• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Worst 3D Videocard?s over the past 2 years From ATI & Nvidia do you agree Vote!!

videoclone

videoclone

Golden Member
Before you vote remember this is not the worst value cards ie: FX5800 Ultra just the worst performing. Who knows maybe someone looking to upgrade their Geforce2 mx and not spend more then $80 may benefit from your vote and they may know what to avoided in their purchase

Worst cards listed by price ( Cheapest first to most expensive ) all cards come in 64Mb, 128Mb Versions some of the DX9 cards come with 256Mb of Crappo 333Mhz or 400Mhz Ram.

If this helps even 1 person avoid buying any of these cards then this post was well worth posting.

EDIT: The worst 3D Gamming Cards from ATI and Nvidia
 
Gotta be the 5200... the model number is incredibly misleading to John Smith who stopped by Best Buy on his way home from work.
 
You poll is meaningless. The "worst" video cards over the past two years were built by companies like S3, Intel, Trident, XGI, etc.. Your poll only lists the lesser cards of the two top companies which are still better than their counterparts from other firms.
 
I doubt anything by ATI or Nvidia could possibly be the worse over the last 2 years. Where's Matrox, SIS, XGI, PowerVR, Intel, S3, 3Dlabs ect.?

errr....what Rollo said😉
 
Sorry i should of stated worst Gaming cards from Nvidia and ATI .. the rest of the companies came out with crap no one is interested in talking about.
 
Originally posted by: Rollo
You poll is meaningless. The "worst" video cards over the past two years were built by companies like S3, Intel, Trident, XGI, etc.. Your poll only lists the lesser cards of the two top companies which are still better than their counterparts from other firms.
Click to expand...

Is'nt Trident , S3 Virge the same company?
 
Originally posted by: CrystalBay
Originally posted by: Rollo
You poll is meaningless. The "worst" video cards over the past two years were built by companies like S3, Intel, Trident, XGI, etc.. Your poll only lists the lesser cards of the two top companies which are still better than their counterparts from other firms.
Click to expand...

Is'nt Trident , S3 Virge the same company?
Click to expand...

No Trident cards are made by Jaton, S3 has been sold since they made the Virge long ago, now they make DeltaChrome. (lol) I forgot "piece of" SiS, but everything they make fellates goats as well.
 
My vote goes to the NV30 (5800 Ultra). When you've got nVidia themselves admitting the card was a failure then you know it really was.
 
Originally posted by: Rollo
You poll is meaningless. The "worst" video cards over the past two years were built by companies like S3, Intel, Trident, XGI, etc.. Your poll only lists the lesser cards of the two top companies which are still better than their counterparts from other firms.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was edited after you posted this... but I think the description, "What Card out of these listed do you think wins the worst card award !" pretty much takes care of the problem you had with the poll 😀
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
My vote goes to the NV30 (5800 Ultra). When you've got nVidia themselves admitting the card was a failure then you know it really was.
Click to expand...

Now BFG, we can't all try for the world record for single ATI card posession. If the rust doesn't get you, the boredom will......

😉

In any case, it was fairly interesting nVidia deemed the card a failure when at launch it was faster at a lot of benches than a 9700Pro and when they fixed the drivers it's position was only increased. At the time, the only thing you really could call it was the best or second best video card in the world, so I guess you have a unique definition of "worst" since you became an ATI fanboy.

 
Out of curiosity Rollo, has the OP changed the thread title? Now it is: "Worst 3D Videocard?s over the past 2 years From ATI & Nvidia do you agree Vote!!". That says pretty clearly it's ATI/NV only, so your comments seem odd unless the OP changed the title.

Originally posted by: MDE
Originally posted by: fsstrike
whats better a, a 5200 or a geforce3?
Click to expand...
About the same.
EDIT: A GF3 would probably beat a 64 bit FX5200.
Click to expand...
Umm, actually, you are WAYY off. A 5200 is slower than a GeForce 2 Ti (Except maybe at DX9).
FX5200 64bit < FX5200 128bit < GeForce 2 Ti = FX5600XT 64bit < GeForce 3 Ti200 < GeForce 3.

My lovely experience with the 5600XT 64-bit that was mislabeled
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
My vote goes to the NV30 (5800 Ultra). When you've got nVidia themselves admitting the card was a failure then you know it really was.
Click to expand...

I have used a 5800 Ultra for about a year and in no way is it a failure. I have never had one problem with it. Can't say that for my 9700 Pro. My 5800U plays all my games without a hitch. The only thing my 9700 Pro is better at is 3dMark 2003 but I don't play that.
 
Originally posted by: UnTech
Originally posted by: BFG10K
My vote goes to the NV30 (5800 Ultra). When you've got nVidia themselves admitting the card was a failure then you know it really was.
Click to expand...

I have used a 5800 Ultra for about a year and in no way is it a failure. I have never had one problem with it. Can't say that for my 9700 Pro. My 5800U plays all my games without a hitch. The only thing my 9700 Pro is better at is 3dMark 2003 but I don't play that.
Click to expand...

I do... it's so much fun... I like the multi-texturing level the most!
 
Originally posted by: chsh1ca
Out of curiosity Rollo, has the OP changed the thread title? Now it is: "Worst 3D Videocard?s over the past 2 years From ATI & Nvidia do you agree Vote!!". That says pretty clearly it's ATI/NV only, so your comments seem odd unless the OP changed the title.

Originally posted by: MDE
Originally posted by: fsstrike
whats better a, a 5200 or a geforce3?
Click to expand...
About the same.
EDIT: A GF3 would probably beat a 64 bit FX5200.
Click to expand...
Umm, actually, you are WAYY off. A 5200 is slower than a GeForce 2 Ti (Except maybe at DX9).
FX5200 64bit < FX5200 128bit < GeForce 2 Ti = FX5600XT 64bit < GeForce 3 Ti200 < GeForce 3.

My lovely experience with the 5600XT 64-bit that was mislabeled
Click to expand...
Yes the thread title was changed.
No I'm not "way off base," read my edit, I said the GF3 would beat the 5200. I mistakenly assumed a 5200 Ultra, which is about the same as a GF3, and corrected myself.
 
i'm can't belive how many ppl are choosing the 5200... the GF4mx has got to be the worst travesty to ever occur in the video card market; worse than the voodoo rush 😛

the 5200 isn't that bad, it's quiet, and cheap. makes a great workstation card 🙂
 
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
i'm can't belive how many ppl are choosing the 5200... the GF4mx has got to be the worst travesty to ever occur in the video card market; worse than the voodoo rush 😛

the 5200 isn't that bad, it's quiet, and cheap. makes a great workstation card 🙂
Click to expand...

It's no secret that the MX is a value line... MX is what nVidia used to identify their value line... but if you don't know enough not to go by the model number, you'd think a Geforce FX5200 must be better than a GeForce4 Ti4600... not to mention the DX9 labels plastered all over them.
 
Originally posted by: MDE

EDIT: A GF3 would probably beat a 64 bit FX5200.
Click to expand...
Umm, actually, you are WAYY off. A 5200 is slower than a GeForce 2 Ti (Except maybe at DX9).
FX5200 64bit < FX5200 128bit < GeForce 2 Ti = FX5600XT 64bit < GeForce 3 Ti200 < GeForce 3.

My lovely experience with the 5600XT 64-bit that was mislabeled
Click to expand...
Yes the thread title was changed.
No I'm not "way off base," read my edit, I said the GF3 would beat the 5200. I mistakenly assumed a 5200 Ultra, which is about the same as a GF3, and corrected myself.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are "way off base". Your edit says "probably", there is absolutely no "probably" about it. The GF3 mops the floor with the 64-bit FX5600XT, which in turn scores higher than both FX5200s. "A GF3 would probably beat a 64-bit FX5200" vastly overstates the capabilities of the FX5200, considering that the GF2Ti is faster than the FX5200 by the same margin the FX5600XT 64bit is.

The low end 5x00s from NVidia -- R1 & 2 FX5600XTs, ALL FX5200s are incredibly poor performers. The GF4MX follows a model line of other equally neutered cards (GF2MX, etc). If you buy an MX card, you should expect it to handle 2d and "extra light gaming". This is obvious from a marketing standpoint based on its price and target market. The GF4MX would likely give the FX5200s a run for their money. The FX5200 line are the WORST piggyback performers out there. The FX5200 is a direct derivative model-wise of the Ti4200, indicating it should be about the budget upgrade of the 3D accel line. Unfortunately its performance is around one third that of the Ti4200. The model numbering was done SPECIFICALLY to sell cards on the basis of model number. It is without a doubt in my mind, the worst card out of the most recent crop.
 
It's quite clear, Nvidia GeForce4 MX420 64bit 200/333 DX7 is the "winner", it is easily the worst card in the least. Slowest and "only" DX7. 5200 is bad and its a shame how missleading it is, but I'd still much rather have any other card on that list over the 420, including that 5200.
 
Suprised the 9600SE doesn't have more votes. Since it's one of the worst performing cards. Under 60fps in Quake 3 should be enough to show how bad it is. Every other card gets over 60fps. Even the 5200 is way better than it. Poll is a little on sided though with all the Nvidia and few ATI choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top