5200 vs gf3 - quick and dirty question

pxc said:
Where do you find Ti4200s for $50? Especially with a warranty?

The video card was the limiting factor in virtually all my game tests (UT2003 botmatch in lower resolution is CPU limited, of course). That 5200 PCI is permanently installed into a P4 2.4GHz now and game performance is almost identical. Synthetic tests got different scores, but those aren't games.

Pwnt.
Click to expand...

I posted a link in the previous thread, pricewatch has them for $75 right now, and that $25 is well worth is.

Pwnt? Hardly. Run a GF3 in that same system, post scores, and we'll go from there. Playability wasn't the question. Which one was faster, is.
 
dderidex said:
They aren't really worth arguing with. Both him and Chab both seem to have their intarw3b p3n0s size determined by how crappy the FX5200 is, so they are constantly bashing it in every thread it comes up in.

It's not a *great* card by any stretch of the imagination, but it IS a *good* card, and if Joe Consumer said he was going to Best Buy tomorrow and wanted to know the cheapest graphics card he could buy that could do minimal amounts of gaming acceptably, I wouldn't lose any sleep recommending an FX 5200 wholeheartedly.

Remember that Joe Consumer doesn't even know what FSAA *IS*, he's CERTAINLY never going to use it whether he drops $50 on a graphics card, or $500 (no, really, has anybody here worked at a retail computer shop? Yes, people DO come in and drop $500 on a GeForce 6800 Ultra and NEVER USE FSAA because they DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS! They just know they have buckets of money and want to buy 'the best there is' and don't even care what they are really getting.) And, no, he doesn't really care if he gets 80fps or 60fps or 30fps. Hell, he doesn't even know what a 'frame per second' IS!

Joe Consumer-on-a-budget would have no problem with an FX5200. It can't do FSAA well, but he doesn't care, he'll never use it. He is used to Playstations which do 640x480 graphics (sort of) on a TV screen. Something that can do 800x600 on his monitor is going to look godly in comparison, and there isn't a game out (well, maybe Far Cry) that can't detect the detail level to set an FX5200 at to make an 800x600 game playable and enjoyable.

Yes, a Ti4200 is faster for the same price, but:
A) Virtually all of them have had their warranties run out by now - something Joe Consumer is KEENLY interested in.
B) Good luck finding one retail. Only way to get them is online, and that's something else 90% of people are unwilling to do - hell, even read through *these very forums* and see how many people are looking for which graphics card to buy "from a store", since they won't shop online!

To say the FX5200 is crap and bash it at every opportunity is simply unreasonable. It's a good card. Hell, if you qualify the statement, it's a GREAT card for *what it sets out to do*. Someone can walk into Best Buy or Circuit City or Office Max or Staples, or....see an FX5200 on the shelf for $80 with $30 mail-in-rebate, buy it, take it home, plug it into their computer, and get a kick ass Doom3 experience over their crappy Intel Integrated graphics (or nForce2 integrated graphics).
Click to expand...


Kick ass doom3 experience? you just linked to a 5200 Ultra, which is a totally different bird entirely, and can't be found for $50 anywhere. And 640x480 is hardly kick ass for anyone I know. You were claiming 800x600, and then post a link to a benchmark that's playable at 640x480?!? Consistancy, man, GET SOME! As for the 5200 vs the GF3, since the GF3 isn't even IN that review:
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/graka/doom3_performance/s05.php?benchmark=doom3lq&lang=eng

Sorry, but the 5200 gets owned. In fact, it can't even RUN the game at 1024x768
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/graka/doom3_performance/s05.php

Now, because it has more ram, the 5200 can play it at levels higher than low quality, but not playably.

And how does a new card have a run out warranty? And again, that WASN'T what we were talking about. We were talking about which was faster. The GF3 is, even in the benchmark you just picked.
 
lopoetve said:
Kick ass doom3 experience? you just linked to a 5200 Ultra, which is a totally different bird entirely, and can't be found for $50 anywhere. And 640x480 is hardly kick ass for anyone I know. You were claiming 800x600, and then post a link to a benchmark that's playable at 640x480?!? Consistancy, man, GET SOME! As for the 5200 vs the GF3, since the GF3 isn't even IN that review:
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/graka/doom3_performance/s05.php?benchmark=doom3lq&lang=eng

Sorry, but the 5200 gets owned. In fact, it can't even RUN the game at 1024x768
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/graka/doom3_performance/s05.php

Now, because it has more ram, the 5200 can play it at levels higher than low quality, but not playably.

And how does a new card have a run out warranty? And again, that WASN'T what we were talking about. We were talking about which was faster. The GF3 is, even in the benchmark you just picked.
Click to expand...

As I said, the 5200 has the same muscle as the GF3, it's just more spread out. Probably get better framerates in D3 on a GF3 if you're comparing similar quality settings.
 
Your whole argument is dependant on a theoretical person which does not exist, nor can you, or anyone, prove what the "average consumer" will or will not do.
It's a piece of shit card, which is not worth any amount of money. It's only in retail channels in order to hopefully get impulse buyers, which is why it has words like "ultra" and really high numbers in the name.
 
As a side note, a Radeon 9200 is about 20% faster at Doom 3 than a Geforce 3 Ti200 on timedemo demo1 in an identical system (went from 20 to 24 FPS at 640x480), and since the Geforce 3 Ti200 is pretty definitively faster than a FX 5200, the FX5200 pretty well sucks even by the standards of *cheap* graphics cards.
 
lopoetve said:
I posted a link in the previous thread, pricewatch has them for $75 right now, and that $25 is well worth is.

Pwnt? Hardly. Run a GF3 in that same system, post scores, and we'll go from there. Playability wasn't the question. Which one was faster, is.
Click to expand...
So there isn't a $50 Ti4200. End of argument.

Send me a GF3 and I'll test it. I sold mine a long time ago.
 
I have to upsell people to Geforce 5200's vs. Geforce MX cards all the time. Both are less than $100 and people expect a good gaming experience off of these cards.

Since alot of people don't even know what changing their resolution means a 5200 may suit them just fine. But for anyone that desires a good gaming experience over 640x480 the 5200 is a weak card. A used Ti4600 or even a Ti4200 would be a better bet.

I know some one who tried a Geforce FX 5200 in their system and tried to play UT2004 and KOTOR on a 2.5GHz Celery. He said the 5200 was only marginally faster than his Radeon 7000. After upgrading to a 3.06GHz Pentium 4, he still couldn't get much performance out of it. UT2004 looked like ass and ran like ass even at low settings. 640x480. After throwing in a used Ti4200 for $40 he's able to do 1024x768 and is quite happy.
 
fx5200 was never a good card, its the cheapest, slowest out the geforce fx bunch, and we all know nvidia didn't do too well with fx series.. in performance and sales.

anyway thats the reason fx5200 gets wasted by gf3 thats like 2 years older. don't even compare it to ti4200, etc.. actually in most cases it's very similar to mx440.

but there is another catch, most fx5200s are actually 64bit (not 128bit) and they come way underclocked.. which make the slow card even slower.. and gets wasted by mx440, and even 3year old gf2 gts, pro, ti series will waste it.

so even tho dadumdex claims fx5200 is a great performance card, i totally disagree.
 
pxc said:
So there isn't a $50 Ti4200. End of argument.

Send me a GF3 and I'll test it. I sold mine a long time ago.
Click to expand...

There were, and have been, Ti4200's, new, for $50. End of argument, you're right.

I already posted benchmarks for the base GF3, on a standardized system between cards. It shows the GF3 as faster.
 
lopoetve said:
There were, and have been, Ti4200's, new, for $50. End of argument, you're right.

I already posted benchmarks for the base GF3, on a standardized system between cards. It shows the GF3 as faster.
Click to expand...
lopoetve said:
Kick ass doom3 experience? you just linked to a 5200 Ultra, which is a totally different bird entirely, and can't be found for $50 anywhere.
Click to expand...

Since you can say at one time that a Ti4200 *new* (LOL) was $50, OD has the PNY 5200 Ultra 128MB on clearance for $37. Even I saw one of those this weekend.

I must have missed the benchmarks you posted... all I saw was flaming and links to different sites.
 
pxc said:
Since you can say at one time that a Ti4200 *new* (LOL) was $50, OD has the PNY 5200 Ultra 128MB on clearance for $37. Even I saw one of those this weekend.

I must have missed the benchmarks you posted... all I saw was flaming and links to different sites.
Click to expand...

There's probably a reason it's on clerance for $37. ;)
 
pxc said:
Since you can say at one time that a Ti4200 *new* (LOL) was $50, OD has the PNY 5200 Ultra 128MB on clearance for $37. Even I saw one of those this weekend.

I must have missed the benchmarks you posted... all I saw was flaming and links to different sites.
Click to expand...

Links to different sites would generally be links to proof, thus a benchmark, now wouldn't they? :rolleyes:

Look up a few posts, ’m‚³‚ñ quoted my post to boot.
 
just don't buy FX5200, thats the worst card ever. certainly far worse than GF3 and Ti4200.
n most of them (which are 64bit) get wasted by GF4 MX440.

pls don't listen to dderidex, he is one sad clueless nerd with no life.. imho.

he promotes fx5200 cos thats wat he can afford, he claims the card is lighting fast but i know that totally untrue from my own experiences and benchmarks on the net.

post ur 3dmark scores dderidex so we can all laugh [h]..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top