Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

6200 AGP

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 3, 2005 3:22:17 AM

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

Was wondering about how the 6200 AGP compares price wise as an upgrade
option. I currently have a FX5200 and the 6200 AGP is in my price range
of ~ $120. How would the 6200 AGP compare with FX5700 or 9600 boards?

Would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Thanks,

Jim

More about : 6200 agp

March 3, 2005 3:22:18 AM

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

According to this review http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=375 ,
it's supposed to be faster than a FX5900 (which is faster than a 5700). I
know that does not sound right but that's what they got. They also have it
beating an X600XT which is faster than an ATI 9600.

DaveL


"SomeOne" <james.new@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ZMsVd.65638$Dc.44175@trnddc06...
> Was wondering about how the 6200 AGP compares price wise as an upgrade
> option. I currently have a FX5200 and the 6200 AGP is in my price range
> of ~ $120. How would the 6200 AGP compare with FX5700 or 9600 boards?
>
> Would greatly appreciate any feedback.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
March 3, 2005 5:02:14 AM

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

"DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tOqdnbXxXZgrw7vfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> According to this review http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=375
> , it's supposed to be faster than a FX5900 (which is faster than a 5700).
> I know that does not sound right but that's what they got. They also have
> it beating an X600XT which is faster than an ATI 9600.

A 6200 with a 300Mhz GPU, 4 pipelines, 1 TMU per pipeline, and 128bit memory
at 250Mhz is supposed to be faster than a 5900, which has a 400Mhz GPU, 4
pipelines, 2 TMU per pipeline, 256bit memory at 400Mhz. 25.6 Gb/sec vs 8.0
Gb/sec. No way.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:14:47 PM

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

"Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net> wrote in message
news:GeuVd.25172$TB.5038@edtnps84...
>
> "DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tOqdnbXxXZgrw7vfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>> According to this review
>> http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=375 , it's supposed to be
>> faster than a FX5900 (which is faster than a 5700). I know that does not
>> sound right but that's what they got. They also have it beating an
>> X600XT which is faster than an ATI 9600.
>
> A 6200 with a 300Mhz GPU, 4 pipelines, 1 TMU per pipeline, and 128bit
> memory at 250Mhz is supposed to be faster than a 5900, which has a 400Mhz
> GPU, 4 pipelines, 2 TMU per pipeline, 256bit memory at 400Mhz. 25.6 Gb/sec
> vs 8.0 Gb/sec. No way.

Yes, they made the benchmarks up.... Its not all about numbers you know

>
>
March 3, 2005 2:14:48 PM

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

Hey I did not believe it either but here's another review that has the 6200
beating the 5900.
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId...

DaveL

"Iain Dingsdale" <iaindingsdale@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HkCVd.281684$K7.208084@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net> wrote in message
> news:GeuVd.25172$TB.5038@edtnps84...
>>
>> "DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:tOqdnbXxXZgrw7vfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>>> According to this review
>>> http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=375 , it's supposed to be
>>> faster than a FX5900 (which is faster than a 5700). I know that does not
>>> sound right but that's what they got. They also have it beating an
>>> X600XT which is faster than an ATI 9600.
>>
>> A 6200 with a 300Mhz GPU, 4 pipelines, 1 TMU per pipeline, and 128bit
>> memory at 250Mhz is supposed to be faster than a 5900, which has a 400Mhz
>> GPU, 4 pipelines, 2 TMU per pipeline, 256bit memory at 400Mhz. 25.6
>> Gb/sec vs 8.0 Gb/sec. No way.
>
> Yes, they made the benchmarks up.... Its not all about numbers you know
>
>>
>>
>
>
March 3, 2005 3:56:06 PM

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

Hmmm good link anyone out thier got any experience with the 6200? the pci-e
and the agp versions .

"DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:boqdnQyiDL6GzLrfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> Hey I did not believe it either but here's another review that has the
> 6200 beating the 5900.
> http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId...
>
> DaveL
>
> "Iain Dingsdale" <iaindingsdale@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:HkCVd.281684$K7.208084@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net> wrote in message
>> news:GeuVd.25172$TB.5038@edtnps84...
>>>
>>> "DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:tOqdnbXxXZgrw7vfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>>>> According to this review
>>>> http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=375 , it's supposed to be
>>>> faster than a FX5900 (which is faster than a 5700). I know that does
>>>> not sound right but that's what they got. They also have it beating an
>>>> X600XT which is faster than an ATI 9600.
>>>
>>> A 6200 with a 300Mhz GPU, 4 pipelines, 1 TMU per pipeline, and 128bit
>>> memory at 250Mhz is supposed to be faster than a 5900, which has a
>>> 400Mhz GPU, 4 pipelines, 2 TMU per pipeline, 256bit memory at 400Mhz.
>>> 25.6 Gb/sec vs 8.0 Gb/sec. No way.
>>
>> Yes, they made the benchmarks up.... Its not all about numbers you know
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 4:46:30 PM

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

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:14:47 GMT, "Iain Dingsdale"
<iaindingsdale@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net> wrote in message
>news:GeuVd.25172$TB.5038@edtnps84...
>>
>> "DaveL" <dave1027@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:tOqdnbXxXZgrw7vfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>>> According to this review
>>> http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=375 , it's supposed to be
>>> faster than a FX5900 (which is faster than a 5700). I know that does not
>>> sound right but that's what they got. They also have it beating an
>>> X600XT which is faster than an ATI 9600.
>>
>> A 6200 with a 300Mhz GPU, 4 pipelines, 1 TMU per pipeline, and 128bit
>> memory at 250Mhz is supposed to be faster than a 5900, which has a 400Mhz
>> GPU, 4 pipelines, 2 TMU per pipeline, 256bit memory at 400Mhz. 25.6 Gb/sec
>> vs 8.0 Gb/sec. No way.
>
>Yes, they made the benchmarks up.... Its not all about numbers you know
>
>>
>>
>

They class the 5900PCX with these entry level cards. Is the
5900PCX as fast as a FX 5900 AGP? I'm wondering if the 5900PCX isn't a
64bit card, or something like that.
March 3, 2005 6:32:36 PM

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

"Larry Roberts" <skin-e@juno.com> wrote in message
news:89qe21doc931r8gsfnrrp4ogdc9kirkuo2@4ax.com...
> They class the 5900PCX with these entry level cards. Is the
> 5900PCX as fast as a FX 5900 AGP? I'm wondering if the 5900PCX isn't a
> 64bit card, or something like that.

I just checked Newegg and the PCX 5900 is a 256 bit 5900 running core/mem at
350/550. The price range on them is $143 to $205. So it has the same 256
bit memory but the clockings are lower than a 5900XT which is 390/700. I
expect this PCX5900 card to be comparable to a 5700 Ultra.

DaveL
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:44:43 AM

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

What ever you do don't get a 6200TC(turbo cache) you will be sorry!!(i
didn't get one, lol)Its like buying really bad integrated graphics.
"SomeOne" <james.new@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ZMsVd.65638$Dc.44175@trnddc06...
> Was wondering about how the 6200 AGP compares price wise as an upgrade
> option. I currently have a FX5200 and the 6200 AGP is in my price range
> of ~ $120. How would the 6200 AGP compare with FX5700 or 9600 boards?
>
> Would greatly appreciate any feedback.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
March 4, 2005 2:44:44 AM

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

Well, close. The 6200TC is better than integrated graphics because it does
have it's own small amount of memory. But it is not as good as most video
cards. It's actually better than a FX5200. It's a good, cheap entry level
card. It will actually play Doom3 at 800x600 res!

DaveL


"Veritech" <avis.dalrymple@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LjNVd.1266$077.135@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> What ever you do don't get a 6200TC(turbo cache) you will be sorry!!(i
> didn't get one, lol)Its like buying really bad integrated graphics.
> "SomeOne" <james.new@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ZMsVd.65638$Dc.44175@trnddc06...
>> Was wondering about how the 6200 AGP compares price wise as an upgrade
>> option. I currently have a FX5200 and the 6200 AGP is in my price range
>> of ~ $120. How would the 6200 AGP compare with FX5700 or 9600 boards?
>>
>> Would greatly appreciate any feedback.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
>
!