FX5200, should it be this bad?

I have one word for the 5200.....crapola!!!
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

"PRIVATE1964" <private1964 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040717170049.04299.00001776@mb-m15.aol.com...
 > I have one word for the 5200.....crapola!!!

....And it seems you have a 5200 with 64bit mem acess, as a regular model
with 128bit (that would cost the same! 64bit versions are simply a plague)
should outperform your gf2 and almost be on pair with a gf3.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

"Red Activist" <Red.RemoveThis@ctivistREMOVE.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cdc2r3$fg$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
 > OK I know the 5200 is not exactly top-of-the-range and it didnt cost me a
 > lot, but with figures like 10 FPS it is frankly unusable, I really cant
see
 > how Nvidia can still sell a card that is vastly slower than one they were
 > selling 4 years ago, hell I have a 3dFX 5500 in the cupboard upstairs that
 > beats it hands-down.

You have learnt a very universally important lesson: Always do some
backgroud research before spending money!!! (especially if you care much
about money that is...) With the internet at your hands nowadays it should
be a piece of cake for you to get quick accurate info <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

The Ti4200 has a MUCH faster clock rate than the slowww FX5200. The 5200 is
the current entry level (slowww) card from Nvidia and is pretty much agreed
to be a waste of money for gamers.
(However, the 4200 is NOT DX9 capable, while the 5200 is.)

--
DaveW



"Red Activist" <Red RemoveThis @ctivistREMOVE.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cdc2r3$fg$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
 > I recently made a P4 3.0 computer, the place was out of 5700 ultras so I
got
 > a Geforce FX5200 128mb, I figured it would still be on a par or better
than
 > the 2 year old TI 4200 I had in the previous system.
 >
 > Imagine my surprise to see GTA3(old game with a 700mhz + 16mb D3D card
 > recommended) running like a slide show on the new computer, I proceeded to
 > run the game X2-the threat in benchmark mode to compare the new computer
to
 > the old one(athlon 2800 with the TI 4200):
 >
 > Old Athlon with 4200TI - 53 frames per second
 > New P4 3.0 with FX 5200 - 10 FPS
 >
 > I went through the normal procedure of reintalling direct x, getting new
 > drivers etc, totally convinced something was seriously wrong but it seems
 > this really is how bad the 5200 is!!, I swapped the cards and the Athlon
 > performed just as badly with the 5200, infact either computer with the
5200
 > was half as fast as my daughters Athlon 1000 with a GF2 ultra.
 >
 > OK I know the 5200 is not exactly top-of-the-range and it didnt cost me a
 > lot, but with figures like 10 FPS it is frankly unusable, I really cant
see
 > how Nvidia can still sell a card that is vastly slower than one they were
 > selling 4 years ago, hell I have a 3dFX 5500 in the cupboard upstairs that
 > beats it hands-down.
 >
 > Anyone else have the misfortune to have owned one of these "video cards"?,
 > are they supposed to be this bad?
 >
 > Note the use of the past-tense as I cant believe anyone who plays games
more
 > demanding than minesweeper still uses one
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

"Red Activist" <Red.TakeThisOut@ctivistREMOVE.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia:

 > I recently made a P4 3.0 computer, the place was out of 5700 ultras so
 > I got a Geforce FX5200 128mb, I figured it would still be on a par or
 > better than the 2 year old TI 4200 I had in the previous system.
 >
 > Imagine my surprise to see GTA3(old game with a 700mhz + 16mb D3D card
 > recommended) running like a slide show on the new computer, I
 > proceeded to run the game X2-the threat in benchmark mode to compare
 > the new computer to the old one(athlon 2800 with the TI 4200):
 >
 > Old Athlon with 4200TI - 53 frames per second
 > New P4 3.0 with FX 5200 - 10 FPS
 >
 > I went through the normal procedure of reintalling direct x, getting
 > new drivers etc, totally convinced something was seriously wrong but
 > it seems this really is how bad the 5200 is!!, I swapped the cards and
 > the Athlon performed just as badly with the 5200, infact either
 > computer with the 5200 was half as fast as my daughters Athlon 1000
 > with a GF2 ultra.
 >
 > OK I know the 5200 is not exactly top-of-the-range and it didnt cost
 > me a lot, but with figures like 10 FPS it is frankly unusable, I
 > really cant see how Nvidia can still sell a card that is vastly slower
 > than one they were selling 4 years ago, hell I have a 3dFX 5500 in the
 > cupboard upstairs that beats it hands-down.
 >
 > Anyone else have the misfortune to have owned one of these "video
 > cards"?, are they supposed to be this bad?
 >
 > Note the use of the past-tense as I cant believe anyone who plays
 > games more demanding than minesweeper still uses one



A 1969 Lamborghini Miura eats any 2004 Kia for breakfast. You can't
compare apples and oranges - an old high(er) end card with a newer low
end card.

A short info spree around Internet would have given you that info.

The FX5200 is a low end card and not suited for regular gamers who need
high frame rates, fast refresh rates and lots of tiny details at high
rez recalculated every nanosecond.
It is an excellent budget choice for the user who plays a casual game
with resolution not set too high. Remember that "PC user" doesn't equal
"gamer".

Instead of gloating over bad performance of the card, one could gloat
over your bad performance on etting info and choosing a suitable card
for your specs before buying one.


--
CeeBee


"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

private1964.DeleteThis@aol.com (PRIVATE1964) wrote in
alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia:

 > I have one word for the 5200.....crapola!!!

Why is that? Is this card known for its high failure rate? Does it have
many defect components? Does it show images upside down? In the wrong
colors? Does it show DVD films in the wrong order? Does it often break
in two? I have never read or heard about such deficiencies of the
FX5200.

A lot of people using a text editor, an internet browser, a mail client
and a media player to play some tiny flicks on their PC's use video
onboards without even having the need of something more. For them a 5200
is even a luxury they don't need.

Don't think _your_ preferred PC use is the standard in PC-users land.
And only call a product "crapola" when you can backup your claims.

--
CeeBee


"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

Want to know why it's crapola?

Because it's deceptive in the way it is being sold.
It's very easy for someone to go into a store and see "5200" and think its
better then a card they bought a couple of years before because it's newer.
They shouldn't have to do any research to expect that it will be better. Nvidia
has done the same thing before with the Geforce 4 MX. You think your getting a
DirectX 8 card because all the other Geforce 4 cards are, but in fact your only
getting DirectX 7 which is beaten by a DirectX8 Geforce3.

Yes, the card is known for it's crappy performance do some searching.

If you spent any money on a 5200 then I feel sorry for you. You could have
taken that same money and purchased a lot more performance.
Let me guess you have a 5200?
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

 > Anyone else have the misfortune to have owned one of these "video cards"?,
 > are they supposed to be this bad?
 >
 > Note the use of the past-tense as I cant believe anyone who plays games
more
 > demanding than minesweeper still uses one

They're really that bad. Friend had a 64bit MSI FX5200 installed on a dual
channel Barton XP3200+ with a gig of RAM. 3DMark01 score.....6400. The only
one worth having is the FX5200 Ultra.....which still gets it's ass kicked by
a Ti4200 of any kind. The plain 128bit FX5200's performance is barely above
the standard Radeon 9200 series, itself a bottom feeder. The lowest FX card
I'd touch is the 5700 Ultra.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

"Augustus" <tiberius.TakeThisOut@weeik.com> wrote in message
news:OBkKc.43577$iw3.20604@clgrps13
  >> Anyone else have the misfortune to have owned one of these "video
  >> cards"?, are they supposed to be this bad?
  >>
  >> Note the use of the past-tense as I cant believe anyone who plays games
  >> more demanding than minesweeper still uses one
 >
 > They're really that bad. Friend had a 64bit MSI FX5200 installed on a dual
 > channel Barton XP3200+ with a gig of RAM. 3DMark01 score.....6400.
.....

This is a tad more than my G4 MX4400 - I get around 6000-6100 on my TB
XP2200+

St.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

"Red Activist" <Red.DeleteThis@ctivistREMOVE.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cdc2r3$fg$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
 > I recently made a P4 3.0 computer, the place was out of 5700 ultras so I
got
 > a Geforce FX5200 128mb, I figured it would still be on a par or better
than
 > the 2 year old TI 4200 I had in the previous system.
 >
 > Imagine my surprise to see GTA3(old game with a 700mhz + 16mb D3D card
 > recommended) running like a slide show on the new computer, I proceeded to
 > run the game X2-the threat in benchmark mode to compare the new computer
to
 > the old one(athlon 2800 with the TI 4200):
 >
 > Old Athlon with 4200TI - 53 frames per second
 > New P4 3.0 with FX 5200 - 10 FPS


Considering that teh FX5200 is the newer version of the GF4 MX420, what more
did you expect?

About the only difference between the GF4 MX 420 and the FX5200 is DX9
support on the FX. The FX5200 is their lowest card in their current
offerings.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

"PRIVATE1964" <private1964.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040717214225.11415.00001110@mb-m23.aol.com...
 > Want to know why it's crapola?
 >
 > Because it's deceptive in the way it is being sold.

Not at all...the clock speeds and memory bandwith specs are printed clearly
on the packaging or in the descriptions for the people that cant be bothered
to leave their houses to purchase.
Every website that has benchmarks clearly show what cards perform well for
3d games and what cards should strictly be used for 2D service.




 > It's very easy for someone to go into a store and see "5200" and think its
 > better then a card they bought a couple of years before because it's
newer.
 > They shouldn't have to do any research to expect that it will be better.
Nvidia
 > has done the same thing before with the Geforce 4 MX. You think your
getting a
 > DirectX 8 card because all the other Geforce 4 cards are, but in fact your
only
 > getting DirectX 7 which is beaten by a DirectX8 Geforce3.
 >
 > Yes, the card is known for it's crappy performance do some searching.
 >
 > If you spent any money on a 5200 then I feel sorry for you. You could have
 > taken that same money and purchased a lot more performance.
 > Let me guess you have a 5200?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

private1964.DeleteThis@aol.com (PRIVATE1964) wrote in
alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia:

 > Want to know why it's crapola?
 >
 > Because it's deceptive in the way it is being sold.
 > It's very easy for someone to go into a store and see "5200" and think
 > its better then a card they bought a couple of years before because
 > it's newer.

Your logic is flawed, as I already explained in another answer in this
thread with the 1969 Lamborghini Miura and the 2004 Kia comparison. If Kia
markets a new model for 2005, you automatically assume it's better and
faster then every older car just because it's newer?
No wonder your consumer info sound more like static.


 > They shouldn't have to do any research to expect that it
 > will be better.

They should. Why would someone expect something to be better without
properly looking at specs and buying blindfold? Your logic evades me.
Imagine doing that with a processor. Intel presenting a new low end
processor for simple home users - and mr. private1964 will immediately buy
it, because it's newer than all others, so it will be faster.


 > Nvidia has done the same thing before with the Geforce
 > 4 MX. You think your getting a DirectX 8 card because all the other
 > Geforce 4 cards are, but in fact your only getting DirectX 7 which is
 > beaten by a DirectX8 Geforce3.
 >
 > Yes, the card is known for it's crappy performance do some searching.


That sounds like you're giving an answer to my question, but it isn't. The
card is low performance, and not suited for a gaming system. And there's
_no_ doubt about that.

But I didn't ask you about performance. I asked you about durability and
proper functioning.
You have no proof that the card is mechanically unsound or doesn't
function properly.
You just bloated that the card is "crapola", and can't discern performance
from durability and proper functioning.



 > If you spent any money on a 5200 then I feel sorry for you. You could
 > have taken that same money and purchased a lot more performance.
 > Let me guess you have a 5200?

Derived from your logic about buying stuff and researching, you bought one
yourself, put it in your PC, showed your buddies "I have a new card, so
it's better than all older cards", and they laughed you in the face when
they found out you only had the money to buy a low end card and found you
were stuck with a FX5200. And instead of thinking "I should have been
paying more attention to what I bought" you thought "It's not my fault,
it's the FX5200's fault".

Given the low price and specs there are few if no competitors. The FX5200
is a low budget low end card.

People come here for proper information. Give _proper_ information,
instead of opening your mouth just to let out some random noises.



--
CeeBee


EMH Mark I: "Stop breathing down my neck."
EMH Mark II: "My breath is merely a simulation."
EMH Mark I: "So is my neck. Stop it anyway."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad? 

 >1969 Lamborghini Miura and the 2004 Kia comparison


Your reasoning makes no sense. Were not talking about comparing a high
performance auto to a family car. We are talking about graphic cards in the
same family of graphic cards.

How would you feel if you bought that 1969 Lamborghini only to find out it had
a 4 cylinder engine in it when you got it home?


 >They should. Why would someone expect something to be better without
 >properly looking at specs and buying blindfold?

Because we are talking about computer hardware and someone should resonably
expect a performance boost when they upgrade to a newer model.
Not eveone should have to do a ton of research to expect that either.

 >The
 >card is low performance, and not suited for a gaming system. And there's
 >_no_ doubt about that.
 >

Thats why I called it crappy. If you don't care about performance then why
spend the money on it? Get a 16Meg TNT.

 >I asked you about durability and
 >proper functioning.

I never said it didn't function properly or wasn't durable. Thats not the
biggest reason someone would be buying it for. They would be buying it for
performance.


OK let me say this very slowly so you will understand.

It's crapola for it's "performance".

What are you a Nvidia employee?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FX5200, should it be this bad?