Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

fx5200..better than I thought..

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 21, 2003 12:28:07 AM

I thought that fx5200, Ultra or no ultra are crappy cards..
but looks like they are not bad from THG's VGA buyer guide..it can beat both Radeon8500 or 9000
it is just 8500 and 9000 are too old? or fx5200 are better than I thought?
or when we say they are crappy, yes they are, But only comparing to cards like fx5600, Radeon9500..etc etc..

More about : fx5200 thought

July 21, 2003 12:42:53 AM

Well, the Ultra did turn out to be better than I thought, beating the 9000/9200 most of the time. However Toms latest benchies are a bit sketchy to say the least.

I seriously doubt the 5200 would beat an 8500 in real-world gaming situations.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
July 21, 2003 12:56:02 AM

teh Ultar version does compete with the TI4200 , especially when using AF. because the GF4TI gets a substantial performance hit when using anything more than 4xAF


i dont think ive ever told people that the Ultra versoin sucked. teh non ultra sure... but it all depends on the price. thats what makes it a good card or not. if its the same price as teh TI4200, then wow, great deal

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>
Related resources
July 21, 2003 3:51:14 AM

Quote:
I seriously doubt the 5200 would beat an 8500 in real-world gaming situations.

but tom's review was all based on Real World gaming such as UT2003, and it beats 8500..sure I'm same as you, I wonder if it's true or not..
Quote:
i dont think ive ever told people that the Ultra versoin sucked.

so 5200Ultra is actually a good card? or maybe we can say it's not bad at all? since even my Radeon8500 can still handle all current games exist..I guess 5200 would do it as well, or even faster? and yeah..it's all about price, if i got money, we would all go for Radeon9800 or fx5900..
July 21, 2003 4:11:39 AM

Bah, old school vid cards still run games fine. My quadro dcc eats Midnight Club 2 for breakfast @ 1024x768 and max detail and all on that game (ooo, raytracing). Buying a new uber card every 4-6 months is for people who are trying to compensate for something (*cough* ePenis *cough*). IMO, buy a top of the line card when brand new tech comes out, and forget about it for 2 years cause it will run everything fine in that time.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by flamethrower205 on 07/21/03 00:12 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
July 21, 2003 10:12:26 AM

I think the only thing that many think sux about it is the idea of DX9.

For the most part it's an ok 'value' part. The issue is really, what's the price, and usually when put up against a GF4ti it would usually be bested, except of fourse with AA/AF in a few cases.

However it has to be the Ultra as the non-ultra really is under performing losing to the old MXs in many cases.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 21, 2003 1:28:21 PM

I think what you have to remember is that when the 5200 ULTRA came out, it costed as much as a 9500 PRO.

And the 5200 non-ultra costed as much as a Ti4200.

COmpared to those cards, the 5200 is a piece of crap. But now that the prices have dropped on 5200s so much, they are OK cheapo cards if they are in the same price range as the Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200 cards.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
July 21, 2003 3:49:16 PM

hm...so now if we got to choose between Radeon8500/9000/9100/9200 and fx5200, i guess that fx5200 would be a better choice..
July 21, 2003 4:05:36 PM

Quote:
(ooo, raytracing)


uhm.. what? there isn't any raytracing yet in any game except in the bowling sim released by realstorm.. it is not doable in hw.. (well, it is, partially.. but thats an own sience:D )

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
July 21, 2003 7:15:48 PM

Now that prices have dropped, the FX5200 Ultra is probably the best budget card available. Although it isn't really a DX9 card (not powerful enough), it is faster than every other DX8/8.1 budget card (including my 9000 Pro)
July 21, 2003 7:20:12 PM

After looking at Tom's numbers, I wonder if the new detonators have given the 5200 a sizable boost. It seems far more powerful that it did in the older benchmarks, where 9000 PROs would regularly eat it for breakfast.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
July 22, 2003 2:04:42 AM

too bad that Catalyst seems no longer having improvement on R200 Products...
July 22, 2003 3:08:04 AM

i think the R200 is performing at 100% with the current drivers. there probably not much more performance or optimiztion left .. mostly just bug fixes and stability fixes

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2003 3:20:59 AM

You could 'force' an Overclock! :tongue: (ref. to a prev. thread)


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 22, 2003 5:00:00 AM

With Catalyst 3.6?
I've been using Catalyst 3.2 for very longtime, when Catalyst3.4 was out, I installed and I was disappointed, it performs worse than 3.2 and some bugs that it used to have come back again, ever since, I never update to the newest catalyst anymore, so i don't know if 3.6 would give 100% performance for R200 products
currently, for me, i think that Catalyst3.2 is the best for R200..but i'll be trying new driver anyway...
July 23, 2003 4:02:06 PM

Just repeating a question...... is the Asus GeForce 5200VS FX = 5200 ultra, where the Asus GeForce 5200TD FX = 5200 non ultra?

Love, Faith & Joy
July 24, 2003 2:18:34 AM

i just bought the 5200 ulta ive used and played many vcards and for 100 bucks this card rock ass. Trust me it maybe slower then some other ti cards but wait till 9.0 games come out. it is fast to me and in benchmarking what toms has posted 52000 ultra is for real
July 24, 2003 2:56:07 AM

Quote:
but wait till 9.0 games come out

Actually, wait till DX9 games come out, with an option on the side called "For FX5200 users, click here to enable old DX7 mode for possible playability."

Quote:
in benchmarking what toms has posted 52000 ultra is for rea

If GreatGrapeApe read this, you'd be on your way out of the forum by now.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A>
July 24, 2003 6:33:47 AM

This is a little off topic.....
But remember that nvdia has always released HORRIBLE drivers for the first few months a card is out.
Those 30% or so increases in performance that nvidia cards get with driver updates is just because the original drivers SUCK so much. It's not some driver magic. It's just simply a case of the first few drivers not utilizing the new card properly.

Nvidia could get away with this in the past because their cards were so much faster than the competition even without optimized drivers, so nobody noticed.
But now that nvidia finally has some competition everyone is bitching about how slow the FX cards are without considering this fact.

So I wouldn't count any out any of the FX line yet. They will get faster in time (without driver cheats :p )
July 24, 2003 3:44:32 PM

hm..yeah, I agree.. nVidia has always release some good drivers after their product are on the market..
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2003 5:20:09 PM

Hehe. Yeah Seriously, C'mon! :lol:  The VGA buyers' guide
is misleading and only has one DX9 'game' whihc is really just a 'made for benching' demo, and doesn't reflect the actual game. Tellin' ya, Inbred review quoting, just sad!

An FX5200Ultra, will not do anything with any of the TRUE DX9 titles. Heck I have a feeling my R9600Pro won't be 'impressive' (except when I OC the STANK out of it) with DX9 features on.

The FX and GF4ti are pretty much similar in that they are PRIMARILY DX7&8 cards. And rememebr the FX5200 is not the FX5200Ultra, and the Ultra isn't exactly cheap.

In any case. The FX is fine for those who want to run the 3D effects of Longhorn (when it comes out [you could have a cheaper/better card by then]), but it's definitely NOT going to be very good at DX9 games (with anything DX9 turned on/up) at anything above 640x480 IMO. And yes you will have the BEST pixel Shader 2.0 Slideshow on the block, unless someone else bought a real card (they could always make it a slideshow at RES above 16x12 :wink: ).

It all comes down to the money and if the FX5200U is only a few bucks cheaper than an FX5600 (heck even a non-ultra) or an R9600 (even non-pro), then those are the right choice for 'GAMERS', especially one's envisioning anything to do with DX9.
It's no longer the 'RMA NOW!' card most initial reviews painted it out to be, however it's still not going to give you any kind of SERIOUS DX9 'performance'.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 24, 2003 5:31:55 PM

People, why don't you STOP hoping?

Do you realize that the geForce 3 got its Detonator XP boost a few months later, while this card which was paper-launched last year and came out in February, HAS gotten its damn upgrade and there IS NO OTHER ONE TO EXPECT?

Do you realize that the Detonator FXs are out? That means nVidia "figured" out the performance in it, it's done. I don't expect much anymore. Fact is, ever since the boost they got when the FX5900 was released, the serie had gone up heights above the 9700PRO, if you remember THG's review of the FX5900. The FX5800 Ultra was able to be 10% behind its new brother, and in AA and Aniso it was kicking the ATis right out of the ballpark.
Fact is there is NOT MUCH to help this damned card serie after what has been unlocked. They are doomed as it is because of a very bad architecture, one that has to even emulate to do PS 2.0, what is normally supposed to be an integrated function since it claims to be DX9!

In conclusion, will you all just SHUT UP about the "unleash the power" of the card drivers that nVidia does? IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A>
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2003 5:44:55 PM

Quote:
will you all just SHUT UP about the "unleash the power" of the card drivers that nVidia does? IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY.

BUT I want MORE! C'mon Gimme! :tongue:

And while you're at it, give me drivers that unleash the R9600P's 256bit memory, just like the R9500NP! I'm waiting! :wink:

** Still waiting for drivers that unleash FULL POWER of the AWESOME Parhelia to be released! You wait, it's gonna OWN! :cool:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 24, 2003 7:05:03 PM

Tell me you're being sarcastic, Ape.
You know that the special drivers enable the 9500's 4 dormant pipelines and do nothing to the memory interface, right?

I've been trying to straighten people out on that one forever... ;) 

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2003 7:41:51 PM

Why, you mean they WON'T Unlock the Power of the Parhelia?!? :tongue:

Yes I was kidding, hence the wink. :wink: But unlocking the additional pipes on the R9500NP also made it 256bit memory vs 128, that's what I'm refering to (of course the 8 pipe aspect would've been nice too). :cool: Just impossible, that's all.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 24, 2003 7:44:08 PM

Thank god.

For a second there, I had to face the possibility that my endless ranting was all for naught.

They... they ARE listening...

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2003 7:46:24 PM

Wow quick answer BTW, I re-editted it just after you replied. Might wanna check what I said. As truely it did switch the pathway to/from the meory as well, at least according to what I've read. But then again I'm not a pro at the 9500NP->9700 hack, so I'm not SURE.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 24, 2003 8:00:46 PM

The 256 bit "enablement' is a myth started by people who don't fully understand the hardware... allow me to enlighten you, sir.

The memory controller is all hardware. The fact is, some 9500 non-pros come with a 256 bit memory bus (L-shaped memory). Some dont (memory in line). That's all there is to it; it doesn't have to be "enabled".

But all 9500 non-pros have 4 pixel pipes disabled.

The myth got started because people assumed that all 9500 np's have the advertised 128 bit memory bus. But really the 256 bit cards are an anomaly that use their 256 bit bus stock; they just don't have the pipelines to take advantage of it. But you can see a performance increase over a 128 bit stock 9500np if you benchmark it with 2xAA.

So if you use the driver mod on a 128 bit 9500np, you end up with a 9500 PRO. If you use the driver mod on a 256 bit 9500np, you end up with a 9700.

But the memory interface doesn't change. Just the number of pipelines is doubled.



------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2003 8:16:24 PM

Ahh ok, I should have read your sig. and left it to the expert. HEhe. :wink: I knew there was no physical change and you needed L shaped memory arrangement (9700 PCB) but thought other things were involved/changed too.

Ahh well, I love putting "Rememebr the 9500 -> 9700 trick; I've figured it out for the 9600 -> 9800 ...... just draw a line to turn the 6 -> 8, there you go it's a 9800.' :tongue:

Man I WISH there were something similar to the 9500-> 9700. That R9600 just looks so tempting to me, I keep thinking, Ohh if only my 363(726)mhz memory was 256 bit or if I had more pipes. That would be awesome. But yes I know it's impossible. But thanks for the heads-up I'll add it to my clutered memory bank, likely to use in a sarcastic way as usual. :eek: 


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 24, 2003 8:30:05 PM

Well, it looks like that 9800SE coming out will have 4 pipes disabled; so someone will probably find a way to enable those with a driver mod.

According to this article, you'll be able to find 256 bit versions of this gibbled card like 9500 np's. That should make it interesting... the ability to mod it to a full fledged 9800:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/200307211729...

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Cleeve on 07/24/03 04:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2003 8:54:22 PM

Yeah I posted that in another thread, it's interesting considering they mention that there will likely be 2 versions and even two boards. But like I said in that thread, I'm not sure if they will allow that to happen again simpy because it does under-cut their own cards. I still don't get the economics if it's mor expensive than the R9600P to make but it has similar performance. We'll see. Right now it's all a bunch of paper, but at least MORE than those original chinese pictures I posted a long while back, when it was still not even a rumour yet.

More than a 128bit R9800, I'd like to see a more capable (8pipes or 256bit mem) R9600 style chip, yes it would need more transistors and therefore not run as cool. Oh well, but the 256 bit mem. shouldn't require that. Still think the R9800SE makes no sense, but maybe that's just me. I think it only made sense as a possible solution if the R9600Pro didn't work (as back-up, like the R9500/9700). I just don't see it's place in the current marketplace.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 24, 2003 9:41:34 PM

I agree, it's strange. A souped up 9600 makes more sense from a manufacturing standpoint.

I have a feeling the 9800SE's are a marketing ploy.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
July 25, 2003 6:01:37 PM

I just bought an Asylum 5200fx Ultra from Bestbuy for $169 with a $60 mail in rebate. so $109. I'm hoping to see a hell of a performace boost over my ATI Radeon VIVO 64DDR.

BTW, deos anyone know how my current card (Radeon VIVO 64DDR) compares with ATI's new line? - Radeon7000, 7500 8000, etc.
July 25, 2003 7:58:24 PM

It's behind them all I'd assume.

BTW for that FX5200 Ultra's price, I'd imagine a 9600PRO or 5600 non-Ultra to be in the same price range. Dunno how BestBuy's pricing compares.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 25, 2003 8:14:20 PM

The asus FX56000 non pro video suite is pretty nice for 150$ or something around that. Great features, clocked slightly higher then the others I think thats a good choice if your looking for a descent vid card with VIVO...
July 26, 2003 12:20:46 AM

Crappy? What's that? The FX5200 card isn't designed for games as a major consideration. Believe it or not, loads of computers NEVER lay foot on a bit of game programming. The jstificaton for a card like this in heavy duty games is pretty lame if you ask me. Even the best card is probably going to let you down.

An ATI9600 isn't even going to really run DX9 games with a 4 bit / 128 bit pixel/memory pipeline is it? So why pick on cards designed to run games pretty well in "normal" or "speed" modes? Most will find they work just fine set-up this way.
a b U Graphics card
July 26, 2003 9:07:29 AM

MY friend in T.O. has a Radeon vivo, and it appears to be recognized by programs as an R7500 equivalent. I believe they are very similar. So the old Radeon likely falls in between the performance category o the R7000/7200 AND the R7500. Whether it's closer to/equal to the R7500 I don't know.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
July 26, 2003 9:55:44 AM

The R9600non-pro will run DX9 featured games a Heck of Alot better than an FX5200Ultra, and even more so than a non-ultra. Sure the whole mid-market cards are going to struggle at playing with ALL the goodies on. Like Eden implied in another post, we're not even sure, yet, if the TOP cards will do that well.
However the R9600s an FX5600s will allow you to experiemnt with some/most of the features availible, and will better be able to handle the added features at reasonable frame rates. Yes you may have to return to playing at 800x600 instead of the 1600x1200 we've all become used to but at least you have that option. I doubt much (if anything) will save the FX5200s. And yes they ARE made for gaming, that's why they tout DX9 as a feature. They are for the cheaper/Entry gamer, or just the ignorant ('hey it says it does DX9') gamer (they are mutually exclusive, the ginroant ones just pay more than the gamers sans funds). An LIKELY those numbers will be higher than ALL of us 'entusiasts' with better cards. The MXs are still among the most popular (if not still THE most popular) cards on Futuremarks list.
DX9 is almost a 2D feature for the FX5200 cards since it'll run like a slideshow, thus negating any true 3D look/feel to it.

BTW the 4pixel pipes and 128bit memory don't mean as much as you think, it's what you do with them. It helps make things faster but a card running about twice as fast at the 8/256 card will usually achieve BETTER results (but don't think of the FX5800 as the example), as not all cards take advantage of he 8 pixel pipelines (the major diff., memory being more even). This is also a reason that the a GF4ti can often run better in Quake 3 generation games at low detail/res. The 4 extra pipes don't come into play as much. Push them and they crack, but the question is truely where you really think current R9800P/FX5900U are going to fair in 1 year's time. I think they'll be in the same category as GF4tis are NOW. Old cards that can play with minimal eye-candy. So they won't be THAT much better than the R9600P and FX5600U. Will hey be TWICE as good as their price implies? An if they are only great in low detail/res. then wo cares if it (top card) gets 140FPS vs 110FPS (mid-card), if it still barely kicks out 35FPS with AA/AF, etc. on, and the others (XX x600 series) get 20FPS, so what? It's still not great for either. The diff. is that the FX5200U won't even do that, it'll likely hit mid single digits (or not run) as we have seen in many benchmarks; 4 FPS isn't even good for a Creeper game like splinter Cell. It'll be barely playable in almost ALL scenarios involving more power than the GF4s, and in the lower case the GF4 will almost always outperform. That's why the FX5200s DX9 features aren't a big deal, despite the hype. Get a GF4ti and you will likely do MUCH better in most gaming situations.
However it's not a BAD card, just not DX9 worthy in any way, and it's nowhere NEAR an R9600/FX5600 except for lesser duties.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 26, 2003 5:52:57 PM

But the Fx5200 isn't competing with the 9600 etc.; where I live, it is in the same price bracket as the R9000/9100/9200 cards etc.

The 5200 isn't a true DX9 card (not powerful enough), but it IS the most powerful DX8/8.1 card in its class; it beats my R9000 Pro in several benchmarks.

I'm not a hardcare gamer, so I don't need a powerful gfx card at the moment; the 5200 is the best card for people like myself.
July 26, 2003 9:28:51 PM

I doubt it, you can find a Ti4200 for the 80$ price range, which is still less than the FX5200 Ultra.
One of the cards that slipped by nVidia's reputation in the market which causes price-gouging on the seller's part, is the Ti4200. It still has extremely low prices compared to how the FX5600 goes in the market.
The TI4200 remains the card that was the least shadowed in the market, from price-gouging due to the nVidia tag.
The wide availability of higher class cards also helped, since the Ti4400 was pointlessly added in-between, and the Ti4600 dominated, without such a high price tag. The Ti500 continued to sell for more than the Ti4200 even after their release, despite having much less performance!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A>
a b U Graphics card
July 27, 2003 8:57:19 AM

I'd have to go with the GF4tis as th Kings of DX8, like I said in my post. The ultra only wins when AA/AF are an issue or there are really large res. IMO. The picture quality MAY be better due to the newer RAMDACs but I think put head to head the GF4s still usually win, especially since TRUELY enabling things just kills both almost equally.
7FPS on an FX5200U is not better than 5FPS on a GF4ti with all things on.

The reason I bring up he R9600P was because rower mentioned it in the same post. They are completely diff. class cards, like I mentioned. The FX5600U is the card to compare to the R9600P, not the FX5200, and mentionin it in an article about playability and using guilt by association isn't gonna fly. The R9600P is FAR more DX9 compliant a part. That was my point.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 27, 2003 10:36:57 PM

IIRC the FX5200s did NOT share any AA/Aniso technologies, hence still being in the "ice-age" with the Tis, using Multi and Super Sampling. Ergo the GF4 TIs should be able to beat the FX5200 Ultra in AA/Aniso as well.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
July 28, 2003 7:47:12 AM

Eden, you getting more hits with your new sig?

And I must say... LOL @ SVOLS PICS!!!! Oh man, look at him at 14.... now I don't feel so bad:) 

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
a b U Graphics card
July 28, 2003 10:12:21 AM

Yeah, it's funny, <A HREF="http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/video/fx5200vsr9200/" target="_new">HERE</A>'s a recent R9200 v. FX5200 review. Now it's not an Ultra, but then again it's also not a R9100 or R9000 PRO (both of which perform better than the R9200)
The two trade benchmarks. I'd prefer an FX5200U vs a R9100 & R9000PRO, but this will do for SOME insight.

And yes the GF4ti should still be able to beat the FX5200U even with AA/AF. I just posted an FX5600vs GF4 review in another thread and <A HREF="http://www.envynews.com/?ID=511" target="_new">HERE</A> that one is. Not impressive of the new cards IMO. A GF4ti may be the best choice still for a while to come.

<b>EDIT:</b>
AHH, and I jut noticed <A HREF="http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/articles.hwz?cid=3..." target="_new">THIS</A> review @ Hardware Zone which pit the FX5200Ultra v. GF4ti4200 v. R9000Pro v. R8500 vs. R9500non-pro. The GF4ti usally spanks the FX5200U even with AA/AF like you suspected. The ATIs win some and lose some depending on game/bench and settings.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 07/28/03 04:26 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 28, 2003 4:11:26 PM

wow..from that review, fx5200u performs almost identical to Radeon8500..pretty impressive..
July 28, 2003 8:27:41 PM

I did get lots of criticism laughter towards the new sig, but hey, when you got so many blindheads in the hardware forums, you need sex to sell! :wink:

Besides, way too many wussies around here, afraid to show themselves in the album... :frown:
Come on you ugly people, show yer ugly faces! :smile:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
a b U Graphics card
July 28, 2003 10:32:58 PM

Yeah, that's what I've said. The ULTRA is GOOD the non-ultra SUX! Now the question is at what price do you find the ULTRA? Far too often they are more expensive than their performance warrants, but that will likley (almost has to) change.
And also rememeber it still struggles against the GF4tis which are often cheaper.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
July 29, 2003 1:44:24 AM

5200 ults is betetr then ati 8500 lmao i guess no one heere has actually used the ultra cards yet just tlakinmg out thier but,,,,,,,,,,, i have tested 5200 ultra to non and the ati 8500 and 9000. 5200 sucks azz but lets rock and roll with the ati 9000 and 5200 ultra in AA games. ultra wins
July 29, 2003 3:09:44 AM

shut up.

I <b>help</b> because <b>you</b> suck.
!