Radeon 9250 vs FX5200

[Guest]

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

How does the 9250 compare to the Geforce FX5200 (what I have now)?

Any links to benchmark performances?

 

[DaveL]

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

The answer is: It depends.

Both of those cards can be had in 128 bit and 64 bit versions. But if we
were comparing apples to apples, then I have to say....
It depends again! It depends on what game you are playing. The ATI wins in
DirectX (even though it does not have hardware support for DX9 like the 5200
does) and the 5200 wins in OpenGL games. All in all, if you are the least
but concerned with performance, you will steer clear of both of these dog
slow cards.

DaveL


"AberTech" <abertech@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36sj7eF556c7iU1@individual.net...
> How does the 9250 compare to the Geforce FX5200 (what I have now)?
>
> Any links to benchmark performances?
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:45:46 -0000, "AberTech" <abertech@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>How does the 9250 compare to the Geforce FX5200 (what I have now)?
>
>Any links to benchmark performances?
>


The 9250 is not a DX9 hardware supported card. It's DX 8.1
supported. I'd stick with what you have now till you can get something
around the ATI 9600 Pro/XT, or FX5700/Ultra cards at the least if your
like me, on a budget. I seen a bnchmark (don't remember where) where
the 9250 was matched against a GF 4 MX4000. The 9250 beat it in 3DMark
2003, but only by a little, and that was problably because the 9250
has DX 8.1 pixel shader support, where the GF 4 MX cards are DX 7
supported with no pixel shader hardware.

 

[Anthony]

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

Wait for the 6200 agp card



"Larry Roberts" <skin-e@juno.com> wrote in message
news:8ebj01tfj8fv122qtt3gjcafjcj5drbi8g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:45:46 -0000, "AberTech" <abertech@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>How does the 9250 compare to the Geforce FX5200 (what I have now)?
>>
>>Any links to benchmark performances?
>>
>
>
> The 9250 is not a DX9 hardware supported card. It's DX 8.1
> supported. I'd stick with what you have now till you can get something
> around the ATI 9600 Pro/XT, or FX5700/Ultra cards at the least if your
> like me, on a budget. I seen a bnchmark (don't remember where) where
> the 9250 was matched against a GF 4 MX4000. The 9250 beat it in 3DMark
> 2003, but only by a little, and that was problably because the 9250
> has DX 8.1 pixel shader support, where the GF 4 MX cards are DX 7
> supported with no pixel shader hardware.

 

[Chingy]

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

LOL @ dog slow cards...

My mx 440 card still beat them

oh and my i740 intel agp card beats 6800 ultra delux platinum edition
supreme in 2d obviously.




"DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:usudnQxqArOjgpTfRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> The answer is: It depends.
>
> Both of those cards can be had in 128 bit and 64 bit versions. But if we
> were comparing apples to apples, then I have to say....
> It depends again! It depends on what game you are playing. The ATI wins
> in DirectX (even though it does not have hardware support for DX9 like the
> 5200 does) and the 5200 wins in OpenGL games. All in all, if you are the
> least but concerned with performance, you will steer clear of both of
> these dog slow cards.
>
> DaveL
>
>
> "AberTech" <abertech@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:36sj7eF556c7iU1@individual.net...
>> How does the 9250 compare to the Geforce FX5200 (what I have now)?
>>
>> Any links to benchmark performances?
>>
>>
>