FX 5200

[blackphoenix77]

I've been looking around and the FX 5200 card really gets dumped on...I was wondering why it is so bad? I was also wondering the difference in the FX 5200 built by different companies. Like I have a Verto GeForce FX 5200 built by PNY...and I've seen tons of different FX 5200's out there.

My Rig:
AthlonXP 2000+ 1.677ghz
GeForce Verto FX5200 128mb ddr
Maxtor 7200RPM 80GB, Some POS 40gb
384mb sdram(unknown)
Cendyne 52x24x52 CD-RW
Lite-On 4x DVD-RW
Go EMachines...🙁

 

[Whisper]

For people who don't play games much, it is actually an excellent card. Also for all previous generations of games, many of which are still incredibly popular, it is very fast. But for the new DirectX 9 shader effects, which requires the ability to do hundreds of floating-point operations per pixel, it is simply too weak.

There are many FX 5200 variants possible. First of all you can choose between 64-bit or 128-bit memory interfaces. The latter is nearly double as fast, but the board is more expensive to manufacture. Then there are different kinds of memory modules possible, running at different speeds. They also vary from 64 MB to 256 MB. And then there is the 'Ultra' version, which has a higher clock speed but mostly has to be cooled with a fan.

Which type do you have and what are your impressions of it?

 

[cleeve]

It's dumped on mainly because it's advertized as DirectX 9 hardware, but it's DirectX 9 shaders are far too weak to be usable.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Another reason it's dumped on is even for older games (DX8 and DX7) the GF4ti and GF3ti series will outperform it by a wide margin.

The FX5200non-ultra is crap for everything other than 2D. The FX5200Ultra is a much better card, but at the price those sell for usually you should be able to pick up an FX5600 or FX5600Ultra revision 1 (which is nutz IMO) due to their relative rarity. I've even seen FX5200Ultras sell for more than an R9600.

In any case the FX5200 is very underpowered, that's why it gets a bad wrap. It's better than a GeForce4MX SOMETIMES (sometimes it even loses to that!), but that's not saying much. Usually you will do better with a GF4ti4XXX for the same money, and even for a buck or two more.

Take a look at this Digit-Life review of some of the games in the recent past (no DX9) that shows where on the grand scheme of things the FX5200 places. Also take not of the clock speed of the different FX5200s when comparing;

<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html</A>

Also THG VGA chart;

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html</A>


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK

 

[HardWareBoss]

TI4200 beats it hands down.

 

[fghj]

For people who don't play games much, it is actually an excellent card.

Just about any card on the market is an excellent card for people who don't play games much. Hell, intergrated graphics is excellent for people who don't play much games.

 

[Crashman]

It gets dumped on because a 3 year old used Radeon 8500 can walk all over it.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[HardWareBoss]

Runs circles around it. No make that frames.