GeForce 3 Ti200 vs GeForce FX 5200
Bradley
but f*cking nvidia uses different terminology on each description of the
card so that I will have no way in hell of comparing them except for the
differences in bandwidth. I know that the GeForce 3 Ti200 has a maximum
bandwidth of 6.4GB/sec vs. the GeForce Fx 5200 at 10.4GB/sec. Now, I am
thinking that the extra bandwidth difference alone is enough to warrant this
small upgrade considering the GeForce FX 5200 I am looking at is only
$89.99. Is my thinking correct? And last of all, what the hell is an
integrated TV tuner. If it's something I can hook up my cable tv up too and
record movies/shows to hard drive cool. If its just a fancy way of saying it
has TV-OUT, big f*cking deal. Thanks for all comments.
Dark Avenger
Mmm, The FX5200 is a budget card and in gaming not a fast card, though
older games it can run.
The 128-bits versions ( with 10,4GB memory speed ) are indeed
reasonable cards but I fear they are not faster as your GF3 ti
card...atleast not much.
It probably is as fast as an GF4 ti 500 card, so it's not much of an
upgrade, but it's cheap so I guess if you dont'have much to invest....
What kind of games do you play/ programs do you use / needs do you
have regarding a graphics card?
Nick Le Lievre
Get the FX 5600 non ultra or 5200 Ultra at least - fastest fx5200 ultra 3d
Mark 01 Athlon XP score 9422 @ 1721mhz 133fsb fastest fx5600NU score Inno3D
FX5600NU @ 370/641 :: AXP2000+ @ 1862MHz 149fsb 10535 both should hit around
9000 with 1800mhz CPU and bit of overclocking but don`t quote me.
FX 5200 Ultra £ 60 ex VAT & Del at http://www.dabs.com
FX 5600 Non Ultra £ 70 ex VAT & Del at http://www.dabs.com
For reference I get 12000 with a 2ghz XP CPU good tweaked motherboard &
memory settings and overclocked Ti4200 at 166fsb with 43.45 drivers. At 1667
around 10600 with same settings I think.
I think FX5600NU optimised might get somewhere around 11000 with 2ghz XP
don`t quote me.
Nick Le Lievre
news:bs6vot$a2957$1...@ID-77022.news.uni-berlin.de...
Just be carefull of the FX5600XT which is slower then FX 5600 and FX5600
Ultra and it costs less too!
BelaLvgosi
Well, errm, I have a known person in a 2.4 celeron+512ddr with fx5200 that
performs way slower than a ti200 on a 1333tb with sdram. Altough 3dmark
score was almost the same, you had to run games with less detail. I wouldn't
really change a ti200 to a 5200. As everyone says, try instead a gf4 ti, or
in the worst case a 5600.
Nick Le Lievre
news:newscache$upzaqh$nuf$1...@newsfront4.netvisao.pt...
Ah yes I believe the pixel shader performance is what brings it up in the
3D mark and maybe slower in existing games.
DaveL
ti500 is equal to a 5200 Ultra. So going from a GF3 to 5200 in general is
NOT an upgrade. Going to a 64 bit 5200 would be a DOWNGRADE.
Here's a test of 80 video cards done recently. Dial-up users beware. It
took me a minute to download it with cable.
http://www.ixbt-labs.com/articles2/over2003/index.html
Dave
"Dark Avenger" <supe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c060a4f.03122...@posting.google.com...
DaveL
Dave
"BelaLvgosi" <de...@undead.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$upzaqh$nuf$1...@newsfront4.netvisao.pt...
>
MAD
They are pretty good cards for the price. Much, much, better than the 5200's
.
If you like demo's the 5600XT will run the Dawn, Dawn Ultra, and Dusk demos
from Nvidia.
The 5200's??? Well, I could barely get Dawn to run on my system with a 5200
Ultra.
I'll stick with my 5700 Ultra :)
It scores 4000 points higher at stock speeds than a 5600 does overclocked on
my system.
"Bradley" <bno...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xhAFb.177283$Eq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Darthy
Why would you spend $90 for a side grade? You wouldn't notice the
difference... other than you get dual output.
Spend $80 and get a Ti4200=64mb, it's about twice as fast as the
GF3-Ti200/fx5200.
Only a few hundred maybe left on the market, try www.pricewatch.com
--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
Death to Palladium & WPA!!
Darthy
wrote:
>
>Well, errm, I have a known person in a 2.4 celeron+512ddr with fx5200 that
>performs way slower than a ti200 on a 1333tb with sdram. Altough 3dmark
>score was almost the same, you had to run games with less detail. I wouldn't
>really change a ti200 to a 5200. As everyone says, try instead a gf4 ti, or
>in the worst case a 5600.
Thats because your friend/person you know bought a junky Celeron, that
is on performance with a 1.1Ghz Pentium3 CPU (2-3 year old chip)...
for the money he paid for INTEL INSIDE, he could have gotten an AMD
2500 that would have smoked it... yep, its about 3 times the CPU power
over that Celeron.
So that alone effects his gaming performance.
Darthy
wrote:
>Close. The 128 bit 5200 is the same performance as a GF3 ti200. The GF3
>ti500 is equal to a 5200 Ultra. So going from a GF3 to 5200 in general is
>NOT an upgrade. Going to a 64 bit 5200 would be a DOWNGRADE.
>
>Here's a test of 80 video cards done recently. Dial-up users beware. It
>took me a minute to download it with cable.
>http://www.ixbt-labs.com/articles2/over2003/index.html
>
>Dave
>
Thanks for that posted link... HOLY SHIT... thats a LOT of cards!
Worse yet... 5 (FIVE) different kinds of 5200!
9 DIFFERNT kinds of 5600s!!! (64bit and 128bit XT cards)
This is COMPLETE BULL SHIT!!
It used to be, you bought an non Ultra or an Ultra and KNEW what kind
of speed to expect.... not anymore!!
I recommend everyone to SAVE this page... not just bookmark it.
note: on the Unreal2 mark, it says default details... but Unreal2
changes its visual setting automaticly depending on the GPU.
It's hard to say WHAT part of the game or demo they gauge the card
at... on my AMD-2500, and the lower end 9800Pro (380/360) - I was
getting between 70~95fps in 1280x1024, MAX details, a bit HIGH on the
shadows settings (15 / middle / middle)...
On the P4, they scored it 97fps @ 1024x768...
Its a good scale of the video cards... but they forgot 2 MORE GPU
tech...
Onboard Intel Extreme and Onboard Nforce2