Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is my GF 5200 worse than a GF 4 ti 4200?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 13, 2006 5:38:57 PM

Is my GF 5200 worse than a GF 4 ti 4200? I was on BFG's website when I noticed my 5200 can do 63 mil triangles, while a 4200 can do something like 120 mi. Is the 5200 worse?

More about : 5200 worse 4200

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 5:49:40 PM

Yes, the Ti4200 was one of the best performance/price card released by nVidia.

The FX series was probably the worst line up of card nVidia ever put up and the FX5200 was the worst of the worst

Sorry to hear you got one :?
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 6:16:27 PM


Unless you have the 5200 Ultra - yeah the Ti4200 is quite a bit more powerful.
Related resources
November 13, 2006 6:31:38 PM

In my experience an FX5200 is closer to a GF4MX than a GF4Ti (performance-wise). Sure, the 5200 has DX9 whereas the MX is only DX7 and the Ti is DX8, but it doesnt really matter since the 5200 is so slow.

-mcg
November 13, 2006 6:43:38 PM

ditto to what previous posters said. It is very misleading to assume performance expectations based upon the card numbering structure.

The Ti4200 is truly a Hall of Fame video card. 8)

The FX5200 a Hall of Shame video card. :cry: 
November 13, 2006 7:09:24 PM

What could be misleading as well beside card denomination is that it is not because a product is newer that it will perform better. For exemple, and your facing something similar, we recently bought a new rig for my wife and since she is not into gaming her GPU is a 7300 GT. On the other hand, I had a 6800 GT which would have eaten the 7300GT for breakfast without even burping and this even though this card is of of an older generation. Often, older high end card still perform better then low end newer generation card
a c 171 U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 7:10:23 PM

Not only that, don't bother paying to "upgrade" to a 5500. Most of the reviews I've read for that card also show it to be a poor performer. Who cares about DX9 if the card is so crippled that it can't run that code at high enough frame rates? You really should be looking for a 6600 if you want something faster.
November 13, 2006 7:20:47 PM

Quote:


The Ti4200 is truly a Hall of Fame video card. 8)

The FX5200 a Hall of Shame video card. :cry: 


:lol: 
November 13, 2006 7:22:56 PM

lol! that brings back memories!
I used to own a geforce ti 4200!!! Best gfx ever!! (at least when I bought it)
Then moved to a Ati 9600 pro and now back to nvidia with a 6800 gs agp!

But to answer your question: Yes! your 5200 is way worse than the 4200. meh, nvidia took a blow with the lamest ever 5+++ series! They did right after that with the 6+++ series though!
November 13, 2006 7:42:14 PM

Like others have said there's no comparison between the two cards and the entire FX series did really suck. I made the mistake of "upgrading" a Ti4200 to an FX5700 Ultra about 3 years ago, and while there was some increase in performance, it wasn't worth the money for what it was.
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 8:01:40 PM

Not to beat a dead horse, but what are you doing with it?

In gaming GF4Ti was a damn fine card and in most games will outperform the FX5200 (except the ones that the GF4ti can't play at all, but then the FX5200 would likely be a slideshow anyways).

For some professional 3D apps and for 2D quality the FX5200 is better, but people rarley care about that stuff, but that was the primary focus of my previous laptop so the FXGO5200 was ok enoguh for everything but serious gaming (but it did 'eek' along with HL2 and D3 with everthing turned off).

Really at this point their both dinosaurs, but loking back at your purchas, a GF4ti likely would've given you better performance in games over time.

Edited because my brain isn't unified and the back-end compiler is stuck! :oops: 
November 13, 2006 8:02:05 PM

Well, maybe she's not 5200 times worse ... I guess you have to put things in perspective. Your girlfriend might not render things quite as fast, but I'm sure she has other redeeming features.
November 13, 2006 8:04:57 PM

LOL....gf = girlfriend....I get it.

I had to read it twice to understand it ...maybe Im a little slow or really nerdy about the Nvidia fx and ti's with the numbers.
November 13, 2006 8:13:36 PM

Quote:

In gaming GF4Ti was a damn fine card and in most games will outperform the GF4ti


sorry.. couldn't resist :D 
November 13, 2006 8:19:10 PM

With one exception. All i say is "XT". *ducks for cover* :?
a c 171 U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 8:29:12 PM

Actually, I agree with you there. The 5900XT was a very capable card, and could even outperform the 9800pro/xt. Wasn't loud like the 5800XT, and the only problem with it was the "driver issues". All in all not a bad card, just not a great one.
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 8:33:06 PM

D'Oh!

I blame it on the lack of coffee!

Or... wait.... I meant GF4Ti4800 > GF4Ti4200, yeah that's it, someone erased my digits! :oops: 
November 13, 2006 9:40:27 PM

Quote:
D'Oh!

I blame it on the lack of coffee!

Or... wait.... I meant GF4Ti4800 > GF4Ti4200, yeah that's it, someone erased my digits! :oops: 


"HA HA! OH! GOT YOU! AFTER ALL THIS TIME, I STILL FREAKING GOT YOU! OH GOD! I feel as invincible as Superman" - Stewie Griffin
November 13, 2006 10:43:08 PM

Quote:
Actually, I agree with you there. The 5900XT was a very capable card, and could even outperform the 9800pro/xt. Wasn't loud like the 5800XT, and the only problem with it was the "driver issues". All in all not a bad card, just not a great one.


FX5900XT nice card. Just wish Nvidia came out with it sooner. Almost a non-factor with the 6800 series just over the horizon.
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 11:11:36 PM

one good thing about the fx5200 is that it plays
call of duty 2 great. smoke effects and all. 8O

in dx8 though.
November 13, 2006 11:19:26 PM

Ya the 4200 was a enduring card, went through 2 fans and still kicking, however I sold it for $10
November 13, 2006 11:28:59 PM

Weren't there multiple flavors of FX5200? Like one with 128bit mem bus and one with 64, and large variations on GPU and memory speed?

Seems like some FX5200 were almost competitive with a TI4200, but fewer of those souped up FX5200 variants were made, and they wouldn't o'c as far as Ti4200 did.
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 11:36:16 PM

Quote:
in dx8 though.

dx7 you mean, I wish there was dx8 coz my 9800 pro could do that. Theres so much of a difference between dx7 and dx9: dx7 is very smooth with all settings pumped and 12x10 res (except in smoke grenades); dx9 is slow with low settings at 10x7 res :cry: 
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2006 11:44:51 PM

it might have been dx7. :oops: 

cod2 is quite adjustable. i have tried it with dx9=slideshow.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 12:17:53 AM

With what card?
I caused major glitches in the russian level where you start in the pipe (like the pipe and characters disappeared) and an eventual crash when I set it to dx9 at 16x12 res with virtually full graphics on my 9800 pro 128mb. I had about 3-5 fps for about 20secs before it crashed.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 12:22:11 AM

And to the OP, I had a GF ti4400, excellent card, overclocked pretty nicely on the RAM. Think I got it to 620mhz with no artifacts but kept it at 595mhz since I was using stock cooling (which was a huge chunk of aluminium that surrounded the whole card with 2 VERY noisy 40mm fans to boot). Check this out:

http://www.leadtek.com.tw/eng/3d_graphic/image/winfast_...
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 12:23:47 AM

Quote:
I caused major glitches in the russian level where you start in the pipe (like the pipe and characters disappeared) and an eventual crash when I set it to dx9 at 16x12 res with virtually full graphics on my 9800 pro 128mb. I had about 3-5 fps for about 20secs before it crashed


i have played cod2 on a
dell its older with a celeron cpu,2 256ram
and the fx5200 in pci.

it plays cod2 great even with a.a.x2 slows down with the smoke
and explosions in a.a.x4.

but your playing at 16x12. i played at 10x7 and dx7. i think?
November 14, 2006 2:29:36 AM

I'm sorry but that was just asking for trouble. :wink:
My experience actually comes from a friend who got an overclocked FX5500 to replace his MX440. The difference was barely perceptible (except that on benchies like 3DMark03 he could run more of the tests). In Aquamark3 I think he scored like 1650 instead of 1500. Those absolute values are probably off, but the relative values are about right. Anyhow, it was pathetic. We wound up using that "upgrade" to power a basic workstation for office apps.

-mcg
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 2:31:39 AM

I just did that for fun tho just to see how it would handle it. Normally I run at 12x10 with maxed graphics on dx7. I can run it at 16x12 but it gets too slow in smoke and when I use the scope.
November 14, 2006 6:16:31 PM

Well, its the family PC. My dad got it a while ago when I wasnt so into pc hardware.( LOL, I ACTUALY thought a P4 was waaay better than an Athlon!)

I know, embarasing... I have to admit, I am very unimpressed. It can even get decent frame rates with stuff like Dawn of War at 1028 720 at mid settings!

I think I'm gonna upgrade to a 6600GT until I just go and make a new PC. That isnt another 5200, right?
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 6:24:05 PM

Quote:

I think I'm gonna upgrade to a 6600GT until I just go and make a new PC. That isnt another 5200, right?


No, it's not another FX, but something to consider is that depending on the prices in your area usually a GF7600 or X1650 costs about the same as a GF6600GT, and both wil perform better with added features.

But if the prices are different, the GF6600GT is a solid card, just getting old nowadays.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 8:29:44 PM

Quote:
The 5900XT was a very capable card, and could even outperform the 9800pro/xt.

While steering OT, I can't believe nobody challenged this one. While at first the FX5900XT looked good for it's DX8 and OGL performance. It was never better than a R9800 pro never mind a 9800XT. And then over time, this card started to look more like 9600XT competion and much worse in some newer DX9 titles.

The FX series including the 5900XT died running DX9 in HL2:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=3

Here ya go, the FX5900XT offered about 25% the performance of a 9800 pro running DX9 in HL2.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=4

Anyway, just felt that needed to be pointed out. :wink:
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 8:49:25 PM

Someone's on the ball. Now I dont feel so bad about my 9800 pro.
a c 171 U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 9:54:11 PM

Hmmmm, another propable slip by PC modder. I caught them doing it before when a GF4MX was running halo faster then a 9550 (25.8FPS compared to 23FPS at 800x600.) Seeing as the GF4mx is a DX7 card and the 9550 is a DX9, I figured that was it, I wonder how I could have missed that with the 5900xt. It was interesting to see how poorly the FX/NV3x series rendered DX9. How could Nvidia make the NV2x be so good, then go turn out the poor NV3, only to return with the NV4? Did the 5900Ultra/5950 have the same problems? I would assume so with them being based on the same NV3x platform.
a b U Graphics card
November 14, 2006 10:26:41 PM

Yeah, the entire FX series suffers (in HL2/Source anyway) and defaults to DX8 in that game. If I remember correctly, the FX5800's and FX5900's default to a DX8.1(like a Radeon 8500) path while the FX5700's and under default to DX8.0 (like a GF4Ti's). So while some folks think their FX series card does amazing in HL2, they don't realize that the game detects and defaults their card to DX8.0 (or 8.1) and it's rendering the same as a GF4Ti or at best R8500's. The biggest IQ difference they are missing is in the water quality/reflections. But anyway, that's just the thing with the fX series. It initially looked good running optimized 3dmarks, but later turned out to be far worse than it's competing Radeon in actual DX9 gaming. And yeah, it was a shame with the GF4Ti's being so powerful in their day and the GF6's doing so well also. GF5 is one to avoid.
November 15, 2006 4:30:26 PM

well, the card is only a filler until I buy a new pc. I had bought a 6600GT via ebay a while ago(50 USD!) but it was broken when it came. I've been trying to find a guy who will repair a GPU.(i have the broken piece). If I can get it fixed, yay! If not, I'll try to get a 7600 or a X1650...
!