You are very mistaken on both accounts. A 5200 plays games orders of magnitude better than an intel integrated video adapter, and that matters to the low end. Same as the ability to cheaply run Aero (especially on an older system or a system with only Intel integrated and a PCI expansion slot).
You are very mistaken on both accounts. A 5200 plays games orders of magnitude better than an intel integrated video adapter, and that matters to the low end. Same as the ability to cheaply run Aero (especially on an older system or a system with only Intel integrated and a PCI expansion slot).
Actually the nVidiots on this forum make me laugh.
They don't talk much sense, but are funny nontheless.
The FX5200 is the GPU that was responsible for keeping the fallout from nv3x from being much worse than it actually was. nvidia ended up actually making a (small) profit on its FX architecture and that was due to the success of the 5200 in the marketplace.
Those fanatics who wished for the death of nvidia in 2002 can ponder the fact that it was the GPU they ridiculed the most that thwarted their wishes.
Those fanatics who wished for the death of nvidia in 2002 can ponder the fact that it was the GPU they ridiculed the most that thwarted their wishes.
9100 was the mighty 8500LE reintroduced due to popular demand, with the new name reflecting the relative position in the line-up with the 9000 and 9500/9700 at the time. The lower-performing newer-generation derivatives that came after, such as the 9200 and 9600 respectively, were more typical of the obfuscation from both companies while the MX's remain the true nadir.
Kind of ironic.
Although, I am quite happy to see the 8800 series on that list considering how short it's been on the market.
Care to take a guess as to why that is? Its not because its a good card. Its because it was sold by the masses in OEMs, such as Dell.
The steam stats also show that 1 core CPU's are in 86% of PC's, 28% of users have 512MB or less of ram, 47% have 1gig to 512 of ram, most users are using drivers from last year, 33% of cards have 128MB of ram, 41% have 256MB of ram, and only 8% have 512MB of ram. Meanwhile, the primary resolution is 1024x768. Most users use onboard sound with Realtek AC97 by 25%. Other onboard audios follow and make up the vast majority of sound. The second largest percentage of HD is for 80gig.
Guess what kinds PC that is? A $500 cheapo Dell or the like, that is good for basically nothing, but CS.
All it does is prove that very, very, very few people on steam (or even these boards) have a "high end" PC. It surely doesnt show that the 5200 was/is a good card.
You are correct ackmed. Greater than 85% of all PC's sold are lowend, retail, intel integrated, celeron powered crap.
They still sell though and averge people still like to game on them and run Vista on them though, the same people who buy these underpowered pc's find a card like fx5200 to be adequate for their 3d needs also.
Not everyone is an enthusiast and has enthusiast expectations. In fact, very, very few people are enthusiasts overall.
I agree. It looked as though wreckage had problems with someone calling the 5200 crap, which it is. Providing steam numbers to prove it sold well and was a good card. That simply isnt the truth.
palindrome
Senior member
- Jan 11, 2006
- 942
- 1
- 81
Why? what power do you have in the forums...absolutly none...
Your threats are nothing but hollow...no wonder why everbody laughs at you.
And while the 5200 series did sell well, it also has the dubious honor of having the highest return rate of any Video card sold in Australia in the retail market...so many people thought they were getting DX9 performance for next to nothing...and then they would bring it back all dissapionted, wanting to exchange it for something faster...hence this is why the 6600 series was so popular.
Sounds like a sales technique problem, to me. Of course people will return things that get misrepresented to them. Short of dead cards being returned (very very few of those thankfully), I haven't had customers wanting to return cards due to disappointing performance.
Originally posted by: yacoub
I just like how his avatar looks like a guy who just ate a turd
lol, good thing mods are taking a look at his usual behavior aswell
Does any of this surprise you? ATI has a history of rebranding old GPUs for their mid to lower end. How many generations did the 8500 hold down the low end for ATI?
I was rather irritated when ATI released the Mobile X2300... Everyone thought it was DX10, but it turns out it was a rebadged DX9 part... Pretty sad. Bummer, I really liked AMD/ATI, but after this launch, I guess nVidia will get my money.
Uh... that would be two (the 8500 was also the 9100). They moved to the X300 and then the X1300 after that, both of which had the same hardware capabilities as the other cards in the same generation.
NVIDIA has done the same thing too (although not on the last couple of generations). The Geforce "4" MX was the most atrocious example, containing hardware that was actually two full generations old at that point -- it didn't even have HWT&L, which the GF3 had, and prevented it from running newer games that other GF4 cards could handle.
It's stupid no matter who is doing it. If the card doesn't have the same hardware capabilities as the other hardware in the same 'generation', it needs to be differentiated more clearly than just having a different number or a suffix on the end. I've stated my dissatisfaction with both ATI and NVIDIA for this practice before, and I don't understand why ATI/AMD has done it again with their latest generation of hardware. If the underlying hardware is based on the X1300, call it an X1350 or something along those lines, not an X2300.
No some of the information provided is simply incorrect, Geforce 4 MX was an enhanced Geforce 2 MX with a Crossbar Memory Controller and better AA if I am not mistaken and since Geforce 2's all had HW T&L, then so did Geforce 4 MX's. It was fully complaint DX7.0 hardware. They were also much superior to the value cards they were replacing, a Geforce 4 MX 440 has equivalent performance to a full Geforce 2 GTS/Pro while a Geforce 2 MX is only 1/2 that or so.
From the Geforce FX Generation onward, Nvidia has had hardware from the same generation in practically all segments.
ATI has had more situations of branding hardware that was old as new. Radeon 8500 came back in 2 forms, low end cards of Radeon 9000/9200 and the 9100 which was effectively the 8500 renamed.
For the R4xx generation, Radeon X300, X550 and X600 was not based on the same technology as Radeon X700/X8x0 cards. They were still based on older RV3xx lines.
ATI has been behaving to my knowledge with the Radeon X1K Series, with all of them being Shader Model 3.0 capable.
If you want to get really picky, the 9000 series were not just renamed 8500's either. There were some parts cut out, like a second vertex shader, and the second TMU per pipe. Also, there were tweaks and optimizations added to boost the performance of the single VS.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter