PDA

View Full Version : I recieved my FX 5200 and the MX 440 outperforms it!


Pages : [1] 2 3

Geforce4ti4200
04-30-03, 04:10 AM
Ok guys this is a sad day for nvidia


Geforce3 ti200 at 175/400......(=6921)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6409372

GeforceFX fx5200 at 250/405......(=5125)


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6408623 ] http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6408623 [/URL]


Geforce4 mx440 at 270/405.......(=5800)


scores were not submitted, but its the true score.


Overclocking:

mx440 did 270/540 only cause I never tried to oc the core
score went to 6230! didnt scale well


ti200 went to 240/500, didnt benchmark yet

fx5200 was clock locked!!!!!!!!!!
when using powerstrip, I adjusted the ram to 420 and when I clicked ok, it went back to 405! ditto with the core! I guess Nvidia did the same thing ati did with their radeon9500s

The fx5200 did run the nature test but got 19fps to the 38fps of the ti200! ouch Nvidia............


quake3 scores at 1600x1200x32 were 44 for the fx5200, 67 for the mx440, 72 for the ti200, all stock clocked. Ouch again Nvidia, the geforce2 GTS gets the same score!


unreal tournament 2003 got me 26fps flyby for the fx5200 against 55fps for the ti500 and I thought ut2003 was cpu intensive! double ouch, Nvidia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


countinued on next post

Geforce4ti4200
04-30-03, 04:11 AM
The final blow came when the fx5200 could not complete 3dmark 2003! OMG! it locked up at frame 82 in the battle of proxycon, while the ti200 stormed thru and dished out 866 marks. I do know I got more fps on my ti200 than the fx5200 before the fx locked. I tried running my cpu stock, didnt help. I used 43.45 drivers too. Boy Nvidia is in terriable shape, ATI's drivers are better at this point than Nvidia's!

Here is a summary:

quake3 1600x1200

ti200=72
mx440=67
fx5200=44

3dmark 2001se

ti200=6921
mx440=5800(If this card was capable of running nature test, I wouldnt
be supprised if it outperformed the ti200!)
fx5200=5125(with the nature test too :eek


ut2003

ti200=45? got 55 on a ti500 in flyby
mx440=didnt run, estimated 40fps
fx5200=26! thats it! 26fps!

3dmark 2003

ti200=866(at stock speed too!)
fx5200(would not complete test! omg!)

retail prices

ti200=$70
fx5200=$120
mx440=$50


The mx440 smokes a fx5200 by a wide margin! the ti200 is about equal to the mx440 with the exception of directX8. The fx5200 is slow and not even totally stable!


Final verdict:

I find it ironic the ti4200 eats the fx5600 ultra by 700 marks while
the smaller brother, the mx440 eats the smaller sister, the fx5200 by the same 700 marks! Add insult to injury is the fx5200 does run the nature test and the mx440 doesnt. Add double insult is the fx5200 is clock locked and finally the fatal blow is the fx5200 cant complete 3dmark2003, and I wouldnt doubt itll crash in many newer games. I had no clue the fx5200 was that slow, the reviews were getting around 7k marks so I was like ok the fx5200 is a ti200 with directX9 so I might as well bite. But no!!!!!!!! Its like a geforce2 GTS with directX9 which is marketing hype for average joes! I, myself am gonna resell the fx5200, seeing a ti200 and even mx440 eat the fx5200 for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

mx440=great card if you can live without directX8 which is a liability for future games

ti200=as fast as the mx440 without the directX 8 liability

fx5200=does support directX9 but is both too slow and buggy!


Nvidia musta been smoking some good "stuff" when they made their fx line.....

fx5200=geforce2 gts
fx5200 ultra=geforce2 ultra
fx5600=ti500
fx5600 ultra=ti4200
fx5800=radeon9700
fx5800 ultra=radeon9700 pro
fx6800=radeon9800 pro

ChrisRay
04-30-03, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
Ok guys this is a sad day for nvidia


Geforce3 ti200 at 175/400......(=6921)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6409372

GeforceFX fx5200 at 250/405......(=5125)


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6408623 ] http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6408623 [/URL]


Geforce4 mx440 at 270/405.......(=5800)


scores were not submitted, but its the true score.


Overclocking:

mx440 did 270/540 only cause I never tried to oc the core
score went to 6230! didnt scale well


ti200 went to 240/500, didnt benchmark yet

fx5200 was clock locked!!!!!!!!!!
when using powerstrip, I adjusted the ram to 420 and when I clicked ok, it went back to 405! ditto with the core! I guess Nvidia did the same thing ati did with their radeon9500s

The fx5200 did run the nature test but got 19fps to the 38fps of the ti200! ouch Nvidia............


quake3 scores at 1600x1200x32 were 44 for the fx5200, 67 for the mx440, 72 for the ti200, all stock clocked. Ouch again Nvidia, the geforce2 GTS gets the same score!


unreal tournament 2003 got me 26fps flyby for the fx5200 against 55fps for the ti500 and I thought ut2003 was cpu intensive! double ouch, Nvidia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


countinued on next post


One thing, Which I am curious about, You say the FX 5200 is clock locked? Thats not what I've been hearing, Try an up to date version of Riva Tuner

Geforce4ti4200
04-30-03, 04:33 AM
I used the latest verson of powerstrip and no go. It ocs all my other cards fine. rivatuner does not work or overclock right. also it wont run 3dmark and is too slow!

Nutty
04-30-03, 07:26 AM
Everyone knows the 5200 is very slow. Its not meant for ppl other than casual games. Why did you even buy it?

StealthHawk
04-30-03, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Nutty
Everyone knows the 5200 is very slow. Its not meant for ppl other than casual games. Why did you even buy it?

Obviously not "everyone" knows that.

Kev1
04-30-03, 10:27 PM
Did not support DX8, could not run the 3D Mark2001 nature test, and was in effect a fast GF2 class card?

ragejg
04-30-03, 10:30 PM
an "ugh" for you, GF4ti4200...

I wanna know your single/multitexturing scores...
Also, you could use gainward's expertool software, plus rivatuner...
You gotta sync the freq's on all 3 gainward, rivatuner, AND display properties... and then run a 3d program... If it backs it down to defaultin or after any of the programs, step down a couple mhz, so on and so forth...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6403842

that's my card around 300/400 or so... I don't remember the exact numbers... I'm still sorely disappointed, though...

Again, LMK your texturing scores... I need to know if anybody else's is giving low results in that category...

Here's my rant thread...
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10660&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

yes I'm having a bad time too... but I thought I was gettin an ultra tho :-l

Kev1
04-30-03, 10:52 PM
Are you still going to send the card back?

ChrisRay
04-30-03, 11:14 PM
I don't believe the card is clock locked tho. There have been no reports as such.

Geforce4ti4200
05-01-03, 12:13 AM
I dont know, but as soon as I move the slider on powerstrip and click "ok" it moves right back to stock and says "do you want to keep those settings", whatever I say it stays at stock. The only thing I can do is move the slider when I click accept it moves back. It never even ocs for a second. I am selling it too.

jAkUp
05-01-03, 12:18 AM
this review of the fx 5200 says you cannot overclock:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-150-1.htm

Lezmaka
05-01-03, 12:29 AM
Here's a review of the same card, and they were able to overclock it via drivers to 293.6/553.5

http://www.boogletech.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=34&page=10

I wonder if all the people who say they can't get it to overclock have tried just using the drivers and coolbits, or the driver overclock in rivatuner.

StealthHawk
05-01-03, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Kev1
Did not support DX8, could not run the 3D Mark2001 nature test, and was in effect a fast GF2 class card?

That's all true.

-=DVS=-
05-01-03, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Nutty
Everyone knows the 5200 is very slow. Its not meant for ppl other than casual games. Why did you even buy it?

What is it meant to be then ? an EyE Candy :lol: it cost twice as much and is slower retail prices
ti200=$70
fx5200=$120
mx440=$50
:rolleyes:

Onde Pik
05-01-03, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Nutty
Everyone knows the 5200 is very slow. Its not meant for ppl other than casual games. Why did you even buy it?


Hmm nope not everyone. Actually far from everyone. I have seen a buyers database in denmark where ALOT of people have been uttering their discontentment. It is the most sold card in Denmark ATM, and reviews of it are pretty scarce. People see the "GeForce FX" and asume it is fast, which is very logical.

Hanners
05-01-03, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Nutty
Everyone knows the 5200 is very slow. Its not meant for ppl other than casual games. Why did you even buy it?

I think it's fair to say that most people assume that a new generation of video card will outperform the same price point of card from the generation that preceeded it.

DSC
05-01-03, 09:46 AM
Is your FX5200 a 128bit mem bus or 64bit one? If it's a 64bit one, no duh, it's only having half the bandwidth of the MX440. 3.2GB, it's practically bandwidth starved.

128bit mem bus FX5200 performs about on par with the 128bit mem bus MX440 afaik.

ragejg
05-01-03, 10:07 PM
kev1:

Yeh, tomorrow it goes back... I'm getting a credit, so since I offered up a gffx5200 on [h] to trade for a ti200 128mb, and I've kept in contact with the person I'm trading with, I'm having computergate (who I bought it from) send this guy an Asus 5200 128mb, which is a few dollars more... I'm not even gonna bother myself with another 5200, even if it is one capable of 700-800MT in single fillrate...

What does this card do that's okay?

UT 4.36
1024x768
all disp. property options on highest quality
2xaa/8xaf
card @ 295/340
...very smooth, lookin good...

that's all I've put on this system that will play nicely with the 5200...

so... it's back in it's box now, while the 2ti holds me over... and for what it's worth, it does a fantastic job... I don't think I'll ever have to put up with *UT2k3@8x6, lowdetail everything* another GF2mx again... whew, thought it'd never end!!:rolleyes:

huh, that's funny... the Gigatexel cards are the bottom bottom end now... (intentional redundancy):D

I'm at a crossroads though...

In a couple days, my Abit KR7A-133RAID arrives, and I might be gettin my 1700 JUICB tbredB back... THis is a perfect combination for a mean OC with a GF3 ti200, which loves high AGP freq's... So I could have a 1700 @ 1.9 or so, and a lean runnin ti200 128mb throwin down 10-11k 3dmark scores (while giving great playability to all existing games)...

So I have this board comin that works great with vidcards that can handle higher agp freq's... sheesh, [OC]_This @ amdforums has run @ 97-100 mhz AGP stable with a ti200 (on his KR7A-133RAID, mind you.... heh heh)!

I need to figure out if any of the newer fx cards that populate the midrange (5200U, 5600, 5600U) can handle that stuff... cuz if not, I need to plan on re-sellin that abit board (my gigabyte's been thru too much crap, gotta keep it till death... makes GREAT HTPC if I can hurry up and get my darn broke 8500AIW DV RMA'ed) and get a Soltek nforce2 or something else that positively feels like a step up from kt266a...

Well, anyways, more input from me on the 5200 on the next post... man, I hate having to break this thing out, but it's been a while... Run for the hills, folks... :D

dpollard55
05-01-03, 10:53 PM
My 5200 outperforms my old MX 440, then again I have to run the PCI version and run at 1024x768 so that might be why. Games that run faster on the 5200 for me.... Black Hawk Down (finally I can max out the settings!), RTCW, Max Payne, America's Army, Nascar 2002, and WWE Raw. That's all I've tested so far, and the image quality alone was worth the upgrade! I didn't have any problems with 3dmark 03 at all and ran through all the tests just fine, although most were kinda slow but I expected that all things considered (PCI bus remember). It was either the 5200 or a Radeon 9100, and I think I chose wisely. That mx440 had to go though! I'm quite happy so far with my 5200, and am sorry to here you are not.

Dazz
05-02-03, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by DSC
Is your FX5200 a 128bit mem bus or 64bit one? If it's a 64bit one, no duh, it's only having half the bandwidth of the MX440. 3.2GB, it's practically bandwidth starved.

128bit mem bus FX5200 performs about on par with the 128bit mem bus MX440 afaik. It's 64MB so i would say 64bit, he got f****d royal style :o

Vamp Do not circumvent the swear filter

Lucien1964
05-02-03, 06:00 PM
Get a 9500 or a 9700.End of problems. :)

sebazve
05-03-03, 01:22 PM
lol imagine playing a dx9 game with this crap...
doesnt new generations of cards suppose to be faster at their respective price ranges with the last one..? :rolleyes:

DSC
05-03-03, 01:27 PM
http://www.penstarsys.com/Reviews/video/leadtek/fx5200/a340tdh_4.htm


NVIDIA is reporting that with the current drivers, Trilinear filtering takes a performance hit due to the driver applying some debugging code to the process. NVIDIA states that in the next series of drivers this debugging will go away, which should help texture filtering performance to a great degree.

ragejg
05-03-03, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by ragejg
Well, anyways, more input from me on the 5200 on the next post... man, I hate having to break this thing out, but it's been a while... Run for the hills, folks... :D

sorry folks, couldn't find my pic of the Palit Daytona GF2MX400 128mb ... :rolleyes: :D:D:p