what is your FX5200 result under 3Dmark03?

blue_heart

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2001
298
0
18,780
soltek nforce2 (newest nvidia driver version)
Barton 2500+
Elixir 1x512mb DDR333 cl2.5
seagate 7200.7 40gb
gainward fx5200 (nvidia driver 45.23)
directx 9.0b
winxp SP1

nothing over or down clocked

result under 3dmark03 V330 at default setting is 805

the fps in (battle of proxycon and troll's liar) was very disappointing (3-5 fps) and in mother nature was 5-7. and it was almost the same in CPU test (maybe 1-2fps higher)

Are these results normal with the fx5200? or there is something wrong

wish if there was UnDo in the life
 

Ion

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2003
379
0
18,780
Atm the entire FX series are a failure in term of proper DX9 performance.

And yeah 5200 is the worst of the bunch. :frown:
 

phial

Splendid
Oct 29, 2002
6,757
0
25,780
yep, well known fact now


ive warned SOO MANY PEOPLE TO NOT BUY the 5200 regular or Ultra. it was a card that should have never been released, and if someone wanted to pay the legal fees they could probably sue nVidia for false advertising because this product is based on lies


-------


................
 

Ion

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2003
379
0
18,780
I am not sure if you can sue Nvidia for that, i think they simply state fx5200 can run in DX9 mode and it was up to the makers to hype the crap out of it...
 

Michaelius

Distinguished
Sep 5, 2003
49
0
18,530
Hmm rather not impressive score.
My g3ti200 at AXP 1700+ and 512MB@133Mhz gets 832 points.
But anyway FX5200 is rather aimed at people who use their computers for web surfing, office work, programming and play games rather occasionally.
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
But a GeForce2 MX or a Riva TNT2 can get by on most of the things that you mentioned in your list, and a GeForce2 GTS could probably tackle all of those tasks decently. For people in that caliber, a decent more modern Radeon 9100 can be found to suit them more than enough, or if they want to pay a few extra bucks in the budget category, the Ti4200 is an excellent buy, but only worth it for those folks who plan to do some gaming.

EDIT: But for this guy he definitely needs a faster card to increase his framereate. In fact if he is on a tight budget, the Radeon 9100 & The GeForce 4 Ti4200 are exceelnt choices, (especially the Ti4200)

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by UFO_WARVIPER on 10/17/03 12:39 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

dunno

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2001
56
0
18,630
The thing is, a ti4200 does all that and is faster than 5200 while being around the same price or even cheaper sometimes.
 

sargeduck

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2002
407
0
18,780
LOL
celeron 1.1 oc'd to 1.4
512MB of Pc 133
Epox 3vsa2 mb with Via Apollo Pro 133T chipset
WD 7200rpm hd
Radeon 9600Pro (forget which catalyst I tested with...somewhere around the 3.4's)

I get 2312 3d marks.
I agree with the other comments, get a TI 4200 or a 9100. If you squeze a little more money, try for a 9600Pro. Wait a month, and once the 9600xt is out, prices should drop.

Is there anything really more to say?
 

nickd

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2003
32
0
18,530
P4 2.8c + FX5900 Ultra = just over 6000 without overclocking. I've had it overclocked as high as 6800 but I couldn't actually play any games for more than 5 mins as it kept crashing as I have no elaborate cooling and it's getting hot here in Sydney ;)
 

spitoon

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2003
248
0
18,680
Hmmm..

Celeron 1.4 (o/c to 1.54)
512MB PC133 RAM
Win XP Pro
DirectX 9.0b
GeForce FX5200 128MB PCI - yup that's right PCI (o/c to 310/330)- 51.75 driver

I get 1205 3D Marks in 03.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by spitoon on 10/20/03 12:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

cleeve

Illustrious
A 4% gain does not qualify as enough of an optimization to use the expression "inside out".

Perhaps "Slightly" is more appropriate when talking about the Ati optimizations...

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
 

speeduk

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2003
1,476
0
19,280
I lost a whole 100 3dmarks when they took that optimization out FFS!

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
 

GeneticWeapon

Splendid
Jan 13, 2003
5,795
0
25,780
You guy's crack me up. Dont think I dont know what Nvidia's done as far as app detection, shader replacement, and clip planes in 3DMark....but ATi has pulled off some cheats in that benchmark that are pretty unscrupulous also. Some were speculated, but never proven. I trust either company about as far as I can throw them.

<b>I help because you suck</b>