xbit labs gave GeForce FX 5200 64mb thumbs down

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

jjyiz28

Platinum Member
Jan 11, 2003
2,901
0
0
Originally posted by: AunixM3
"an MX440 are keeping up if not icing an 8500 and not just the crippled 9000..."

How's that hard to believe? What, you don't trust Anand's tests?

"course that is just AA,"

which I hear over and over again that ATi is always superior in
rolleye.gif


"By the time you can get one"

huh? 5200 is already out

"4200's may be the same price and the 4200 will probably clearly establish itself as king of the budgets"

No. The Ti4x00 line is being phased out. Just as the 8500 line will be after ATi releases the remainder of their 9x00 line.

"Why are you so in love with such an underpowered card?"

I'm not. But I see so many people bashing the card because they think "oh, because the 5800 sucks, so must the rest of these cards by nVidia."

~Aunix
Click to expand...


doesn't the 5200 fx ultra 128mb card retail for $199USD??
 
W

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
Aunix- You say it has full MPEG2 support, could you explain how you know this? nVidia specifically states their FX Go chips have VPE 2.0 support, but says nothing of the plain FX.

If the 5600 has full IDCT/DxVA/VMR9 support, I'm all over it. This is a must for my HTPC setup, and I'm sick and tired of the crappy line-flicker plagueing ATI products.
 
N

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Here's some benchmark scores for a GF4 MX440 (270/400), GF3 (200/460) and FX5200 (250/400) tested with a AMD Athlon XP 1700 processor, tested using very high quality settings with sound enabled etc:-

(results are=mx440, gf3, fx5200, all tested at 1024x768x32bit)

Quake 3=141,150,154
Quake 3 2xfsaa=86,85,116
Quake 3 4xfsaa=44,60,74
Quake 3 2xanis=124,122,130
Quake 3 8xanis=n/a,86,112
Rtcw=116,118,82 (major slowdown when smoke is onscreen, driver problem imo)
Serious Sam 2=104,120,114 (random pauses)
Ut2003 flyby (Antalus)=58,69,63

Will do a test comparison with the 43.51 drivers soon!

* * * Just tried out the 43.51 drivers and there's no performance difference to the 43.45 drivers, RTCW still performs really badly with the FX5200.
 
M

Mloot

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2002
3,038
25
91
Those are some interesting results. I thought for sure that the FX5200 would not perform as well as the MX440. I wonder if I should wait for PNY's FX5200 PCI or just go with Visiontek's 9100 PCI when it becomes available?

Nemesismk2, how large is the actual card itself? Do you know the length of the PCB?
 
N

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Originally posted by: Mloot
Those are some interesting results. I thought for sure that the FX5200 would not perform as well as the MX440. I wonder if I should wait for PNY's FX5200 PCI or just go with Visiontek's 9100 PCI when it becomes available?

Nemesismk2, how large is the actual card itself? Do you know the length of the PCB?
Click to expand...

The card is quite small, smaller than both my GF3 and GF4 MX440, I'll measure it and repost (probably around 18cm)

 
M

Mloot

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2002
3,038
25
91
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Originally posted by: Mloot
Those are some interesting results. I thought for sure that the FX5200 would not perform as well as the MX440. I wonder if I should wait for PNY's FX5200 PCI or just go with Visiontek's 9100 PCI when it becomes available?

Nemesismk2, how large is the actual card itself? Do you know the length of the PCB?
Click to expand...

The card is quite small, smaller than both my GF3 and GF4 MX440, I'll measure it and repost (probably around 18cm)
Click to expand...


Thanks, that's good to hear. It's probably safe to assume that I will be able to fit the PCI version in my pc. I was hoping it wasn't the size of the Herc. 9000 PCI. There was never a chance that monster was going to fit in my slimline case.
 
N

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Originally posted by: Mloot
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Originally posted by: Mloot
Those are some interesting results. I thought for sure that the FX5200 would not perform as well as the MX440. I wonder if I should wait for PNY's FX5200 PCI or just go with Visiontek's 9100 PCI when it becomes available?

Nemesismk2, how large is the actual card itself? Do you know the length of the PCB?
Click to expand...

The card is quite small, smaller than both my GF3 and GF4 MX440, I'll measure it and repost (probably around 18cm)
Click to expand...


Thanks, that's good to hear. It's probably safe to assume that I will be able to fit the PCI version in my pc. I was hoping it wasn't the size of the Herc. 9000 PCI. There was never a chance that monster was going to fit in my slimline case.
Click to expand...

The XFX FX5200 pcb measures 16cm in length and 9cm in height so it's pretty small.

 
B

bluemax

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2000
7,182
0
0
Good size for people with micro-machines! Low-profile and such are really becoming more common!
Best thing going for Shuttle SV24/25 owners, provided the 5200 doesn't need extra power!

(I remember reading 5200 requirements of a 250w Power supply! Are they kidding?? This guy doesn't need to be plugged in like the Radeon 9700 does it?)
 
N

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
I've been using the FX5200 quite abit today and I'm pretty happy with it apart from the issues I've already mentioned. I've been testing it with a wide range of new and old games and it's not been having half the problems I was expecting.
 
W

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
Hmm- well, testing for full Mpeg2 support will be difficult if no DVD software supports the 5200 yet. You can try running PowerDVD or WinDVD and looking in the Information box to see what it says- but it might say "not found" for acceleration either way.

 
N

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
Originally posted by: Wag
Hmm- well, testing for full Mpeg2 support will be difficult if no DVD software supports the 5200 yet. You can try running PowerDVD or WinDVD and looking in the Information box to see what it says- but it might say "not found" for acceleration either way.
Click to expand...

Do you mean "hardware motion compensation"? If so it's enabled with my FX5200, you can tell I play loads of DVD movies using my PC ;)

I have a dvd player connected to my wide screen tv, easier to use, less noisy and a HUGE screen! :)
 
W

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
No, I don't mean HWMC, the old nVidia cards had that.

What I mean is IDCT/DxVA support. We'll have to wait a bit I guess, unless anyone knows of software that will tell you what Mpeg2/video features your card has.
 
B

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Compared to a 9000 the 5200 Ultra fares well. But why not compare it to a card in the same price category? Like a 9500 in which case
it gets owned.
Click to expand...

The 5600 is in the 9500s price range. The 5200 is priced to compete with the 9000.
 
C

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
It seems this card is getting better with each impending driver release. Looks like I judged it a bit harsly based on initial reviews, as it doesn't seem to underperform as dreadfully as I thought....

I still wouldn't buy it for myself, but its looking more and more like a winner for nVidia's DX9 line-up.

Chiz
 
B

bluemax

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2000
7,182
0
0
I know I'm keeping my eye on it... mainly because until the Radeon 9600 shows up, this one is the fastest card (for around $100US) that can run without a fan. I *need* silence! :Q The non-pro looks like a winner (for the low end) for bringing "about" Radeon 8500LE levels of performance for close to the same price, but DX9 and fanless. :)

They should only get cheaper in the near future. Sure beats buying a GF4MX-440 now doesn't it? ;)
 
Z

ZimZum

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2001
1,281
0
76
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Compared to a 9000 the 5200 Ultra fares well. But why not compare it to a card in the same price category? Like a 9500 in which case
it gets owned.
Click to expand...

The 5600 is in the 9500s price range. The 5200 is priced to compete with the 9000.
Click to expand...

Not at a $150 it isnt.



 
P

pukemon

Senior member
Jun 16, 2000
850
0
76
Originally posted by: bluemax
I know I'm keeping my eye on it... mainly because until the Radeon 9600 shows up, this one is the fastest card (for around $100US) that can run without a fan. I *need* silence! :Q The non-pro looks like a winner (for the low end) for bringing "about" Radeon 8500LE levels of performance for close to the same price, but DX9 and fanless. :)

They should only get cheaper in the near future. Sure beats buying a GF4MX-440 now doesn't it? ;)
Click to expand...

Amen brother! Quiet computing is important to me too which is why i'm considering the FX5200 regular myself. I almost considered an GF4MX-440SE, but decided to wait on it. The fan on my nearly 2 year old GF3 original is driving me crazy... I was considering one of the Zalman heatpipe things too...

As for performance, who cares? It's not like Warcraft 3 NEEDS anything even remotely close to any of the aforementioned cards. ;)
 
Z

ZimZum

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2001
1,281
0
76
Originally posted by: bluemax
But at less than $100 it most certainly IS. Only the ULTRA retails at $150.
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the ultra.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom