Nvidia GeforceFX 5200

Ruckas

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
205
0
0
I check the prices on video cards over at www.pricewatch.com almost everyday. I'm anticipating a big price drop soon. However today I noticed they actually put a link up for the GeforceFX. So I clicked it. I found they had FX 5200's for $100.00 with shipping up the ying yang. I decided to go do some research on the 5200.

What I found was, the 5200 is a steaming pile of dogshit. Omfg, how could nvidia even make something that lame? That's so sad, I mean seriously. I read that they could only overclock it 13mhz more from where it's at stock. AND when they did so, they got artifacts, while the card was stable..

Don't really know why I felt like telling you all this. Spose I'm curious to know if anyone has a different opinion on the 5200.. Because I'm just shocked at how much it sucks..

Ruckas-
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Yep it sucks, but if it means better games in a year instead of 2 years, it serves its purpose.

Why are you considering buying one though? Its a budget part that's supposed to replace the GF4 MX line. If you're looking for a significant performance boost for relatively cheap (less than $100), look no further than a GF4 Ti4200 or a R8500. If you're buying into the DX9 compatible thing, don't bother. The first DirectX 9 game will be struggling even on today's top of the line cards.

Chiz
 

Intelman07

Senior member
Jul 18, 2002
969
0
0
Originally posted by: chizow
Yep it sucks, but if it means better games in a year instead of 2 years, it serves its purpose.
The first DirectX 9 game will be struggling even on today's top of the line cards.

Can I get a second opinion on that?
 

Glitchny

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2002
5,679
1
0
Originally posted by: Intelman07
Originally posted by: chizow
The first DirectX 9 game will be struggling even on today's top of the line cards.

Can I get a second opinion on that?

yes you can

That is total BS, the first directx 9 games wont stuggle on the brand new cards since im pretty sure most designers are going to be using that feature set as a base for their games since nothing better is out, they arent going to make a directx9 game that is mroe advanced than the current top of the line hardware, (which will become bottom line eventually), if u can paly current games on a geforce2, then u will be able to play directx9 games on the new cards. maybe not with every single feature enabled at the highest resoulution.

Considering DIrectx9 is completed and cards have more than the entire directx9 feature set im pretty sure the games will run
 

Intelman07

Senior member
Jul 18, 2002
969
0
0
Originally posted by: Glitchny
Originally posted by: Intelman07
Originally posted by: chizow
The first DirectX 9 game will be struggling even on today's top of the line cards.

Can I get a second opinion on that?

yes you can

That is total BS, the first directx 9 games wont stuggle on the brand new cards since im pretty sure most designers are going to be using that feature set as a base for their games since nothing better is out, they arent going to make a directx9 game that is mroe advanced than the current top of the line hardware, (which will become bottom line eventually), if u can paly current games on a geforce2, then u will be able to play directx9 games on the new cards. maybe not with every single feature enabled at the highest resoulution.

Considering DIrectx9 is completed and cards have more than the entire directx9 feature set im pretty sure the games will run

I was thinking the same hehe! Thanks.

 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: Glitchny

That is total BS, the first directx 9 games wont stuggle on the brand new cards since im pretty sure most designers are going to be using that feature set as a base for their games since nothing better is out, they arent going to make a directx9 game that is mroe advanced than the current top of the line hardware, (which will become bottom line eventually), if u can paly current games on a geforce2, then u will be able to play directx9 games on the new cards. maybe not with every single feature enabled at the highest resoulution.

Considering DIrectx9 is completed and cards have more than the entire directx9 feature set im pretty sure the games will run
I guess you haven't bothered playing Splinter Cell yet.
rolleye.gif


You'll find yourself getting a stunning 60fps at 1024, 44fps at 1280 and 28fps at 1600...and that's without AF or AA. SC is a DX8 game based on the UnrealII engine, which also weighs in at similar framerates. Its use of dynamic lighting, stencil buffers and pixel shaders aren't even close to whats in store in the future. Doom 3 will be the first game to hit the market that actually implements DX9 features like PS/VS 2.0 along with heavy use of stencil buffers, so I think its pretty safe to say 60fps would be optimistic.

I guess its possible to increase framerates by turning all the options down, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of implementing all the fancy DX 9 features wouldn't it??? Btw, the vast majority of games you're enjoying insane frame rates are DX7 games.

Chiz

 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
stalker, which is a direct9 game, is supposed to run completely fine at 1024x768 with all options on with a fast computer with a 9700 Pro or GeforceFX.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Isn't the 5200 supposedly faster than a r8500? I was pretty sure that it beat out the 9000 in many benchmarks.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
stalker, which is a direct9 game, is supposed to run completely fine at 1024x768 with all options on with a fast computer with a 9700 Pro or GeforceFX.
I never said DX 9 games wouldn't run on the latest hardware, I just said they would struggle. :) From what I've seen and read, 9700/9800/FX will struggle with DX 9 games, but my idea of struggling might differ from most. ;) Ideally I'd like to get 80fps minimum frames in FPS games, 30fps in RTS, RPG, Flight Sims with everything turned on (not counting AA and AF, as those are bonus). All early indications of the type of stress DX 9 games will put on current hardware lead me to believe that budget DX 9 parts simply won't cut it. You can look at the DX 8 games like SC/Unreal 2 and to a lesser degree UT2K3 (its still mostly DX7) as well as the unoptimized Doom 3 leaked Alpha (running at 640x480 @ 30fps) and 3DMark2K3, and it becomes pretty clear that DX9 games will stress even the top of the line parts available today.

Chiz
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Isn't the 5200 supposedly faster than a r8500? I was pretty sure that it beat out the 9000 in many benchmarks.
From what I've seen, it gets smacked around by a GF4 MX 440 in DX7 titles and doesn't do much better in DX8 tests. It eeks out some wins when AA and AF are enabled, but its still a budget part in every sense of the word. A similar situation can be seen with the 5600/Ultra. The Ti4200 beats the 5600 Ultra straight up in the majority of game tests and DX8 benchmarks (by a much smaller margin), but the 5600 pulls ahead significantly (still at a pretty poor framerate) when AA and AF are enabled. The 5600 Ultra should be slightly faster across the board than the 8500 though, which might have been what you were thinking of.

Chiz
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
if you think about it, they are going to sell a ton of em. The geforce4 MXs, even though we all know they suck, sold unbelievably well. Dell, HP, Gateway, ETC will probably use Direct X 9 compliance as a marketing ploy to less informed people. I think this card (non pro/ultra/whatever) is supposed to sell for $79 and is passivly cooled. With all the PC makers snatching up these cards, game makers may implament direct x 9 games earlier when more people have PCs that are compatable with it. Budject cards do serve there purpose, maybe not to us but to the company and computer makers that sell them becuase that is where most of their income comes from and without that income we would not have Geforce4 TIs and Radeon 9700s becuase ATI/nVidia would have not nearly as much funding for R&D.
 

Ruckas

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
205
0
0
Directx9 or not. The chip is crap. I can't understand why anyone would want one. For 50 more bucks you can buy an ATI radeon 9500. Plus, if you look at the benchmarks. It's clear as day. The chip is worse than a 4200. Even an old 4x 4200 without the 3.6ns ram can beat it. The whole price for performance is just out the window. Granted the last wave off chips had an exstrodinarily high ability to overclock. So I guess we've grown a custom to paying $150.00 for a 4200 and getting a 4600 out of it......

I was curious if anyone had a logical reason why nvidia would release such dung. Think it was the very first response to my start in this thread. He said something about how "if it means we get better games faster I'm cool with it." Which makes total sense when you think about it. If people that are straight broke can grab one of these. They can still "play" the games of tomorrow. Thanks for explaining the idiocy in terms I can understand. :D
 

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Originally posted by: Ruckas
Directx9 or not. The chip is crap. I can't understand why anyone would want one. For 50 more bucks you can buy an ATI radeon 9500. Plus, if you look at the benchmarks. It's clear as day. The chip is worse than a 4200. Even an old 4x 4200 without the 3.6ns ram can beat it. The whole price for performance is just out the window. Granted the last wave off chips had an exstrodinarily high ability to overclock. So I guess we've grown a custom to paying $150.00 for a 4200 and getting a 4600 out of it......

I was curious if anyone had a logical reason why nvidia would release such dung. Think it was the very first response to my start in this thread. He said something about how "if it means we get better games faster I'm cool with it." Which makes total sense when you think about it. If people that are straight broke can grab one of these. They can still "play" the games of tomorrow. Thanks for explaining the idiocy in terms I can understand. :D

Who's going to buy the GeforceFX 5200? Probably people with ancient GF2 video cards like you, obviously anyone who is into gaming will give the 5200 a miss but to be fair it's being released as a general use video card anyway.

When the GF4 MX440 was released it got alot of stick too however it was very successful. The simple fact is that the GeforceFX 5200 will sell by the truck load, whether people here approve of it or not.

Remember that ATI doesn't have a DX9 compatible budget video card so good work Nvidia, I hope the FX5200 sells as well as the GF2 MX and the GF4 MX! :)
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
So let me get this straight...

The same market segment that can't be bothered to look at a bar graph and see that a 4200 is more powerful than a 5200 for less money is going to worry that the 5200 is DX9 compliant, and the 4200 and competing offering from ATI aren't?

Riiiiiight.
rolleye.gif
 

blahblah

Member
Jun 3, 2001
125
0
0
I thought all the reviews are of the FX 5200 Ultra. Which still can't really compete with Ti4200 and is priced at $149. Remember all the hoopla that regular 5200 will be $79, will it will probably take 6 month for us to see that.

Anyways, wait until there is a comprehensive review of all new cards from both ATI & NVidia before buying, cause right now the market is really fragmented.

If you can still get in on the Ti4200 for $80 then by all means, this is probably the best bang for the buck out their. Otherwise, you should probably stick to a 9500Pro or even a 9700 Non Pro.

As for DX9 support in FX 5200 series, this is really a marketing gimmick as you WILL NOT be able to play any DX9 games at decent resolutions and frame rates.

Someone over on Beyond3d mentioned that the cost to produce a 5200 regular board is only $8. And they are charging $100 for it now. This is just sooooo wrong.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So let me get this straight...

The same market segment that can't be bothered to look at a bar graph and see that a 4200 is more powerful than a 5200 for less money is going to worry that the 5200 is DX9 compliant, and the 4200 and competing offering from ATI aren't?

Riiiiiight.
rolleye.gif
I agree with you for the most part, the problem is these people simply won't have a choice. What they'll see is:

Dell Dimension 2000SUX
P4 2.6GHz
256MB DDR RAM
.
.
.
.
[X] Intel Extreme Graphics 16MB VGA
[ ] nVidia GeForce FX 5200 64MB based on new CineFX technology for all of your current and future DX9 games!!! - add $50
[ ] nVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB based on new CineFX technology for all of your current and future DX9 games!!! - add $100
[ ] ATi Radeon 9700TX 128MB - DX9 Gaming taken to new heights!!! - add $220
The 5200s are clearly targeted at the OEM market, and as soon as they are available in quantity, OEMs will replace their Ti4200 and MX offerings with these parts. Yah it sux for those who buy an OEM box, but again, its a necessary evil IMO to replace aging DX7 and below parts currently shipping in OEM boxes. nVidia stated they planned on shipping 1.5 million FX parts in March; considering only 100,000 or so were 5800's I'm guessing the overwhelming majority are 5200 and 5600's currently ramping up for volume with AIB makers. I'd expect 5200s to be on the market sooner, rather than later (within the month). The 5200s aren't .13 parts, only the 5600s and 5800s are, so TSMC's .13 problems shouldn't hold back the launch of the 5200.

Chiz

 

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Originally posted by: blahblah
I thought all the reviews are of the FX 5200 Ultra. Which still can't really compete with Ti4200 and is priced at $149. Remember all the hoopla that regular 5200 will be $79, will it will probably take 6 month for us to see that.

Anyways, wait until there is a comprehensive review of all new cards from both ATI & NVidia before buying, cause right now the market is really fragmented.

If you can still get in on the Ti4200 for $80 then by all means, this is probably the best bang for the buck out their. Otherwise, you should probably stick to a 9500Pro or even a 9700 Non Pro.

As for DX9 support in FX 5200 series, this is really a marketing gimmick as you WILL NOT be able to play any DX9 games at decent resolutions and frame rates.

Someone over on Beyond3d mentioned that the cost to produce a 5200 regular board is only $8. And they are charging $100 for it now. This is just sooooo wrong.

Put away the crystal ball, you can't make any comments on DX9 games because there aren't any, hell there still isn't many games using DX8 features let alone DX9 features.
 

Ruckas

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
205
0
0
I totally agree with you nemesis. But what I mean is... Even with that price, it just boggles my mind why they would release a chip that isn't better than it's predecessor. That's like making a car that get 80 miles to the gallon. Everyone buys them, it becomes a standard. Then some guy makes the same body and makes the engine almost exactly the same (less horsepower) and it gets 50 miles to the gallon. WHY!?

Must be a last ditch effort to regain all that money Nvidia lost when the Radeon 9500ish cards were sucking the market dry. Nvidia couldn't put out anything etc etc... I mean I guess I understand and all. But it's still a little confusing why they would make such crap. I mean even the actual image quality is dung. I've seen comparisons with several chips side by side. It's just rancid crap... A geforce3 ti 500 is $80.00 right now. And I would be willing to bet even that thing can keep up with the 5200. Heh probably beat it in serveral areas.

Ruckas-

PS: The benchmarks I saw were of the GeforceFX 5200 "Ultra" just so we're all clear.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Considering DIrectx9 is completed and cards have more than the entire directx9 feature set im pretty sure the games will run

No board supports the full DX9 feature set, its likely we won't see that until the NV40/R400. DX9 was built with a lot more head room then prior DX revisions, although most people consider PS/VS 2.0 to be the standard for a DX9 level board. PS/VS 3.0 are more flexible still.

As far as the 5200 goes, it helps give developers a large installed base of DX9 board to make games for. When the GF4 MX boards were released nVidia was slammed, and rightly so, for releasing a new part that was incomplete feature wise despite its, for its market, great performance. Now they have gone with a feature complete card and they are being roasted for the lower levels of performance. By the end of this year I am expecting to see a 5200 class chip as an integrated nForce solution which when combined with the very low priced 5200 retail offerings should stand to explode the installed base on DX9 parts.

As Chizow mentioned, the 5200 whether or not we may like it will likely benefit gamers significantly by allowing us to see DX9 level titles much earlier then the situation we have seen with DX8. There are a few other tidbits too, expect to see nV pull another 'Detonator' series out within the next couple of months along with the FX architecture being very friendly to titles that use heavy stencil shader ops. In DooM3 it is likely that the 5200 will b!tch slap the Ti4200(I'm not certain on this, but given the architecture of the board it should). I wouldn't expect the 5200 series boards to ever perform to what we would consider good levels, but you can now pick up a DX9 board for $88, that's good for gamers in the long run. Aslo, the 5200 supports the superior internal precission of the FX line which the DX8 level boards lack so you will be able to crank up the details all the way on titles like DooM3(including FP32 color format which not even the R9800 supports, although you may have to run 640x480 to do so ;) ).
 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Isn't Splinter Cell a port? Ports are t3h suk

not quite, chief. splinter cell was developed natively for the PC and differs considerably from the X-Box version.
 

bluemax

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2000
7,182
0
0
The only reviews I've found were for the 5200 Pro... how does the 5200 NP perform in comparison? Nice that it's fanless..... :)
 

hojl

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2000
1,004
0
0
Ruckas-
I totally agree with you nemesis. But what I mean is... Even with that price, it just boggles my mind why they would release a chip that isn't better than it's predecessor. That's like making a car that get 80 miles to the gallon. Everyone buys them, it becomes a standard. Then some guy makes the same body and makes the engine almost exactly the same (less horsepower) and it gets 50 miles to the gallon. WHY!?

... it is kinda like what intel does..
remember when 486 was the king and Pentium came out.. those old pentiums were out performed by 486... what about when the PIV came out.. PIII were still better in terms of performance..

As for Intel they overpriced there PIII (tullies) to kill it off and make the PIV the standard...
Nvidia wants us to adopt the new technology (or name brand) FX and while the lowest model is crap (compared to a good Geforce 4) they prob introduced a whole line of FX so FX is in all our brains ..
All Marketing..
 

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
IMO DX8 just didn't really catch on because only the expensive high end video cards supported DX8, now with the FX5200 we have DX9 support for all price ranges which has got to be a good thing. :)

My XFX Geforce FX 5200 will be arriving soon to replace my GF4 MX440 in my second computer, it's going to be interesting to find out if it outperforms my GF4 MX440, Geforce3 and Radeon 9000 Pro. (I will be offloading them all if the FX5200 is better otherwise I'll get rid of the FX5200!)
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
I'm really interested in what kind of MPEG2/DxVA support nVidia's new cards have. They have been pimping their VPE 2.0 for their FX Go series, but narry a mention on what their regular FX cards.

They have said "Full MPEG2 decoding" but they've said similar things about earlier versions. ATI's cards have too many problems with EMI/rolling lines, to make it worth another shot for my HTPC setup.