Powercolor 9100 64 or ASUS GeforceFX5200 128

[kraik]

Decision - Which one is a better upgrade for XP1800@2200 nforce2 rig 32 GTS2 Pro - gaming in 32bit 1024x768 only but prefer maxed detail (current 3Dmark01 def score is ~ 4888)

Powercolor 9100 64M - concern -> slow memory 166 or 187? Compatibility issue with games?
ASUS FX5200 128 - concern -> not sure how it performs, but anandtech reported the ultra version better than ti4200 when AA enabled

The 9100 is like USD20 cheaper than the FX where i came from - my budget limit is no higher than the fx

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: kraik
Decision - Which one is a better upgrade for XP1800@2200 nforce2 rig 32 GTS2 Pro - gaming in 32bit 1024x768 only but prefer maxed detail (current 3Dmark01 def score is ~ 4888)

Powercolor 9100 64M - concern -> slow memory 166 or 187? Compatibility issue with games?
ASUS FX5200 128 - concern -> not sure how it performs, but anandtech reported the ultra version better than ti4200 when AA enabled

The 9100 is like USD20 cheaper than the FX where i came from - my budget limit is no higher than the fx

If both video cards had 128mb memory then I'd recommend the 9100, however the 9100 has 64mb and it's a Powercolor (slow and unreliable video cards) so I recommend the Asus FX5200 instead.

 

[kraik]

i was leaning to the same line - but question now is how good is the fx5200 nonultra - anandtech review only refers to the ultra

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: kraik
i was leaning to the same line - but question now is how good is the fx5200 nonultra - anandtech review only refers to the ultra

Compared to which video card?

 

[selfbuilt]

According to Hardware.fr, whcih has benched both ultra and non-ultra FX 5200, the non-ultra seems to be about 25% slower overall (or the ultra is 33% faster, depending on your point of view).