FX 5200 Vs 'old' radeon 7200 *DELETED*

[atfihunred]

Post deleted by atfihunred

 

[phial]

5200 is a pathetic piece of engineering


7200 was beautiful in its day

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[sargeduck]

yeah, the fx 5200 may be DX9 capable, but when running any DX9 games, it's going to look like a slideshow. The Ti4200 would be your best bet.

 

[simwiz2]

How exactly is the 5200 pathetic? It is a <b>low end card</b>. It is not expected to be fast like a 5900 or 9800. What card is it supposed to be competing with? 9200? 5200 beats it. 9000? 5200 beats it. 9000P? 5200 loses, but this is just because it's an older higher-performance card, like the Ti4200.

How can nVidia's low-end be "pathetic" if it's main competitor's is, in most cases, no better? Sure, 5200 and 5200U should be priced a bit lower IMO, but their performance is really no worse than the cards they were meant to compete with.

 

[daddywags214]

The thing is that the 5200 sucks as a budget card. The fact that it sucks and it's too expensive kill it. The 5200ultra, IMO, is a decent budget part.

<b>nVidia cheated on me so I left her for ATi. ATi's hotter anyway...</b>

 

[simwiz2]

You can get a 128MB 5200 for slightly more than a 128MB 9200, and the 5200 will beat the 9200. I agree the current generation low-end cards are not a good deal because of the low-priced Ti4200, and because other cards with more performance aren't much more expensive, but the 5200 does outperform the cards it is supposed to compete with.

 

[atfihunred]

I've solved my problem for now. The ATI 9100 did what I was told it would do.
I got 9012 on my latest 3d201 score. No tweaks, just the latest drivers.
A re-badged 8500 for $59, called the 9100, or so I've read.
It has the 8500 demos and the 8500 screensaver, so I suppose it is!!!
It also has 9500 demos on that disk, but I haven't gotten that far yet. Rachel is amazing.

AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Rad 7200 AIW 32mb(original All In Wonder Rad/7200)
UPDATE: Xtacy ATI 9100 64mb now installed and the 7200 mothballed....again.

 

[phial]

How exactly is the 5200 pathetic? It is a low end card. It is not expected to be fast like a 5900 or 9800. What card is it supposed to be competing with? 9200? 5200 beats it. 9000? 5200 beats it. 9000P? 5200 loses, but this is just because it's an older higher-performance card, like the Ti4200.

How can nVidia's low-end be "pathetic" if it's main competitor's is, in most cases, no better? Sure, 5200 and 5200U should be priced a bit lower IMO, but their performance is really no worse than the cards they were meant to compete with.

................lmfao

ok. i say its pathetic, because its a "next generation" video card based on GFFX technology. YET, the GF4MX440 OFTEN beats it in different areas of performance. yes thats right, the joke series GF4MX.

that alone, is hilarious

whats even more hilarious, is often for the same or less, you can get a 9100 by ATI which performs on a completly higher level. <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=364854#364854" target="_new"> Heres a recent thread luckily for me </A> (because i wont hvae to find a review site, this is easier hehe) that shows this plain as day

if your talking about the 5200ultra, that is completely different. THAT card is what teh 5200nonultra should have been... and the 5200ultra should be at least a BIT faster than the TI4200.. of course with AA and AF it is, but most people say they dont use those features anyways

your arguement about how its a low end card and the 9000p was a previous high end card is moot.

RIGHT NOW, the 9100 and 9000pro ARE budget cards. they ARE a better deal by far. thats the whole point. nvidia released a VERY sub-par product that doesnt even come close to outperforming its previous generation models.. a new series is supposed to be FASTER than the last..

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[Willamette_sucks]

All the demos for the 8500 including Rachael are pathetic. I have a 9800 Pro and decided to dload some old demos (including the 8500 ones) for kicks. They really looked like dog crap. And the Rachael demo is sooo annoying.

Wait till u see 3dmark 2003 on a good card, or the new nvidia or ATI demos, like the Chimp demo, and even the older ones that came out with the 9700.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd

 

[atfihunred]

OK. Sure.
But for $59 the 9100 is exciting.
If I could get away with spending $ on the 9800 I would, but......not.......right......now.........thank you......

AM37 2200+XP Thoro
WD 40.00 54
256mb Kingston
Rad 7200 AIW 32mb(original All In Wonder Rad/7200)
UPDATE: Xtacy ATI 9100 64mb now installed and the 7200 mothballed....again.

 

[GeneticWeapon]

At $80 dollars, the Ti4200 pwns that market segment..

I help because you suck.

 

[daddywags214]

I just went to the ATi site and dloaded the old demos, and I ran the "nature" demo for the 8500 (it runs like 10fps on the 8500) on my 9600P with 4x/8x getting at LEAST 60fps. Big difference!!! Actually, the demo I really like is the car demo for the 9700. That and the 9700 Animusic demo.

<b>nVidia cheated on me so I left her for ATi. ATi's hotter anyway...</b>

 

[phial]

At $80 dollars, the Ti4200 pwns that market segment..

sure if you like bi-linear texture filtering =))


id rather have an 8500 with 3.6ns ram , than a TI4200 honestly.

my score goes from 10500 to 7100 in 3dmark2001 JUSt by enabling 4xAF.. and i can STIL see teh damn mipmap lines

16xAF (8xAF nvidia equivilant) on my 8500le barely had any effect on performance, i believe my score was around 7500..

so really , you could argue that the 8500 is faster, depending on your settings preferences. for me, it IS faster

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[phial]

actually i remember now ...

you all know what fillrate is ? its the ability of the video card to draw pixels on teh screen.. more fillrate = more FPS if geometry output isnt bottlenecked


with no Ansiotropic Filtering, teh fillrate on my TI4200 is about 950/2100 ... pretty damn fast!!!

enableing ANY form of AF drops it to 551/551. any degree of AF. thats less than some GF2TIs.......

so by enabling AF, your limiting your framerate by a HUGE amount..its almost not worth using even in old games

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[GeneticWeapon]

Phial,
You are the only forum person I know of that would prefer an 8500 over a Ti4200. I've seen you make this arguement at NV News also. Your a crazy guy

I help because you suck.

 

[phial]

well really! =D

i mean.. have you played BattleField 1942 with no AF? it makes me wanna puke!!

enabling AF works decently until theres any form of multitexturing on teh screen... like dust from tank treads, or teh water spray from teh landing boats.

when theres multitexturing, framerates drop from 120fps to 25fps. NO JOKE. with any driver version as well

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[GeneticWeapon]

BF1942 is really really processor dependant Phial. On my XP2100+/768mb DDR266 system, I dont have the problems your having...not at all. My system is slow by todays standards too

I help because you suck.

 

[phial]

How exactly is the 5200 pathetic? It is a low end card. It is not expected to be fast like a 5900 or 9800. What card is it supposed to be competing with? 9200? 5200 beats it. 9000? 5200 beats it. 9000P? 5200 loses, but this is just because it's an older higher-performance card, like the Ti4200.

How can nVidia's low-end be "pathetic" if it's main competitor's is, in most cases, no better? Sure, 5200 and 5200U should be priced a bit lower IMO, but their performance is really no worse than the cards they were meant to compete with.

i found your arguement at rage3d about teh 5200

you were talking about the 5200u

next time, make sure you know what your typing before you flame noob

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[phial]

<A HREF="http://rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=44c7eb246c20bdac1f692a354acaa86c&threadid=33701264&perpage=20&pagenumber=2" target="_new">rage3d discussion about ti4200 and 9100</A>

just some reading

oh.. and fillrate isnt processor dependant GW... maybe you have detail turned down because im having this problem in any game


next time you play CS, turn smoke detail all teh way up and go stand in the middle of a smoke grenade. smoke is ENTIRELY dependant on multitexture fillrate.. when i have heavy smoke on my screen in CS, frame rates drop below 40fps

thats pathetic for a 1900+ and TI4200 .. my cpu isnt the bottleneck in that game



-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[GeneticWeapon]

next time you play CS...

I'll shoot myself before I ever do that

I help because you suck.

 

[GeneticWeapon]

I also cant help but crack up at the fact that your using a thread on an ATi forum as an arguement on the matter Phial. No biasness there huh!

I help because you suck.

 

[GeneticWeapon]

Just to drive the point home for people....<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-04.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-04.html</A>

I help because you suck.

 

[phial]

you dont get it do you!

sure you get 110 fps .. but it looks like utter [-peep-]

enable 2xAF to remove those mipmap lines that are 5 feet in front of you and reducing texture quality by an amazing amount, and your frame rate drop to half of that. this happens in ANY game

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

 

[simwiz2]

i found your arguement at rage3d about teh 5200
you were talking about the 5200u
next time, make sure you know what your typing before you flame noob

That is a different post, different argument. I think I am capable of telling the difference between a 5200 and a 5200U. Just because I argued that a 5200U doesn't suck means that I can never argue that a regular 5200 doesn't suck on a completely different forum? Your logic is amusing.

<b>I even said, in my first post on this thread, that the 5200 does lose to the 9000P. Does it sound anything like my argument for the Ultra on the other thread? Maybe you need to read more carefully before you flame.</b>

The idea that a newer card should beat the last generation is nice, but it doesn't seem to be working - for a LOT of recent cards. The 9600 Pro, FX 5600, 9200, and 5200 can ALL be outclassed by older products that are / were in a similar price range.

Are all of the above cards "pathetic pieces of engineering?"

The 9000P is an older "Pro" card, and the fact that it beats the regular 5200 is no more to the point than the fact that the 9500P beats the "new" regular 9600. The only difference is the 9500P is no longer available.

Based on this link, I don't think your views are very objective with ATi and nVidia cards.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=357223#357223" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=357223#357223</A>

 

[phial]

The idea that a newer card should beat the last generation is nice, but it doesn't seem to be working - for a LOT of recent cards. The 9600 Pro, FX 5600, 9200, and 5200 can ALL be outclassed by older products that are / were in a similar price range.

Are all of the above cards "pathetic pieces of engineering?"

well no (originally said YES.. posted while i was werking). because they are being sold as "new" and yet arent delivering on their promise...

of course the 9600pro isnt bad, its very nice in fact. im talking about how teh 5200 is beaten by PREVIOUS bottom of the barrel card

its sold as DX9, and yet cant play UT2003 on resolutions higher than 800x600 in most cases, if you want detail at a decent setting

tahts why i think its pathetic. it offers nothing but to trick you with marketing BS ...


256 meg 5200nonultra? swoot

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>