- Status
Hey Thanx fer the replies.....wht muddles me is tht some of the benchmarks rank the mx440 higher than this fx 5200.......how?
Do PCI cards really work? I think the PCI bus bandwidth is around 135-150 MB per second, while even 4x AGP is 1.1 GB per second....is it jus a namesake thingie?
Do PCI cards really work? I think the PCI bus bandwidth is around 135-150 MB per second, while even 4x AGP is 1.1 GB per second....is it jus a namesake thingie?
pci is abt 133mbps
agp 1x is double
similiary go one
approx ask others is all this is right
if you wanna buy graphic card try to avoid all this
geforce ,geforce 2 ,geforce 3 (though geforce 3 ti 500 may support majority games atleast it is too old and no need to buy it now ,besides who will sell it),geforce 4 (though 4 ti is not that bad but still go for newer cards),geforce fx,radeon 8500 series or lower,radeon 7xxx series,radeon 8xxx series,radeon 9550 series,radeon 9200series,radeon 9000series,any radeon 'se' graphic card,
if you wanna buy :
geforce 6 series(depending upon requirement if you don't want to game 6200 is ok for running os,photoshop shd be fine etc)
try to avoid nvidia turbo cache(tc) and ati hypermemory
try to avoid ati if they don't give more performance than their equivalent performing nvidia cards as of now that is
try to avoid X300 series,X600 series,X700 series
agp 1x is double
similiary go one
approx ask others is all this is right
if you wanna buy graphic card try to avoid all this
geforce ,geforce 2 ,geforce 3 (though geforce 3 ti 500 may support majority games atleast it is too old and no need to buy it now ,besides who will sell it),geforce 4 (though 4 ti is not that bad but still go for newer cards),geforce fx,radeon 8500 series or lower,radeon 7xxx series,radeon 8xxx series,radeon 9550 series,radeon 9200series,radeon 9000series,any radeon 'se' graphic card,
if you wanna buy :
geforce 6 series(depending upon requirement if you don't want to game 6200 is ok for running os,photoshop shd be fine etc)
try to avoid nvidia turbo cache(tc) and ati hypermemory
try to avoid ati if they don't give more performance than their equivalent performing nvidia cards as of now that is
try to avoid X300 series,X600 series,X700 series
G
gxsaurav
Guest
XFX GeForce FX 5200 with 128 MB RAM is no good anymore, don't buy it, however due to it's size & price to performance ratio it is a definite buy for Office or Cyber cares, it's dam small in dimensions
another card which is good is the GeForce 6200 non ultra, without turbocache, it is available here in lucknow for Rs 5.3k, & gives performance better then 5200, small in dimension & supports PureVideo, dam good for budget PC
another card which is good is the GeForce 6200 non ultra, without turbocache, it is available here in lucknow for Rs 5.3k, & gives performance better then 5200, small in dimension & supports PureVideo, dam good for budget PC
It depends on your requirements and your budget, and the relevance of the reviews you read depends a lot on when they were written.
It's easy to say that product X is no good and you should go for product Y even though Y costs 2-3 times as much as X. But some of us are on a strictly limited budget, and for those who have to stay under 3k for a gfx card, an FX5200 is still good VFM. It's certainly low-end by current gaming standards, but you can play practically all games at acceptable frame rates if you're willing to play the more advanced games at low settings.
The GeForce 4 series use older GPUs and cannot utilise some of the newer Direct X features. But speedwise some of them are faster than the lower FX5xxx cards even though the FX series are DirectX 9 compatible. E;g., The GF4 Ti4xxx series are much faster than an FX5200, approx in the same class as an FX5700. But all FX series GPUs can use DirectX 9 features whereas Ti cards are compliant upto DX8, and GF4 MX are only DX7-compliant.
If you mean PCI-Express, then that's a wholly different thing. This is a newer standard that has a higher bandwidth than even AGP 8x. But even here, performance depends more on the GPU, VRAM and other design factors because only a fraction of the full bandwidth is utilised.
It's easy to say that product X is no good and you should go for product Y even though Y costs 2-3 times as much as X. But some of us are on a strictly limited budget, and for those who have to stay under 3k for a gfx card, an FX5200 is still good VFM. It's certainly low-end by current gaming standards, but you can play practically all games at acceptable frame rates if you're willing to play the more advanced games at low settings.
The GeForce 4 series use older GPUs and cannot utilise some of the newer Direct X features. But speedwise some of them are faster than the lower FX5xxx cards even though the FX series are DirectX 9 compatible. E;g., The GF4 Ti4xxx series are much faster than an FX5200, approx in the same class as an FX5700. But all FX series GPUs can use DirectX 9 features whereas Ti cards are compliant upto DX8, and GF4 MX are only DX7-compliant.
Yes, PCI cards work, though they are usually not qute as good as their AGP counterparts using the same GPU. But the difference is not as much as one may expect because the actual data to be processed seldom (if ever) uses the full AGP bandwidth.
If you mean PCI-Express, then that's a wholly different thing. This is a newer standard that has a higher bandwidth than even AGP 8x. But even here, performance depends more on the GPU, VRAM and other design factors because only a fraction of the full bandwidth is utilised.
mohit
The Hardware Labs
@ d
hey dude i am using the PCI-E version of the XFX 5200 and it is called PCX 5300 ... this card is quite good as i was able to play HL2 at 1024*768 and Doom 3 at 800*600 ... both with decent effects .. Far cry also zipped past at 1024*768 .. this is a nice card if u are on a shoestring budget .. i am just saving for the XFX 6600 GT though .. it rocks !!
hey dude i am using the PCI-E version of the XFX 5200 and it is called PCX 5300 ... this card is quite good as i was able to play HL2 at 1024*768 and Doom 3 at 800*600 ... both with decent effects .. Far cry also zipped past at 1024*768 .. this is a nice card if u are on a shoestring budget .. i am just saving for the XFX 6600 GT though .. it rocks !!
fx 5200 is not lowend
it is a budget card (below low end ) and once the next gen cards are out it will be below the budget card level and you can thus say that just don't buy even if you want casual future decent gaming.
if you wanna do office work why not go for onboard solutions
also,give me benchmarks
can fx 5200 play doom3 even at 640*480 lowest?
also,to play hl2 at 1024*768 med won't you requireradeon 9600pro?
it is a budget card (below low end ) and once the next gen cards are out it will be below the budget card level and you can thus say that just don't buy even if you want casual future decent gaming.
if you wanna do office work why not go for onboard solutions
also,give me benchmarks
can fx 5200 play doom3 even at 640*480 lowest?
also,to play hl2 at 1024*768 med won't you requireradeon 9600pro?
@akshayt, no one here is claiming that an FX5200 is a super gaming card. We're just saying that it's quite usable considering the price.
I'm not a gaming freak but I've installed FX5200 cards for a lot of people who cannot afford more expensive ones, and they regularly play Doom 3, NFSU2, AoE, COD, etc.
I don't have an FX5200 in the house ATM and cannot run a benchmark right now. You can take a look at www.tomshardware.com where they have these benchmarks for an FX5200 -
Doom 3 at 1024x768, 32-bit colour, 8x AF high quality - 11.9 fps.
MS Flight Sim 2004 at 1024x768, 32-bit, No AA/AF - 16.4 fps
11.9 fps and 16.4 fps are very low, of course, but try to imagine how playable they would be at lower settings.
I'm not a gaming freak but I've installed FX5200 cards for a lot of people who cannot afford more expensive ones, and they regularly play Doom 3, NFSU2, AoE, COD, etc.
I don't have an FX5200 in the house ATM and cannot run a benchmark right now. You can take a look at www.tomshardware.com where they have these benchmarks for an FX5200 -
Doom 3 at 1024x768, 32-bit colour, 8x AF high quality - 11.9 fps.
MS Flight Sim 2004 at 1024x768, 32-bit, No AA/AF - 16.4 fps
11.9 fps and 16.4 fps are very low, of course, but try to imagine how playable they would be at lower settings.
thegame_rulez
Journeyman
by the time he waits and gets the geforce 6600gt it wud come to the level where geforce 5200 is now..
thats what happens always..
thats what happens always..
Not I (I said I'm not a gamer), but I know lot of people who have.akshayt said:
It's a case of having to, not wanting to. Thousands, probably millions, of people play modern games at 640x480 and enjoy it tremendously.
I already said that it's low - at those settings. That's why they play it at low settings.
- Status