Will FX5200 run UT ...

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
better than Radeon 9200SE??? I need fanless, cheap card to play UT sometimes.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
If you think that 2-3 FPS in the 30FPS range is faster, then yes, the FX5200 is theoricaly slightly faster.

But, the FX5200 is one of the worst card ever made! If you play only UT then get a GeForce4 TI4200, twice as fast and it don't cost much more. A Radeon 9550, would be better too!

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 

Coyote

Distinguished
Oct 1, 2003
1,007
0
19,280
Yeah, here's a second for the Ti4200. I have the 64mb one in my second rig and it plays UT2k4 nicely.

Mobile XP 2600+ (11X200)
Abit NF7-S v 2.0
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB Corsair Twinx 3200LL
BBA 9800 Pro
Enermax Noisetaker 420 watts
Win98SE
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
Will Ti4200 be ok in i875 mobo?

I have 9200SE (was $46), I thought it will be better than MX400, but it is choppy at 8x6 resolution on P4 2.8c (sucks big time) and with MX400 I can play at 10x7 easy. I wouldn’t bother, caz this PC used for office stuff, so I need it quiet, but I like to play UT at nights sometimes.

FX5200 is fanless, so since MX plays UT fine, I thought FX will do better. I will not bother with Radeons any more, I was just wondering if FX5200 will do, or I should spend twice for 5600 or something like that for this PC, caz I am not a super gamer, just UT and all I need is to play UT (till saliva start to drip off of my bottom lip and my wife drugs me to the bed half dead ;)>


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
Will Ti4200 be ok in i875 mobo?
Of course!

I have 9200SE (was $46), I thought it will be better than MX400
If course a 9200SE will be very slow, this card is not a gamign video card, it get beat by mostly anything!!! And if you are not lucky, you got a crippled 9200SE, some manufacturers (read Sapphire) sold them with very slow GPU and ram.

In the low-end DX8 market, the GeForce4 TI4x00 is a very good performer for the price.

In the low-end DX9 segment, don't get an FX5200, this GPU is just not powerful enough to be considered a "true" DX9 GPU. If you want decent DX9 support, you must get a Radeon 9600PRO or a GeForce FX5700 at least.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 
For the requirements and R9600non-pro (and not SE) from Gigabyte and Sapphire would be the best inexpensive passive solutions out there. It's much better than a NORMAL hsf equipped FX5600, and the only passive FX5600 is an SE/XT so it's infinitely better.

The only thing better than the R9600 for that generation with just a heatsink/pipe is the Sapphire Ulimate R9600/9700/9800 cards, and they are far more expensive. There is a new passive GF6800 in the works (looks nice with Matrox/Tyan's colours), but that's more expensive still.

For that series, nothing beats an R9600 for quick passive power. The FX5600 are the biggest wastes of money and the only FX5200 worth a dime is the FX5200Ultra, and they are not passive, and cost more than an R9600 most times.

If passive is not a concern and we are talking about older games, then the GF4ti series is the best in that range, if new games become an issue, then the R9600 would hold the edge. But for the game in question the GF4ti has an edge, but it does have a noticeable HSF.

The R9200SE like the FX5200 perform below the MX series, but I would only recommend those for image quality, not for gaming; and in that respect they are far better than the GF4MX AND the GF4ti.

EDIT: Also the 128mb version of the R9600 while clocked the same has BETTER memory timings than the R9600-256mb, and almost always the 128 beats the 256.

- 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 :evil:
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 07/09/04 05:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

coolsquirtle

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2003
2,717
0
20,780
u have a i875P board with 2.8C and ur getting a budget video card?????

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy+119% Money Fanboy
GeForce 6800 Ultra--> The Way we thought FX 5800Ultra is meant to be played
THGC's resident Asian and nVboy :D
 
If gaming isn't but a waiting for something else to happen kind of thing, a budget card will do, but then I wouldn't complain about an R9200SE.

For the most part the bottom of any company's barrel is usually the last place someone should start if they even mention games.


- 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 :evil:
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
the reason I want cheaper now, caz I better save 150 bux and add a couple hundred more to get THE one when they come out (after the first "wave" of course), hehehe, and the reason I have P4 caz I run server and it is used for encoding DVDs&MP3s, so I didn't think I need super-pooper GPU for that, caz I play nothing but UT and SOF only, VooDoo 3000 did them at 10x7 easier than these ones do on slower PC (I wish I could still stick it in, hehehe)


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 

pauldh

Illustrious
I have to agree with Grape. The R9600 is you best under $100 passive choice. The R9550 is not as quick, but is passive and still much better than an FX5200.

Review Grape recently posted: <A HREF="http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/955055005200/ut2004.htm" target="_new">http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/955055005200/ut2004.htm</A>

Of these cards, only the R9550 was playable at 1024x768 in UT2004. The R9600 would be faster still.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
As far as I know i875 requires 1.5V card, nothing else will work in it, that's why I was wondering about Ti. Newegg was down, so I could not check for the prices, and I don't really have a price range, I can get any card out there right now, but is it worth it for what I do? As some body said: "The reasoning is simple: only suckers still pay top dollar."

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 

pauldh

Illustrious
A Ti4200 will work fine in a i875 mobo. I've used many GF4Ti's in i865 and i875 mobos. But didn't you want a passive heatsink?


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
 
The other thing is 2D quality going from an R9xxx to a GF4tu will be noticeable. If this is primarily a work computer (why else would we be mentioning MXs, SEs and FX5200s?) then I would stear clear of the GF4ti, and go with at least an FX series from nV (FX5600 can still be passive, but a little rarer). The R9600 is still the best choice, but if nV is a must as it seems to be, then go with at least the FX5200 or above to get good 2D for what this computer is supposed to do more than 50% of the time.


- 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 :evil:
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
Yeah, 90% working (but I really like to use rest of the % for "pleasure":eek:)

From what I've seen low end Radeon is ok card just for office stuff, I know for sure that lowest FX will play UT just fine, to my surprize Radeon junt can't do it (I wonder how those "banchmarks" are done, caz they show the cards perform the same) So FX will be first on the list, I hope it'll play at least on medium settings. Is FX5600 better than 5200? Someone said 5600 is not even worth mentioning. Maybe I'll just get basic 6800 and be done with it (image quality is the same as Radeon's), is it really noisy? I just don't want the fan to become whiny after couple of months, can't work that way;)

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 

blackphoenix77

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2004
1,130
0
19,280
My FX5200 played UT2003 just fine at high settings if I remember correctly...but I think I would go with Ti4200 too though.

<b>!bang-o-rang</b> <b>Go to my website --><A HREF="http://www.bantheman.us" target="_new">http://www.bantheman.us</A></b>
 

blah

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,694
0
20,780
Thanks, me thinks FX5200 will do better than R9200 with UT. That's what I was looking for. Ti has active cooling and I don't want it in this PC. I have enough fans in XP1900+ box ;)

PS: I still am wondering if FX5600 will do better than 5200, caz it is only 25 bux more and still has no fan. Basically I want best fanless card there is (but with good 2D)

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 

addiarmadar

Distinguished
May 26, 2003
2,558
0
20,780
Yeah sure UT04 will work just fine with a 5200. All you need to do is to set the display quality to sh!t. Anymore and it will look like going through slide show.

Mobile Barton 2500+ @ 2420mhz 11x220 1.7v
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to XT(463/795)
 

coolsquirtle

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2003
2,717
0
20,780
let's just say.....its a FX5200.............WHAT CAN U EXPECT FROM A CHIPSET THAT IS MADE SO NVIDIA CAN SAY *we have a DX9 card under 90$ EXCEPT it can't run any games!*


AHAHA! in your face Phial! infomative post #2!

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy+119% Money Fanboy
GeForce 6800 Ultra--> The Way we thought FX 5800Ultra is meant to be played
THGC's resident Asian and nVboy :D