Radeon 9250 vs FX5200?

E

eeeeeeeeeeeeee

n00b
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
50
The choice of value cards available where I live is very limited. Between the Radeon 9250 and FX5200, which is better?

The radeon is $48, and the fx5200 is $57.
 
the fx5200.. it had directx 9.0 and the 9250 does not... and u can overclock the 5200 pretty well too...
 
256 MB Radeon 9200

=

Wing.jpg
 
Out of those two get the 9250. Whatever people here tell you, i've tried both the 9200 and 5200. The 9200 clocks higher (percentage wise) and benchmark better. the 9250 s better than the 9200.
 
All this fuss make me feel lucky i didn't learn about the ATI 9xxx series and the Nvidia FX series... Seems they are the most confusing release of all.
 
most of the time the 9x00 are faster then the FX if i had to get a low end card id look at a 9600np or a used 9600Pro or XT but thats me
 
Killdozer said:
Looks like someone needs to do their homework :D
Click to expand...

touche. Compare apples to apples. Check the benchmarks for a 9250 (128 bit) vs a 9200. Early 9250's are 64 bit.
 
"Conclusion

Based on the results in the benchmarks taken on the three cards (9250, 9200, fx5200), with a street price of 50-55 dollars, the 9250 is the best card in its class. It delivers all its promises and is capable of handling new games at low settings, without having to spend big bucks for a high-end card. We at eXtreme Hardware rate the PowerColor 9250 an Editor's Choice for being the best Budget Graphics Card."
 
Both cards should be quietly shot and put out of their misery.

Seriously, it wouldn't really matter which card you get because they aren't gaming cards and are meant for business users. I think the 92xx series is cheaper hence go with that.
 
Go with most of the posters in this thread, rather than the those who must differ just to be unique.

The FX5200 is the better of those two choices. Not that it's a GREAT choice, but it's the better of the two.

eeeeeeeeeeeeee said:
Got to enjoy modern versioning. A 4600 is faster than 5200 and a 9200 is faster than a 9250.
Click to expand...

Even moreso. A 4200 is faster than a 5200. And a 9200 is faster than a 9250. And a 9100 is faster than a 9200. And an 8500 is faster than a 9100.

:rolleyes:
 
dderidex said:
Go with most of the posters in this thread, rather than the those who must differ just to be unique.

The FX5200 is the better of those two choices. Not that it's a GREAT choice, but it's the better of the two.
Click to expand...


true that, I have a OCed FX5200 in my linux box, runs sweet.
if you are running windows, you can go to www.guru3d.com and download coolbits to OC it

;)
 
According to the big comparison guide posted up at Adrian's Rojak Pot, the 9250 is only different from the 9200 in GPU clock speed (240MHz vs 250MHz, respectively). Whether the 9250 has a 64-bit or 128-bit memory interface is up to the manufacturers.
 
dderidex said:
Go with most of the posters in this thread, rather than the those who must differ just to be unique.

The FX5200 is the better of those two choices. Not that it's a GREAT choice, but it's the better of the two.



Even moreso. A 4200 is faster than a 5200. And a 9200 is faster than a 9250. And a 9100 is faster than a 9200. And an 8500 is faster than a 9100.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LOL that coming from someone who worships fx5200.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=812529
 
Chaballaman said:
LOL that coming from someone who worships fx5200.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=812529
Click to expand...
Funny you only quote MY post and not everyone else in the thread supporting the FX5200. Or, did you not notice that the GENERAL OPINION by MULTIPLE PEOPLE is that the FX5200 isn't the crap card you seem to think it is?

Plan on growing up sometime Chab, or are you just mad because you were late for the short bus today?
 
LOL, I don't understand why people think the 5200 is crap, it's an okay card but your not going to be pulling massive <insert brain-dead 'lite speak> FPS in Farcry at <insert more brain dead shit> resolution. The 5200 performs like a GF4 MX but it uses the tech from Nv's FX line unlike the GF4 MX. It was never meant to compete with 9800 Pros and such. :rolleyes:
Plus they're not bad for HTPCs if you have an SDTV.

Out of those two card it is probably the better of the two, unless your willing to spent more for a 9600 NP/Pro (around $95).
dderidex said:
Funny you only quote MY post and not everyone else in the thread supporting the FX5200. Or, did you not notice that the GENERAL OPINION by MULTIPLE PEOPLE is that the FX5200 isn't the crap card you seem to think it is?

Plan on growing up sometime Chab, or are you just mad because you were late for the short bus today?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top