Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.battlefield1942 (
More info?)
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:40:20 +0200, "Tal Fucus" <fuchs_t@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
>I'm currently using FX5200 which I found very disappointing.
>I think to upgrade this card to a better one.
>The FX5600 is the only one I can afford now, for an extra 50$. (I'll get a
>full refund for the FX5200)
>Does this card worth the extra money ?
>I play BF1942, FarCry...
NO.
The 5600 is FAR better than the 5200 (unless youre comparing a 5600xt
to a 5200Ultra)..
You MUST have at least a 5700Ultra or better to be worth while, and at
that price, you might as well get the 5900xt. Your CPU will also
make a differnece. (a 5700 plain is about the same as a 5600Ultra)
Check out this chart:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/far_cry_nvidia/page6.asp
(And this is with the super fast 64bit AMD64 3400+ CPU. If you have a
2Ghz CPU, it would be noticably slower.
I have a 9800Pro. With far cry in 1280x1024 - I have ALL settings on
SUPER HIGH - Except for Shadows (on HIGH) because there difference
with shadow effects was minimal - but the performance hit was not.
AMD2500 and ATI 9800Pro are NOT overclocked.
PLayed FarCry on a friends setup with AMD2600/5600Ultra... ugh,
settings were on LOW mostly. NO grass... horrible looking. But my
other friend says it runs better than on his 5600-plain easily.
My 5900-plain (A bit faster than the 5900xt) on an AMD2000 runs on
MED-HIGH settings in 1024x768, it doesn't touch my 9800Pro ($200).
check out www.pricewatch.com
$170 = 5700Ultra
$170 = 5900xt
$200 = ATI9800Pro
If you look at the firingsquad numbers... the 5900xt is a good 15fps
faster over the 5700Ultra [1024x768x32xAA] (why they bother with this
card?) and the 5600 is under 20fps...
--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
Death to Palladium & WPA!!