Radeon 9250 vs FX5200

[Athena]

I'm looking to upgrade a machine with an onboard video adapter. Since there is no graphics slot at all, I'm pretty limited as to my choices. Both of these are on sale this week for $50 and I'm wondering which would be the better buy.

Thank you.

 

[Tegeril]

Taking a look at Futuremark's ORB (for 3DMark 2003), it would appear that with a Radeon 9250 and a P4 clocked somewhere between 2.4-3.0GHz, that it is reasonable to get 1100-1300 3DMarks. A FX5200 (not "Ultra" or "LE") gets 1200-1500.

So while this is not the best comparison, it looks as if the FX5200 is slightly better. Google may get you something better, but I figured this was a quick way to get you some numbers.

 

[Tegeril]

Addendum to that: Focus on the low range number, I wasn't reading carefully and many of the scores above 1100 and 1200 respectively were from ridiculous overclocks.

 

[Cookie Monster]

The battle of the titans! 9250 vs FX5200..

The win goes to the 9250.

 

[ethebubbeth]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
The battle of the titans! 9250 vs FX5200..

The win goes to the 9250.

ROFLMAO :laugh:

It's too bad there aren't many other cheap PCI graphics solutions... these cards have been around forever.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

You don't get much from either one. If a certain amount of Dx9 code is anticipated, for which bog-slow speed is acceptable, an FX 5200 can simulate the SM 2 functions using its 32-Bit precision nVidia hardware (actual Direct3D functions in SM 2 are 24-Bit precision). The Radeon 9250 is a down-graded 9200, on a new die, while a 9200 was originally a slightly modified Radeon 7000. Neither of the cards named are really worth $50. A dealer can buy lots of a dozen each (of the AGP versions, admittedly) on eBay for $200; that's $16 each.

Modern onboard chips from ATI and nVidia are better than these tinker toys (Xpress200, Nforce6100).

 

[AllWhacked]

I have both and while I don't have any benchmarks, the 9250 felt slower than my 9200SE, which is slower than the FX5200.

So I say the FX5200 FTW!

 

[Cookie Monster]

Really? Ok FX5200 ftw

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
You don't get much from either one. If a certain amount of Dx9 code is anticipated, for which bog-slow speed is acceptable, an FX 5200 can simulate the SM 2 functions using its 32-Bit precision nVidia hardware (actual Direct3D functions in SM 2 are 24-Bit precision). The Radeon 9250 is a down-graded 9200, on a new die, while a 9200 was originally a slightly modified Radeon 7000. Neither of the cards named are really worth $50. A dealer can buy lots of a dozen each (of the AGP versions, admittedly) on eBay for $200; that's $16 each.

Modern onboard chips from ATI and nVidia are better than these tinker toys (Xpress200, Nforce6100).

Actually, the 9200 was based on the Radeon 9000 which is a Radeon 8500 with improved efficiency in pixel shaders but 4 less TMU's, the Radeon 8500 was 4 pixel pipelines with 2 TMUs on each one and the 9000 is 4 pixel pipelines with 1 TMU each. The Radeon 8500 is DX 8.1 with PS 1.4 and VS 1.1. The Radeon 7000 is DX 7.

 

[Captante]

If you can find a PCI Nvidia 6200, that would be the best bet in a PCI graphics card.. out of your choices I'd give the edge in 2D image quality to the 9250 & the slight edge in 3D to the 5200.

 

[ScrewFace]

Obviously she's not a gamer.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: Captante
If you can find a PCI Nvidia 6200, that would be the best bet in a PCI graphics card.. out of your choices I'd give the edge in 2D image quality to the 9250 & the slight edge in 3D to the 5200.

My thought too, a 6200 would be much better!

I always thought it was funny how with PCI, the FX5200 was actually the slightly better option - yet you'd think it would follow what happened with AGP.

 

[unfalliblekrutch]

There are x1300s in pci form now, IIRC, so that'd be your best performance bet