Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Low-end graphics card suggestion?

Author
Message
Wooly Lamb
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location:
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 02:55
Link
I want to buy a graphics card when my ongoing graduation exam finishes, but my budget is so low only to allow a card like GeForce 5200. Though there is not much choice here, but can you people tell me if I should buy any other card within the same price range - like ATI 9200 or something?

A thanks in advance!
Back to top
Profile PM
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 02:59
Link
I got the FX 5200 and my Radeon 8500 performed better. I was severely disappointed.. So go with ATI if you don't want to make the biggest mistake of your life.

----

http://www.dbspot.com/ - Free website hosting. Fast and reliable... probably.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Zone Chicken
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jan 2004
Location: `~-..-~`~-..-~`
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 03:35 Edited at: 4th Jun 2004 03:36
Link
Depends alot on your system too, like cpu, fsb, ram type and amount of, and if your motherboard allows for agp or only pci sloted cards and if your going to have enough watts run it. If you have something under or at the 1gb speed and with 128 to 256 ram more then likely you could be running a lower card then the ones you've even mentioned cause your system probably wont give you the expected results off the box. Might want to include your system specs.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Wooly Lamb
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location:
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 04:04 Edited at: 4th Jun 2004 04:23
Link
The current processor I'm using is only a Duron 800 MHz with a agp 8x gf4mx and 256 MB sdram, which I'm planning to upgrade to a Athlon 2600+ Barton, with motherboard MSI with agp 8x support and RAM will be 256 MB DDR.

I seriously think the if there is a performance difference between the cards I mentioned above, it will remain same even on my current machine as well as a 2600+ CPU with 2 GB RAM.

What I want to know is if FX 5200 is really a bad idea compared to ATI 9200 or other low-end cards with same priceline. As Jimmy's post says, ATI probably is better. Thanks Jimmy!

Can anyone else give any suggestion? As to why ATI 9200 might be better or a link to a performance benchmark comparison between these two cards?
Back to top
Profile PM
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 04:06
Link
Quote: "I got the FX 5200 and my Radeon 8500 performed better. I was severely disappointed.. "


Can't compare the GFX5200 to the R8500, as the 8500 actually outperforms the 9200 Pro. (it's an oddball card if you ask me)

On the tightest budget it's a choice of
5200 vs 9200SE; in which case the 5200 is faster in every dept.

a slightly less tight budget
5200 Ultra vs 9200; which again the 5200 is faster.

opening the wallet enough to actually spend decently
5700 Ultra / 5900 XT vs 9600 Pro; the 5700 is MUCH faster, though if you can get a 9600XT you'd really want to weight up some factors.

you wait about a month the entire new lines of the ATI X-Series and Geforce 6-Series will be on the market; everything will basically double in speed same prices and what is currently top end will become budget.
So best to just wait.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 04:28 Edited at: 4th Jun 2004 04:28
Link
You can compare the 8500 to the FX 5200, when it performs faster, considering the 8500 is much older and I THOUGHT I was UPgrading

I went ahead and upgraded from the POS FX 5200 to the Radeon 9800 Pro as you can see and I'm more than happy. I'm not comparing the two, but seriously, nVidia really bites the poo, you can trust me on that.

----

http://www.dbspot.com/ - Free website hosting. Fast and reliable... probably.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Wooly Lamb
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location:
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 04:29
Link
Thanks for the post Raven. About the idea of waiting - here in my country, a Geforce 5200 with 128 MB RAM costs only USD 78. A month or two ago a Geforce 4 MX costed the same amount. I think the price drop of FX is because of the entry of Geforce 6 series. Isn't it unlikely the price of Geforce 5 line will drop some more?
Back to top
Profile PM
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 04:32
Link
Oh my suggestion is the Radeon 9200, not SE, not LE, same price as FX 5200 and it blows it out of the water.

----

http://www.dbspot.com/ - Free website hosting. Fast and reliable... probably.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 06:56
Link
the FX 5200 and R9200 perform pretty much equally under DirectX8/9
FX 5200 Ultra and R9200 Pro however, the 5200 is around 20% faster in all aspects.

Also the R9200 will gain around 10-15% speed from the current Catalyst (4.5) however the FX 5200 will gain around 50-75% speed from the current Forceware (56.72)

(this is from the base drivers Cat 4.0 and Forceware 44.03 provided on disc)

Although 8months ago when i tested these cards were pretty much equal using the Standard versions; i'd say the optimised drivers really do allow the FX to show some real speed.

However the Standard cards are pathetic imo; if you want an FX go for the Ultra.
Speed Difference being;

Cube in DarkBASIC Professional
5200 - 360fps
5200 Ultra - 820fps
9200 - 310fps
9200 Pro - 540 fps

about 6months ago you could've said that ATi owned the top and mid range with the 9600 and 9800 cards; however the FX 5700 Ultra is quite obviously in-charge in the midrange... as it even outperforms the 9600XT (hell it even outperforms the FX 5900/5900XT), so really unless your going for top-end cards you should really be looking towards an FX.

5200 Ultra out performs the FX 5200 / 5400 / 5600 & the Radeon 9200(any) / 9500 / 9600 SE Cards (all of which quite comfortably).

Really the Standard FX are about as much use in getting as the SE or Standard Radeon's... quite frankly with FX unless it has the Ultra on it; don't get it, as for the Radeons unless you see Pro or XT don't get it.
The power is just not worth it for the cost!

Driver wise though; choose VERY carefully there.
Performance wise the FX will run the same on both Pentium & AMD; however the Radeon will loose around 15% of thier speed if they're not on an AMD AthlonXP / Athlon64. (the others it doesn't seem to matter much)

Driver wise, the Radeon's are unstable on AMD Duron, Intel Celeron processors ... it's beyond a joke how unstable they are.
Also Via hardware seems to reject any card which isn't a 'brand' name; So unless your card is ATI, Sapphire, PNY or Creative - splash out the extra for the name.

This goes without saying though, because the brand name cards perform alot higher than the 3rd party cards.
my FX5200 performs around the same as the MSI and Mentor 5200 Ultra, and it has half the ram... so be careful about spending a few extra dollars for something with a name.

The price of the 5200/5600 isn't likely to drop much at all; they'll just disappear from the market really.
5700/5950 are going to drop probably by about half; NVIDIA have 3 cards planned.

6200 - Entry Level (8pipelines 300MHz Clock)
6600 - Mid Range (10pipelines 380MHz Clock)
6800 - Top End (12pipelines 400MHz Clock)
6200 Ultra - Entry Level (10pipelines 350MHz Clock)
6600 Ultra - Mid Range (12pipelines 400MHz Clock)
6800 Ultra - Top End (16pipelines 450MHz Clock)

Not sure if the midrange will be called 6600 or 6400.
I know that they're working towards another set of cards to replace these in 6months; being faster but the same stuff included.

your entry level 6200 however will still be quite noticeably faster than current high-end cards.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Shock
AGK Developer
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 16:42 Edited at: 4th Jun 2004 16:44
Link
I didn't notice any difference at all between my 'old' Geforce 4 MX440 and my 'new' (of around 4 months) FX5200.

I wasn't "that" dissapointed though, as I only baught it because it was on budget.

My GeForce 4 MX440 was the PCI version with 64megs sdram. (cost around £70 brand new, PCI cards cost alot more).
My FX5200 is AGP with 128mb DDR. (cost around £30-£35 brand new).

I think this is mostly a point to back up Raven's "good name" idea, as the GeForce4 was Gainward, the FX5200 is 'Xpert Vision' (lol).


Athlon XP 2500 - 768mb DDR400 - 120gb HDD with 8mb buffer - Lame Geforce FX 5200 128mb DDR
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 16:52
Link
My bro has a ATI-9200 128mb, I have a FX5200 128mb DDR - My card severely boots his in the teeth at every opertunity. My PC is actually a little bit below his in terms of memory and spec.

And possibly most importantly, the ATI-9200's shaders are nothing like the FX5200 - his card runs about half the TGC shader demo, mine runs them all perfectly, smoothly, and they look better too (especially the metal fx). Price is always a factor, but my severly budget card (I just wanted to play with shaders, don't care about commercial PC games) performed a helluva lot better than I expected.

I would have liked a DVI out card, but I suppose you can't have everything for <£40.


Van-B


The nature of Monkey was irrepressible!.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
adr
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st May 2003
Location: Job Centre
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 17:20
Link
Out of interest, where does my FX5600 Ultra fit into this? I don't mean in terms of nVidia vs ATI flamefest, I mean in terms of general performance. It seems to have been quickly superceded by the 5700 ...... :suspicious:

Floats like a butterfly, stings like when I pee
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 17:33 Edited at: 4th Jun 2004 17:40
Link
I can only find the Forceware 56.64 drivers for the FX 5200. Anyone have a link to the 56.72? I've never tried Forceware drivers before.. Are they risky to use?

Edit: Oh Forceware is just another way of referring to the standard NVidea drivers. I thought they were a third party make or something. Anyway they are still on 56.64.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 18:31
Link
Should be able to find the 56.72 graphics drivers on nVidias site.


The place for wonderful plug-ins and things.
Keep your friends close, and your cats even closer.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 19:49
Link
56.64 are for Windows 9x Operating Systems
56.72 are for Windows XP/2000 Operating Systems

Same version different OS version; weirdly though nvidia work on the XP/2000 drivers then rework them for the other OS's which is weird.

@adr: your 5600 Ultra was surpassed simply because NVIDIA wanted the Mid-Range back as this is one of the biggest markets.
Top end is actually one that costs the most to develop for with very little in return financially it is just to boast 'our card is better than yours' then people tend to pick the low end cards based on that (but more on price )

the 5600 Ultra is about as powerful as a 9600 Standard; will outperform the 9600 SE quite happily. it's not a bad card, just is not powerful enough to compete against the 9600 Pro/XT cards.
performance wise your talking around 5-10fps difference in actual games which isn't much; but is enough for 'boasting' rights from ati users.

the reason i've tended to keep with the lower speed FX most of this time is simply because of the drivers really. when it comes down to it, geforce have never really let me down... if the card says it supports something, then it'll run; this hasn't been my experience with Radeon. I know everyones hardware is different, and some people will have awesome Radeon compatibility when others will have dire... but quite frankly when i'm putting £100-200 into a new peice of hardware, i don't want to take that lucky dip chance that it might not do what it says on the tin.

Might just be me being fussy though

atleast unlike the 5800 adr the 5600 doesn't suffer from the bug which means it doesn't speed up when it needs to.

oh and if you need more speed from your standard geforce cards;
just go into the adapter section and update the drivers: hand select the 'ultra' version of the card.
you get a noticeable performance boost without modding

however the 5200 will loose some speed doing 2D operations becuase the ultra version uses a different colour band thingie.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
newbi 2 basic
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2003
Location: Inverness, Scotland
Posted: 4th Jun 2004 19:54 Edited at: 4th Jun 2004 19:55
Link
i have a GeForce FX 5200 i stick a fan on it (designed for an AMD athlon XP 2000+) and overclocked it ;D

it now matches a GeForce FX 5600

in GPU speed and Memory frequencies

Quote: "however the 5200 will loose some speed doing 2D operations becuase the ultra version uses a different colour band thingie."


You have to love the technical terms

http://www.counterfeitcriminal.co.uk <--- Sons Of Angels Supports the fridge project.... Do you?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Wooly Lamb
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2004
Location:
Posted: 5th Jun 2004 01:33
Link
The product choice isn't very broad here in my country, I'll look for an Ultra and see if I can afford one, as it'll be a very good idea considering the performance you've stated, Raven. Thanks!

However, I don't know about if I can get a 'good name' brand on my budget though, usually the good names cost much higher here than their actual prices.

I only wish my budget wasn't so tight. My actual reason for upgrading is my current card doesn't support shaders, and I can't even run the this generation games like Prince of Persia without shaders... and can't use DBPro shader functionalities. My situation is sorta like Shock there.
Back to top
Profile PM
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 5th Jun 2004 02:25
Link
If you want to run Prince of Persia or any real current games even something as demanding as FarCry all you need is an older Geforce4 Ti.

most places do the Ti 4800 for about the price of the budget cards; and they actually can keep up with the midrange cards speedwise, it just doesn't support Pixel/Vertex Shader 2.0;

As no games actually *require* this Shader set, it might be an idea looking into one of them while the next generation are due out; then you can get something and save up in the mean time for a more decent card when you update your system.

the 4 Ti's actually have better Colour quality than both current Radeon and Geforce generation cards.
(no doubt due to the speed trade off, but as it performs pixel/vertex shader 1.x just as fast if not faster it is well worth it.)

another card you might want to checkout is the Radeon 8500 as well, because that is also pretty cheap and again faster; just no Shader 2.0 support.

really isn't the end of the world not having it; the only reason newer specs are used is because it's easier to program them.
which means nothing to the end user really;

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-22 00:25:02
Your offset time is: 2024-09-22 00:25:02