• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

The GeForce FX5200 thread.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Anaxagoras1986

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Ok, I have noticed that there is even more FX5200 bashing than there is 5800. The 5200 is not that bad of a card when you consider its price of about 80 bucks. While this is the non-ultra version, it is only 80 bucks. It will usually out perform the R8500 and clones and such, and it is only about 80 bucks. Get the picture? Obviously it isnt going to stand against a R300 and up series or a nice GF4. It is a cheapo card and offers a little performance for a little bit of money. For that kind of money I dont think it is that bad of a card. So then, why do people constantly bash it so much?

Here is one benchy that shows that it is not a complete slouch. Whiel this is the Ultra model, the non-ultra woudl still be a bit ahead of the R9000 I think. It is also worthy to note that nVidia is also having driver probs that they are wqorking out. It will probably help the performance a fair amount.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797&p=12
 
Last edited:

Fredrik

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Location
Sweden!
We live in a videocard world highly dominated by ATi right now. I also hope the Det 50 can give some 5 to 10% in boost.

The 5200 just don't belong in this forum, just look at the top, 'Overclockers'....
 
OP
A

Anaxagoras1986

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
I dont see why not. They seem to make the drivers universal for all of the cards.

And what do you mean Fred?
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
I posted some benchmarks (ok fine, I barraged you with benchmarks lol) in another thread about the 5200. The 5200 is a faster card if you use AA and Aniso. This is fine if you want to simply play QIII or CS or UT with AA and ANiso turned on. But as the review showed, it got slammed in games like UT2003 by the 9000Pro, and remember that the 8500 is a decent bit faster than the 9000Pro.

Anhow I get the idea he was talking about the 5200 non pro because the cheapest 5200Ultra I find on pricewatch is 165$. The 5200 non ultra is 80$. Unfortunately the 5200 regular gets whipped by the 8500/9100.
Look at some benchies I was able to find with the 5200 non ultra.
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Revi...FX5200/pg_3.htm
Even with supposed DX9 capabilities it gets beaten by the Ti4200 in 3dmark2003. It gets completely crushed by the Ti4200 in 2k1. Note that the anandtech review was of the Ultra, with this test system:
ABIT KD7-G mainboard
AMD Athlon TBred XP 2200+
(x2) 256mb DIMM Corsair XMS-3500
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 30gb ATA133 HDD
Generic 52x CD-ROM
Thermaltake 480w PSU
Windows XP Professional w/service pack 1
they barely got 7900 3dmarks. Even a Ti200 can top that. And those have been selling for 65-70$ for almost a year now.
Some more 5200 benchies:
http://www.penstarsys.com/Reviews/v...0/a340tdh_4.htm
Notice how it can't even hold a candle to the 9000Pro. I know 3dmark isnt exactly a game, but 50003dmarks compared to 8000?
http://www.penstarsys.com/Reviews/v...0/a340tdh_5.htm
Once again the 5200 gets crushed in all but one benchmark.
Here is where the 5200 could be decent:
http://www.penstarsys.com/Reviews/v...0/a340tdh_6.htm
Its AA performance is very good compared to the 9000Pro. Mostly because the 9000 Pro still uses supersampling. So if you want to play QuakeIII and CS with AA and Aniso on, and you plan to not play any newer games, then yes the 5200 might be a decent choice.


The performance with AA and Aniso turned off is horrible and barely would beat a Ti200 at stock speeds.

read this from the penstarsys review:

n real life gaming the card turned out very well. I was able to play the majority of games at 1024x768x32 with trilinear/anisotropic filtering enabled. Quake III games do very well, and some FSAA can be applied depending on the game/situation. There is something that concerns me though. Morrowind is one of the more graphically challenging games out there, and the FX 5200 has a hard time running it at 1024x768. Frame rates were very choppy, and I believe the pixel shading functions were causing the card some headaches. This may not bode well for this card and DX 9 games, if it can’t handle DX 8 games very well. Even in the Nature game test in 3D Mark 2001, the FX 5200 wasn’t able to break 20 fps at stock speed, while cards like the 9000 Pro are hitting 40 fps.
 
OP
A

Anaxagoras1986

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
I might just get an FX just because everyone is bashing them here :p . Well, in any case, it would HAVE to be faster than my lowly GF2!
 

PreservedSwine

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2002
Location
Ft. Myers, Fl.
While this is the non-ultra version, it is only 80 bucks. It will usually out perform the R8500 and clones and such, and it is only about 80 bucks. Get the picture?

No, the FX5200 can't hold a candle to the likes of an R8500, GF3, or even a POS GF4MX, and barley outperforms GF2MX's. The non-Ultra FX5200 is a DOG.

Check out any FX5200non-ultra review, I think you may have mistaken the Ultra for the non-ultra?
 

JeffnNetti

I need to contact Silversinksam in regards to a tr
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Location
Paradise, CA.
it is only 80 bucks. It will usually out perform the R8500 and clones and such, and it is only about 80 bucks. Get the picture?

Your comparing it to a card thats been out for years and can be had for about the same price. Get the picture ?

Nvidia should be ashamed for even releasing that line in my opinion. I can understand how they are thinking joe sixpack on a budget would buy it because they wouldnt know any better and know the Nvidia name but in my book they are just taking advantage of people and selling crap on pure name recognition.

I am no ATI fanboy, I own and have owned just as many Nvidia products as ATI. I really hope Nvidias next release beats ATI's best as it will only keep newer and better cards coming out regularly and maybe help prices stay a lil reasonable.
 
OP
A

Anaxagoras1986

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
JeffnNetti said:
Your comparing it to a card thats been out for years and can be had for about the same price. Get the picture ?

Yes I am comparing a modern low-end card with an older high-end card. The point is that they are priced around the same and the FX5200 is better in many cases. I dont know where I said that it was some power house card if that is what you are getting at. Get the picture? :p

Swine: The FX5200 WILL HOLD a candle stick to them when DX9 is used. 30 points off of a Ti4200 in 3d Mark 2k3 is MUCH better than a GF 2MX or up to a R8500. I would not consider it holding a handle stick to them...more along the lines of beating them. :) Yes I know that it is beaten many times, but the point of this argument is that they are not nearly as bad as everyone likes to make them up to be.

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_FX5200/pg_3.htm
 
Last edited:

Evnas

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
The problem with the 5200, and all GFFX cards is, it may have comparable performance, but the image quality is butt ugly...its horrible campared to the other offerings. Make the image quality comparable to that of the ATi or GF4 cards, and what do you get? A card far from worth it.
 
OP
A

Anaxagoras1986

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Well the image quality is supposed to get better with improved drivers (performance should get better too). Ok, so a card with comparable performance and quality that is cheaper is far from worth it? Interesting concept.
 

Evnas

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Anaxagoras1986 said:
Well the image quality is supposed to get better with improved drivers (performance should get better too). Ok, so a card with comparable performance and quality that is cheaper is far from worth it? Interesting concept.

It doesnt have comparable quality, thats the whole point. The image quality now, and probably always, is terrible. Im sure you saw what happened to the 5600 and 5800 when their image quality was forced to be equal to ATi's...the performance dropped like a rock. Same will happen with the 5200
 

PreservedSwine

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2002
Location
Ft. Myers, Fl.
Swine: The FX5200 WILL HOLD a candle stick to them when DX9 is used.
Umm, think about it. When a DX9 game is finally released, will the FX even be powerfull enough to run it? I think not. The onkly thing DX9 does for the FX5200 is make for pretty letters on the box, not gameplay.

3dmark-1024.gif


How do you expect a card that is much less powerfull than a Ti4200 to run DX9 games better than an R8500? You're kidding yourself if you think it's possible. You'd be better off w/ a GF3 or Ti4200, or even an R8500.
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Anaxagoras1986 said:


Yes I am comparing a modern low-end card with an older high-end card. The point is that they are priced around the same and the FX5200 is better in many cases. I dont know where I said that it was some power house card if that is what you are getting at. Get the picture? :p

Swine: The FX5200 WILL HOLD a candle stick to them when DX9 is used. 30 points off of a Ti4200 in 3d Mark 2k3 is MUCH better than a GF 2MX or up to a R8500. I would not consider it holding a handle stick to them...more along the lines of beating them. :) Yes I know that it is beaten many times, but the point of this argument is that they are not nearly as bad as everyone likes to make them up to be.

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_FX5200/pg_3.htm

Yes, in 3dmark03 it is much better than a Geforce2MX or Geforce4MX, however, it isnt as good or better than an 8500.

Look at the test system they used in that review:

#

ABIT KD7-G mainboard
AMD Athlon TBred XP 2200+
(x2) 256mb DIMM Corsair XMS-3500
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 30gb ATA133 HDD
Generic 52x CD-ROM
Thermaltake 480w PSU
Windows XP Professional w/service pack


I have a lowly Celeron [email protected] with PC133 SDRAM and I am able to get almost 1200 marks with my 8500. Are you telling me that with the system above I wouldnt be able to gain 260 points? The fact is that while the 5200 may have DX9 features which both Geforce4s and 8500/9000/9100s lack it just doesnt have the muscle to push those DX9 games.

Look at the performance in DX8 games. 7900 points? Please, Geforce 3 TI200s can do that at stock speeds, and you can get those for 60$. An 8500 could probably break 10k in that system.

Look at this, with a 2200+ at stock speeds, this guy was able to break 1700 points with an 8500:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=427317

And the truth is that the 5200 does not "usually win" it gets its *** whooped. The only thing it does beat the 8500 in is AA in older games. AA is great, however I feel that it doesnt matter if you cant play newer games with decent fps with it turned off. Who knows, driver improvements may make it a decent card, but for now it really doesnt have a place in the market. Either you get an 8500LE for 70$ or a Ti4200 for 100$ both of which are far superior cards for playing newer games. Sure CS or QuakeIII would be really cool with AA and Aniso, but I want to be able to play UT2003, Americas Army, and Splinter Cell with good performance at 1024x768, and the 5200 just doesnt offer that.
 
OP
A

Anaxagoras1986

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
In raw speed it is like a 4600 vs 9500Pro - most benchies without AA and such that I have seen show the 4600 right on the heals or actually beating the 9500. Turn filtering on and it is a different playing ground. I think that this is a similar trend. The 8500 will anilhilate the 5200, no doubt, but when the AA AF is on the grounds are leveled out. I meant "in most cases" as in most cases with these things on. I am not saying this card is the best buy, dont get me wrong. I just think that is the drivers help, which they should, it might not be a bad deal.
 

PreservedSwine

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2002
Location
Ft. Myers, Fl.
The 8500 will anilhilate the 5200, no doubt, but when the AA AF is on the grounds are leveled out. I meant "in most cases" as in most cases with these things on. I am not saying this card is the best buy, dont get me wrong. I just think that is the drivers help, which they should, it might not be a bad deal.

Not quite. AA is indeed a performance hog on the R8500(Multi-sampling, looks great, BIG performance hit), but the R8500 eats up high levels of AF w/out even breaking a sweat.

This card is a dog, IMO, and I couldn't reccomend it to anyone, as there are MUCH better cards available for lower prices. I could say the same thing amount the Geofrce4MX line. Both are overpriced, underperforming gpu's. I would recocmend a GF3 or R8500 well before an Geforce4MX or FX5200.