don't see how the 5200U can be faster in plain rendering. Its core and memory speeds can't compensate for the extra fillrate the 4400 has. IQ may be better, though, simply because of better filters and no S3TC problems. And the 5200 just won't run anything in DX9 mode at anything approaching a playable speed according to all the benchmarks I've seen, so I consider it nothing more than a marketing term (as opposed to a usable feature).
(Edit: I tried posting this after schaden's first reply, but I guess the forums were borked for a bit.)
4400: 275/550. Pixel fillrate: 1100MP/s ST, 2200MP/s MT. Texturing fillrate: 2200MT/s.
I don't see how the 5200U can be faster in plain rendering. Its core and memory speeds can't compensate for the extra fillrate the 4400 has. IQ may be better, though, simply because of better filters and no S3TC problems. And the 5200 just won't run anything in DX9 mode at anything approaching a playable speed according to all the benchmarks I've seen, so I consider it nothing more than a marketing term (as opposed to a usable feature).
(Edit: I tried posting this after schaden's first reply, but I guess the forums were borked for a bit.)
Wedge, nvidia doesn't make the cards, only the chips. Thus, no control over the pricing.
Although, I'm sure they are they are having interesting talks with Asus, MSI et al!
Although, I'm sure they are they are having interesting talks with Asus, MSI et al!
exactly, if nV slashed chip prices enough you could see a 5900ultra 128MB for $200, or about what it's worthOriginally posted by: tenoc
Wedge, nvidia doesn't make the cards, only the chips. Thus, no control over the pricing.
Although, I'm sure they are they are having interesting talks with Asus, MSI et al!
Originally posted by: tenoc
Wedge, nvidia doesn't make the cards, only the chips. Thus, no control over the pricing.
Although, I'm sure they are they are having interesting talks with Asus, MSI et al!
Yeah, sorry tenoc you're right, I mispoke because they aren't card makers. But still, cut those chip prices drastically. Give vendors a reason to slash FX card prices and still make a profit. I still maintain that many a people would go for the FX if it contained a huge discount. I would buy one even though I don't really need it because I still play DX8 games that the FX series could rock.
Anywho, just my concept of how Nvidia could turn the whole thing around. I'm sorry for those with the FX cards who counted on playing the newer games that utilize DX9 to a great extent. Hopefully, the games like HL2 or Doom3 will still be playable, even if not top-notch.
The 5200ultra didn't blow my 4400 out of the water, but in some scenes had much higher frame rates. by 20-30 frames in some cases depending on the scene. Mainly in newer games oddly. Games like Raven Sheild, Splinter Cell, and jedi Knight Academy, the card is faster, noticably. Older games oddly it lags. I'm not sure what the deal is.
Looking to get this piece of crap out of my system, but what do I go with? I'd like to stay at a 199 cap or below if I could. Any dx9 card, seriously looking at 9800se with the possible 9800pro mod by opening the other 4 pipes, but I get lost in all the changes in core/mem speeds manufatures set. What are the real speeds for 9600 & 9800 pros? One more thing, should I wait for the XT's to hit the streets and watch prices fall, I'm getting itchy?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter