Radeon 8500 or Nvidia FX5200

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

The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
and photo editing.

Thanks,
Greg
16 answers Last reply
More about radeon 8500 nvidia fx5200
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    From what i remember the 8500 was a great card (i owned a vivo) ive used a
    pc with 5200 and it was pretty poor but it was a while ago, saying that how
    much is your budget and what kind of games do u want to play.?

    doughnut


    "Greg" <gh@vcw.com> wrote in message
    news:OOOdnZ2dnZ1kU8SCnZ2dnSG3k96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@arkansas.net...
    > The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
    > This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
    > and photo editing.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Greg
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    There is no budget. I don't want to invest in a new card. I will either use
    the one I have now (ati) or I can swap it out for the Nvidia. This is in a
    dell 4300 1.6ghz p4. So the video games aren't too graphic intense.


    "Doughnut" <doughnut@doughnut.com> wrote in message
    news:yZ-dnZI0gKbFq5PeRVnyvg@pipex.net...
    > From what i remember the 8500 was a great card (i owned a vivo) ive used
    > a pc with 5200 and it was pretty poor but it was a while ago, saying that
    > how much is your budget and what kind of games do u want to play.?
    >
    > doughnut
    >
    >
    >
    > "Greg" <gh@vcw.com> wrote in message
    > news:OOOdnZ2dnZ1kU8SCnZ2dnSG3k96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@arkansas.net...
    >> The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
    >> This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
    >> and photo editing.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Greg
    >>
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    In my opinion the Radeon 8500. It's normally faster than the 5200 and the
    ultra version and will have much better image quality in games. AF was
    practically free when I used it in games on my Radeon 8500. The 2d image
    quality is top notch.

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

    Dan
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Greg" <gh@vcw.com> wrote in message
    news:OOOdnZ2dnZ1kU8SCnZ2dnSG3k96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@arkansas.net...
    > The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
    > This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
    > and photo editing.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Greg

    The 5200 is a significant downgrade in speed and quality. Even if it's a
    128it version, which many of them aren't.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    The 8500 GPU supports Direct X 8.1 the 5200 Direct X 9.0.
    If you get the 5200, make sure it is the faster "Ultra" model.
    I was able to get a used ATI 9600 off eBay for $41.

    "Greg" <gh@vcw.com> wrote in message
    news:OOOdnZ2dnZ1kU8SCnZ2dnSG3k96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@arkansas.net...
    > The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
    > This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
    > and photo editing.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Greg
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Greg wrote:
    > The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
    > This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
    > and photo editing.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Greg
    >
    >
    I have owned both, the 8500 was genuine ATI, it ran good, but I
    have to say the 5200 ran better. Now this is a PNY 128 MB card, and I
    did OC it to 300 or so for the gpu. I am usually a fan of ATI, have
    owned many many ATI cards, but I have to honestly say the 5200 ran
    better and some games looked and played better. Most would disagree but
    I seriously doubt the 8500 could run Farcry, and the 5200 ran it at
    medium settings 1024 x 768 with decent framerates. I have since bought a
    6800 and like that a lot, but the 5200 is far better than the way people
    make it out to be. Sorry, but I am just telling it like it is.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

    Radeon 8500 64MB vs GF FX5200 Ultra
    8 2

    According to that 8500 is the faster card
    of these two in most games.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    At that time I'm sure it was true, but that test is over 18 months old,
    NVIDIA has had lots of time to improve the drivers for the 5200.

    "Baarikoira" <me@some.where> wrote in message
    news:I1zPe.12850$Nh5.3768@reader1.news.jippii.net...
    >
    > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html
    >
    > Radeon 8500 64MB vs GF FX5200 Ultra
    > 8 2
    >
    > According to that 8500 is the faster card
    > of these two in most games.
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:HtIPe.1931$Wd7.240@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > At that time I'm sure it was true, but that test is over 18 months old,
    > NVIDIA has had lots of time to improve the drivers for the 5200.

    Yes, and ATI's has had time for drivers to have improved too. A 128bit 5200
    is not as fast as an 8500 card in any way shape or form. It may have DX9 but
    on a card that slow it's immaterial. There are no 5200 Ultras for sale
    anymore, and even the Ultra would get a 3DMark03 of 10,400 and the
    non-Ultra 128bit would get 8150on a P4 2.8. A Radeon 8500 does about 11,000
    on an equivalent system.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Greg" <gh@vcw.com> wrote in message
    news:OOOdnZ2dnZ1kU8SCnZ2dnSG3k96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@arkansas.net...
    > snip

    I have an 8500Pro and it works fine. Rest of system is a 2600XP, 512Mb
    DDR400 Ram, MSI mobo.

    Runs Far Cry well enough on low setting but is a but jumpy on medium and
    won't do high.
    Medal of Honor and Call of Duty run well enough both singleplayer and online
    and these are the only games I play at the moment.

    I am currently looking at an upgrade though - maybe a 9600XT or a 9700Pro.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Augustus wrote:
    > anymore, and even the Ultra would get a 3DMark03 of 10,400 and the
    > non-Ultra 128bit would get 8150on a P4 2.8. A Radeon 8500 does about 11,000
    > on an equivalent system.

    Don't you mean 3DMark2001.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "de Moni" <demonimummFILTER@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:denuqg$q8v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
    > Augustus wrote:
    >> anymore, and even the Ultra would get a 3DMark03 of 10,400 and the
    >> non-Ultra 128bit would get 8150on a P4 2.8. A Radeon 8500 does about
    >> 11,000 on an equivalent system.
    >
    > Don't you mean 3DMark2001.

    You're right.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    I have had both cards at the same time in identical systems.
    amd1800+, 512 ram, soyo dragon plus boards

    I played with them both for months and I can tell you each has its use. but
    to pick one or the other I could not do. the ati is faster but the nvidi has
    more ram.
    in games I ended up using the ati 8500 sys more but in every day work I
    fired up the fx 5200 sys.
    you say your gona do desktop publishing and photo editing.
    so I say go with the fx5200 the extra ram will help and the slightly slower
    speed will not effect you at all.


    "Greg" <gh@vcw.com> wrote in message
    news:OOOdnZ2dnZ1kU8SCnZ2dnSG3k96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@arkansas.net...
    > The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
    > This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
    > and photo editing.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Greg
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Desktop publishing at 2048x1536, 32-bit color requires only 8 MB of video
    memory. The RAMDAC doesn't get used if you drive an LCD through a DVI
    digital connection. Either card is overkill for your professional usage.

    I say get a nVidia Geforce4 Ti4200 (or Ti4600 if you find it for cheap).
    It's faster than both, and has better-quality FSAA than the 8500.

    --
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
    It can therefore be said that politics is war without
    bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


    "Greg" <gh@vcw.com> wrote in message
    news:OOOdnZ2dnZ1kU8SCnZ2dnSG3k96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@arkansas.net...
    > The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the same.
    > This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop publishing
    > and photo editing.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Greg
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Augustus wrote:
    > "de Moni" <demonimummFILTER@mail.com> wrote in message
    > news:denuqg$q8v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
    >
    >>Augustus wrote:
    >>
    >>>anymore, and even the Ultra would get a 3DMark03 of 10,400 and the
    >>>non-Ultra 128bit would get 8150on a P4 2.8. A Radeon 8500 does about
    >>>11,000 on an equivalent system.
    >>
    >>Don't you mean 3DMark2001.
    >
    >
    > You're right.
    >
    >
    doesn't matter to me, but there is no friggin way a 8500 would run
    FarCry well, it was a 64 MB card and even BF 1942 didn't run real well
    on it. I really could not care less what Tom says. This is a good 5200,
    trust me. Also consider it was slightly overclocked.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    FWIW - I own a couple of nVidia's and a couple of ATI's in various pc's.
    After couple years now I can honestly say I've had a lot less problems with
    nVidia's drivers etc. than ATI's. The ATI cards seem a lot more prone to
    "wonder what got installed that changed ??? so it no longer works as it did"

    As far as "compatibility" goes, I've never been able to get Final Fantasy
    VII to run on any of the ATI cards, conversely I've never been able to get
    VRally III to run on any of the nVidia cards. That's across multiple OS's.

    "farmuse" <spammenot@farms.net> wrote in message
    news:DsvPe.2130$_84.145@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Greg wrote:
    > > The Radeon has 64 meg and the Nvidia has 128. But the Ramdac is the
    same.
    > > This is for a desktop. Some 3D game playing. Otherwise desktop
    publishing
    > > and photo editing.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Greg
    > >
    > >
    > I have owned both, the 8500 was genuine ATI, it ran good, but I
    > have to say the 5200 ran better. Now this is a PNY 128 MB card, and I
    > did OC it to 300 or so for the gpu. I am usually a fan of ATI, have
    > owned many many ATI cards, but I have to honestly say the 5200 ran
    > better and some games looked and played better. Most would disagree but
    > I seriously doubt the 8500 could run Farcry, and the 5200 ran it at
    > medium settings 1024 x 768 with decent framerates. I have since bought a
    > 6800 and like that a lot, but the 5200 is far better than the way people
    > make it out to be. Sorry, but I am just telling it like it is.
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Desktops Nvidia Graphics