Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

gf fx5200 vs ati 9250

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
July 15, 2006 7:07:48 AM

well i have a choice from these two cards.. yes i know they are old but thats what i have. now i was wondering which is better ... except all i know about the ati 9250 is that it is 128bm/64bit.
now is there a big difference between 64bit and 128bit and also what are these bits for?

More about : fx5200 ati 9250

a b U Graphics card
July 15, 2006 2:36:49 PM

Do you already own both cards? If not don't buy either. Neither is an upgrade. You are better off sticking to games that your current DX7 card can play until you can afford a better card. A used GF4Ti4200 or Radeon 9600 pro or higher would be far better. A $40-$50 used 9700 pro would be even better.

And yes, 64-bit is half the memory interface speed. So a 128-bit FX5200 would easily beat a 64-bit FX5200 and a 128-bit 9250 would beat a 64-bit 9250.
July 15, 2006 3:17:47 PM

I think he might be PCI, so those cards ar pretty much the only ones open to him.

Just wondering, are you PCI?
Related resources
July 15, 2006 3:45:21 PM

That's a good guess; I can't see anyone considering those cards if they're on AGP.
a b U Graphics card
July 15, 2006 4:34:04 PM

OK, that is true. I know his mobo is a KT600 Gigabyte which has AGP 8X slot. But I didn't consider it could be for a different system not the one in his specs. I assumed he was looking to upgrade that rig in his sig. True, if it's a rig with only PCI, it's hard to do much better than a FX5200, 5500, 5700le.
July 15, 2006 4:48:08 PM

Im pretty sure i saw a 6200 for PCI, anyone know whether that's any better than those FX cards?
July 15, 2006 5:44:08 PM

well yes i am upgrading this system . because as you can se the mx440 isnt cutting out anymore i am not a real hard core gamer but i just want to have dx9.
i am not in the US i am in Bulgaria. and i am getting a vga second hand. i have just gotten an offer for a fx5500 128mb.. now how are the fx 5500? i have heard it is just a clocked fx 5200? is that true?
July 15, 2006 7:02:05 PM

How much are you intending to spend on these graphics cards?

If it's expensive my advice is to find a store in the UK that does international delivery and order something from here. Should be much cheaper.
July 15, 2006 7:22:59 PM

I run a Sempron 2200+ and a 9200 64mb. I have an FX5200 in my laptop and the 9200 performs way better than the 5200.

(You should really overclock that Sempron, they suck bigtime at stock speed)
July 15, 2006 8:30:13 PM

But that 5200 will be the go5200, and they were absolutely useless! Even more so than the standard FX Series. I reckon that as long as they arent using DX9 then the fx5200 an 9200 will perform around the same.
July 15, 2006 9:00:22 PM

Trudat, but it's the best comparison I can think of. The FX is in my PowerBook so that's a DX no-go area.

OP - look for the 2003-4 (or maybe 04/05) GPU charts, there's one set with both cards on.
a b U Graphics card
July 15, 2006 9:08:22 PM

well yes i am upgrading this system . because as you can se the mx440 isnt cutting out anymore i am not a real hard core gamer but i just want to have dx9.
i am not in the US i am in Bulgaria. and i am getting a vga second hand. i have just gotten an offer for a fx5500 128mb.. now how are the fx 5500? i have heard it is just a clocked fx 5200? is that true?

The R9250 is a DX8.1 card supporting PS1.4. FX 5200 and slightly higher clocked 5500 are theoretically DX9.0 cards, but extremely week ones at that. Your card is a DX7 card.

GF4MX440 beats all those cards in the old Quake 3:

Now onto Farcry; a DX9 game. Split into 3 charts.

DX7: (GF4MX440)

DX8: (R9200 128-bit > R9250 64-bit > 9200se 64-bit)

DX9: (FX5500 128-bit, FX5200 128-bit, FX5200 64-bit)

As you can see, when forced to render what they support, even the FX5500 128-bit does a pretty lame job. I would take the FX5500 or FX5200 128-bit(whichever is cheaper), just don't expect it to render a DX9 path very well. It will even default to run a DX8.0 path in some games.

here is the link to the 101 card shootout that these other charts came from:
July 15, 2006 9:21:52 PM

well thanks for all the great advice.. well in the long run its crap but its way better than my gf mx 440. and thats all that matters, also i belive that the 5500 is the one i will be getting. as for the 2200+ sempron for over clocking well i have once clocked it to 2400+ but i dont feel like risking my psu cus its not in the best condition you know?
July 15, 2006 9:25:21 PM

I've got a really terrible PSU in the main PC system I run - generic 300w - and my 2200 Sempron runs at 2.2ghz no problem (you have to up the voltage and unlock the multiplier first)
July 15, 2006 9:34:34 PM

yes i know but my fan .. well i had to change it i had to cut the wires and replace it with my extra fan.. so i just dont feel like over clocking it maybe i will in a little while.. how much did you up your voltige to? and the fsb to? my psu is also generic 300w
July 15, 2006 10:18:08 PM

I closed the L5 bridge on the CPU with a pencil to unlock the multiplier to between 3 and 11.

The FSB is set to 200 (DDR400) and the multiplyer is maxed at 11. The voltage is at 1.9 (+15%). I also had to set the FSB/AGP/PCI ratio to 6:2:1 in order to not crash the two busses.

You might have to update your BIOS. I'm pretty sure your KT600 chipset will be able to handle all of this.

The best OC tool for Athlon XP-type CPUs is CrystalCPUID. You can change the voltage and multiplyer on the fly. On my system it boots with a 9x multiplier (stock) by default, but I have a link in my startup folder that changes the multiplyer to 11. When I'm not using it, or if it's just for Word/Internet I set the multiplyer to 3 for 600mhz - which idles at under 30 degrees.
a b U Graphics card
July 15, 2006 10:42:43 PM

If he is running a GF4MX440 or FX5500, there is absolutely no need to OC that Sempron. We all know where the bottleneck will be while gaming at max playable resolution and detail levels. :wink:
July 15, 2006 11:11:41 PM

well yes but all i need it for is like playing dx9 games on low
its just that the mx 440 isnt cutting out anymore, and i am really sickof it. also i am planning to get a amd socket a 3200+ in a few weeks and i will get a new vga in december probably. so i am happy about the fx 5500.
July 16, 2006 4:30:19 PM

dont buy a processor yet, new intel CPU's comin in a few weeks.


i have an MX440 on AGP and PCI, i had a spare zalman vf-900 and yeah. add 2 and 2.

I overclock it from 270 core to 420 core (artifacts :(  ) so i lowered it to 380 and got set the RAM to 530MHz got an 800 point increase in 3d mark 01. :) 
July 16, 2006 4:32:03 PM

ok, so a 6200PCI beats a 9250 AGP?
July 16, 2006 9:24:09 PM

I Should think so...i have no solid evidence but it seems entirely logical, as the 6200 is a generation newer than the 9250/5200
July 17, 2006 8:02:36 AM

well yes i know that the 6200 would beat the 9250 but i wouldnt get a 6200 becausei have heard that its just like a newer 5200.
i have another problem now.
my fx5500 is read as 5200.
but you know when you start up your pc and it shows what vga you have on a black screen and white letters .... its the first thing yuou see when you start up your pc right? well it says FX 5500. so i am starting to get confussed haha