Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX5200 slower than my old Geforce 2 GTS

Tags:
  • Nvidia
  • Geforce
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 5, 2004 7:37:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

My geforce 2 GTS overheated after the fan ceased so I went out and
bought a PNY FX5200 as a replacement (No funds available for anything
more expensive). To my suprise its no faster AT ALL according to
3DMarks 2001 SE. I still get around 3500!!! I know the fx5200 is a
budget card but I would have expected some increase in performance.

My system is

Athlon 1.4ghz
512mb ram
FIC AD11 Motherboard.
DX9, Latest Nvidia drivers, latest AMD Northbridge, VIA Southbridge
drivers.

Any ideas? Anyone else had such poor performanec out of a FX 5200?

Mike UK.

More about : fx5200 slower geforce gts

April 5, 2004 6:45:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> 3DMarks 2001 SE. I still get around 3500!!! I know the fx5200 is a
> budget card but I would have expected some increase in performance.
>

The 5200's are a total POS. I put one in a Barton 2500 / Nforce2 build and
got a screaming 5500 on 3DMark01. My GeForce2 GTS got 6300! Even the harder
to find 128 bit memory 5200's are no great shakes. The average GeForce3 Ti
will kill it.
Anonymous
April 5, 2004 7:36:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Hi

Some FX5200 cards has a 64 bit memory interface instead of 128 bit, but I
don't know if your card have that problem.

Per


"Mike" <mikehowson@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:c7992f4b.0404050237.5c937275@posting.google.com...
> My geforce 2 GTS overheated after the fan ceased so I went out and
> bought a PNY FX5200 as a replacement (No funds available for anything
> more expensive). To my suprise its no faster AT ALL according to
> 3DMarks 2001 SE. I still get around 3500!!! I know the fx5200 is a
> budget card but I would have expected some increase in performance.
>
> My system is
>
> Athlon 1.4ghz
> 512mb ram
> FIC AD11 Motherboard.
> DX9, Latest Nvidia drivers, latest AMD Northbridge, VIA Southbridge
> drivers.
>
> Any ideas? Anyone else had such poor performanec out of a FX 5200?
>
> Mike UK.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 6, 2004 1:29:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Mike" <mikehowson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7992f4b.0404050237.5c937275@posting.google.com...
> My geforce 2 GTS overheated after the fan ceased so I went out and
> bought a PNY FX5200 as a replacement (No funds available for anything
> more expensive). To my suprise its no faster AT ALL according to
> 3DMarks 2001 SE. I still get around 3500!!! I know the fx5200 is a
> budget card but I would have expected some increase in performance.

You are severely CPU limited. My 5200 gets about 6500 3DMarks and it's the
crippled 64 bit memory version.
April 6, 2004 1:29:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Wrong answer. Don't listen to him as he has some kind of an axe to grind
against AMD. The Athlon 1.4 ghz can easily get a GF4 ti4200 up to the 10k
range.

Dave

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c4rfvu$2jvjd5$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Mike" <mikehowson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c7992f4b.0404050237.5c937275@posting.google.com...
> > My geforce 2 GTS overheated after the fan ceased so I went out and
> > bought a PNY FX5200 as a replacement (No funds available for anything
> > more expensive). To my suprise its no faster AT ALL according to
> > 3DMarks 2001 SE. I still get around 3500!!! I know the fx5200 is a
> > budget card but I would have expected some increase in performance.
>
> You are severely CPU limited. My 5200 gets about 6500 3DMarks and it's the
> crippled 64 bit memory version.
>
>
Anonymous
April 6, 2004 6:48:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2sadnVxFn73pFezdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Wrong answer. Don't listen to him as he has some kind of an axe to grind
> against AMD. The Athlon 1.4 ghz can easily get a GF4 ti4200 up to the 10k
> range.

Um, you're a dickhead. 1.4 GHz of any CPU is not enough to get a decent
score. Like I said, I had an especially slow 5200 and it got nearly twice
his score. And I used the same card on a Pentium III 1.0 GHz machine, and I
got a suitably low score (2700 or so).
Anonymous
April 6, 2004 6:48:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:48:06 +1000, "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Um, you're a dickhead. 1.4 GHz of any CPU is not enough to get a decent
>score.

Bullshit. That statement only holds true for P4 chips. Athlons (and
even P3s) are vastly more effecient per clock cycle than the P4. I've
got nothing against Intel mind you. It's just different approaches to
CPU design. Intel with their P4 is currently going with the
incredibly high speed yet very little done per clock cycle method
while AMD is going for modest clock speeds and getting quite a bit
done per clock cycle. There is no "right" or "wrong" way. But it
severely muddles the ludicrous clock speed statements like the one
you've made. Haven't you ever wondered how an Athlon 64 running at
2.2GHz can outpace a P4 3.4GHz chip?

So no, a 1.4GHz CPU (as long as it isn't a P4) has *PLENTLY* of power
to get good scores. Personally I'm running a P3-S 1.4GHz chip and get
9700 with my Ti4400. I can run toe to toe with most P4 2.4 systems.
April 6, 2004 6:48:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Thank you.

One look at this...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=14

....proves our point. Pay close attention to the botmatch bench as it really
shows cpu performance. Even the cache neutered Duron is beating the P4 1.8
ghz.

Dave


"Indiana" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:ju5370tlgf97osgr7fqokou81356s5mnpu@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:48:06 +1000, "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Um, you're a dickhead. 1.4 GHz of any CPU is not enough to get a decent
> >score.
>
> Bullshit. That statement only holds true for P4 chips. Athlons (and
> even P3s) are vastly more effecient per clock cycle than the P4. I've
> got nothing against Intel mind you. It's just different approaches to
> CPU design. Intel with their P4 is currently going with the
> incredibly high speed yet very little done per clock cycle method
> while AMD is going for modest clock speeds and getting quite a bit
> done per clock cycle. There is no "right" or "wrong" way. But it
> severely muddles the ludicrous clock speed statements like the one
> you've made. Haven't you ever wondered how an Athlon 64 running at
> 2.2GHz can outpace a P4 3.4GHz chip?
>
> So no, a 1.4GHz CPU (as long as it isn't a P4) has *PLENTLY* of power
> to get good scores. Personally I'm running a P3-S 1.4GHz chip and get
> 9700 with my Ti4400. I can run toe to toe with most P4 2.4 systems.
>
April 6, 2004 7:23:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Also, Prescott is more of the same, higher clock for less work. But the
targeted consumer, Joe Sixpack, is plum ignant to this concept. He can,
however, tell when one number is higher than another... usually.

Dave


"Indiana" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:ju5370tlgf97osgr7fqokou81356s5mnpu@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:48:06 +1000, "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Um, you're a dickhead. 1.4 GHz of any CPU is not enough to get a decent
> >score.
>
> Bullshit. That statement only holds true for P4 chips. Athlons (and
> even P3s) are vastly more effecient per clock cycle than the P4. I've
> got nothing against Intel mind you. It's just different approaches to
> CPU design. Intel with their P4 is currently going with the
> incredibly high speed yet very little done per clock cycle method
> while AMD is going for modest clock speeds and getting quite a bit
> done per clock cycle. There is no "right" or "wrong" way. But it
> severely muddles the ludicrous clock speed statements like the one
> you've made. Haven't you ever wondered how an Athlon 64 running at
> 2.2GHz can outpace a P4 3.4GHz chip?
>
> So no, a 1.4GHz CPU (as long as it isn't a P4) has *PLENTLY* of power
> to get good scores. Personally I'm running a P3-S 1.4GHz chip and get
> 9700 with my Ti4400. I can run toe to toe with most P4 2.4 systems.
>
Anonymous
April 7, 2004 1:28:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

He's got a FX5200, not a ti4200...

A tbird 1400 is not processor limited. The card is the essential
limitation...

comma delimited data below...

Name,Coreclk,pixelpipes,mpix/s,tmu,txt/s,memclk,bus,bandwidth
GF2-GTS,200,4,800,2,8,1600,333,128,5.3
GFFX5200,250,4,1000,1,4,1000,400,128,6.4

I'm not really all that surprised, the FX5200 is a 4*1 configuration with a
slightly higher core and mem clock, the GTS is quite a bit faster with
multi-textures, but in the end, is constrained as 3dM2K is a DX8 benchmark,
and the GTS is a very fast DX7 card.

The only benefit here with the FX5200 is that it does support PS2.0,
although slowly, and as a result also supports DX8...

Tim

"DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2sadnVxFn73pFezdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Wrong answer. Don't listen to him as he has some kind of an axe to grind
> against AMD. The Athlon 1.4 ghz can easily get a GF4 ti4200 up to the 10k
> range.
>
> Dave
>
> "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c4rfvu$2jvjd5$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Mike" <mikehowson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:c7992f4b.0404050237.5c937275@posting.google.com...
> > > My geforce 2 GTS overheated after the fan ceased so I went out and
> > > bought a PNY FX5200 as a replacement (No funds available for anything
> > > more expensive). To my suprise its no faster AT ALL according to
> > > 3DMarks 2001 SE. I still get around 3500!!! I know the fx5200 is a
> > > budget card but I would have expected some increase in performance.
> >
> > You are severely CPU limited. My 5200 gets about 6500 3DMarks and it's
the
> > crippled 64 bit memory version.
!