PDA

View Full Version : 5200 FX vs. TI 4200


Pages : [1] 2

Kev Payne
05-31-03, 01:01 PM
Which card is better here? A
GeForce 4 TI 4200 128MB or a
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB?

volt
05-31-03, 01:02 PM
FX 5200 is basically MX family. Don't bother, get a Ti4200 :)

digitalwanderer
05-31-03, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by volt
FX 5200 is basically MX family. Don't bother, get a Ti4200 :)

Yup. :)

Lfctony
05-31-03, 01:09 PM
The 5200 offers DX9 support but what good is that if you play at 8FPS? Get a 4200, that card competes with the 5600Ultra, much faster than a 5200.

Zeno
05-31-03, 01:59 PM
The answer to your question depends on what you're looking for in a new graphics card. Everyone here seems to really hate the 5200, but I think it's a great card for the price.

The 5200FX is NOT an "MX" card. The "MX" cards in the GeForce4 series are really glorified GeForce2's as far as D3D support goes. The 5200, however, has the same capabilities as all of the other FX cards.

I have a 5200 in my second computer and am extremely happy with it. Although I don't primarily use it for gaming, it can play Quake III at 1024x768 at around 100fps and this is on a PIII-450. Plus it sounds like you're talking about the ultra version, which is even faster.

So, here's the way to decide based on what you're looking for:

If you want to play current (DX8 and below) games as fast as possible for the money, go with the 4200.

If you don't want to upgrade to run some next gen games later, get the 5200. As people said, though, it will be slow on these games.

If you want to be able to see all of the nvidia demos, including Dawn, get the 5200.

If you are a developer and want to play around with the pixel shaders, get the 5200. This is my situation.

If you want the quietest possible PC, get the 5200 (the plain version has no fan).

Anyway, I think the 5200 has quite a bit going for it. Don't overlook it completely.

-- Zeno

Kev Payne
05-31-03, 02:32 PM
Yes, the card im talking about is the 5200 Ultra version

Lfctony
05-31-03, 02:50 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797

Read the above article, you'll see that the 5200, Ultra or not isn't really worth your time.

reever2
05-31-03, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Zeno

it can play Quake III at 1024x768 at around 100fps and this is on a PIII-450.

Thats not that great of an accomplishment, even my old voodoo2 can play it ~40fps using glide and a P2-350

Zeno
05-31-03, 03:20 PM
Thats not that great of an accomplishment, even my old voodoo2 can play it ~40fps using glide and a P2-350

My point wasn't so much that this is a major feat, only that games of that level are perfectly playable with the card.

Kev Payne
05-31-03, 03:22 PM
Ive decided to stick with my wifes TI 4200, just not worth the upgrade (unless I wanted to tell friends that I had an FX, and that isnt worth it)

EDLIM
05-31-03, 04:54 PM
I don't want any flamming - but for those who never have tried the 5200 ULTRA yet...it is better than the reviews says. I have one and I am happy with it.

I don't give a **** on those reviews, but based on my experience, it is a good budget card.

StealthHawk
06-01-03, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by Zeno
My point wasn't so much that this is a major feat, only that games of that level are perfectly playable with the card.

The gfFX5200 non-ultra is in many situations slower than the gf4mx. Just thought I would point that out, that is why people are calling it part of the "MX" line.

Yes, the gfFX5200Ultra is much faster than the non-ultra, but it still isn't as good as the gf4Ti4200 IMO. It's not faster in current games, and it will most likely be too slow in future games.

EDLIM
06-01-03, 05:44 PM
Wheither you have a 9800 ultra, 9700 PRO or 5900 Ultra or superman of a card , there is still one factor to consider. Your raw processing speed and bus makes the end pieces of the big puzzle.

Nv40
06-02-03, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Lfctony
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797

Read the above article, you'll see that the 5200, Ultra or not isn't really worth your time.


thats a very old article...


http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=22

at 1024x768 -> and average of 37fps is more than enough to play doom3 without a hitch.

contrary to most people speculations and beliefs ,Nvidia Fx5200 ultra and non ultra will be able to play directx9 games not at 8frames but at playable
framerates.. unless GAme developers want to lose money ,
you can be sure that THose cards will play those game just fine ,but obviously not at the maximmun possible settings. that card dont exist yet

gamers that bitch about the Fx5200 not only are spreading false information to the public but shooting themselves in their foots ,since
the faster Directx9 cards fill the lowend market ,the faster we will see those games .. this is why i like so much 3dmark2003 :rolleyes:
they get 8 frames in that demo. and panic about the performance of Fx cards.. later you see the cards doing just fine in future games.

however upgrading from a Geforce4ti200 to a fx5200ultra is not exactly
a big upgrade ,since the Geforce4 is extremely capable when no using AA/AF to its maximun settings.and there will no pure directx9 games in many years , but upgrading from a Geforce1/2/3 or MX is a diferent situation. from a geforce4ti200 ,i will better go to something like a Geforcefx 5600ultra ( 400/400).

Lfctony
06-02-03, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Nv40
thats a very old article...





Old article or not, the card is simply too slow.Its one of the few articles comparing the cards directly, and simply put, DX9 or not it eats the 4200's dust.The card is comparable to the 9000 Pro for crying out loud!


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/nv31-nv34_11.html <------ You call that performance? :rofl

**EDIT** Read this thread as well!

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11024

Cotita
06-02-03, 11:51 AM
I think the 5200 is a nice budget card, a great buy for its intended market.

the non ultra is as fast or faster than a geforce4 mx440 with the newest drivers.

It can't compete with the ti4200 in anyway. But then again its not supposed to.

If you want to play at high resolutions with AA/AF, then you are looking at the wrong card.

jAkUp
06-02-03, 11:55 AM
in the latest pcgamer the geforcefx 5200 got a 90%:rolleyes: and the 5600 got a lower score... i think they got their numbers mixed up... i enjoy their game reviews, but their hardware reviews are a joke:rolleyes:

PreservedSwine
06-02-03, 03:01 PM
FX5200ULTRA vs Ti4200...

If they're the same price, I'd grab the FX5200ULTRA....

Slarty
06-02-03, 07:31 PM
I want a cheap video card to replace my Voodoo 3 , I was considering a ti4200 until I read the following links , is this accurate ? :

1st the usual "ti4200 scores better than FX5200" stuff :
http://www.pctechzone.co.uk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=25&page=4

Then some info that may actually be useful to me (is this page accurate ?) :
http://www.pctechzone.co.uk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=25&page=5

Ghost Recon :
"It is also one up on my GeForce 4 Ti4200 card. On my GeForce 4 card I have to run it in 1024x768x16 and knock the terrain detail and enemy character detail down a level to get the game running 100% smooth. However with this FX card I can run it in 1024x768x32 and every single detail set to maximum and it runs it without any effort at all."

Jedi Knight 2 :
"I had a few minor problems running it (with GF4) and at times I had to knock the resolution and detail down to get it 100% smooth. However the Inno3D GeForce FX 5200 runs this game better than my GeForce 4 card. I had every detail setting set to maximum and was running it with 32 bit colour and also buffer. Again it ran the game without any pressure whatsoever on the card."

Unreal 2 :
" GeForce FX 5200 can run it in 1024x768x32 and virtually all the detail settings on Ultra High without even getting a sweat on ! Whilst running this on the Ti4200 alot of the time in certain areas of the game I had to knock the resolution down to 800x600x16, shadows off and some of the other settings on low to get it running 100% smooth. As you can see from the pics also, image quality is amazing and the colour is very vivid."

So what good are the higher benchmark scores of the ti4200 if it chokes during game play ?
Where can I find more FX5200 user opinions , review links , etc that go beyond the average tests that really don't tell me what I want to know ?
Thanks in advance for any input .

c4c
06-02-03, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Zeno
it can play Quake III at 1024x768 at around 100fps and this is on a PIII-450.

Is that fps number from a timedemo?

Zeno
06-03-03, 12:42 AM
Slarty:

I'd be surprised if the regular 5200 could beat a Ti4200 in any games that the 4200 can run. Take those numbers with a lot of salt. I haven't actually run benchmarks, but I have used both cards and the 4200 "feels" faster.

C4C:

Is that fps number from a timedemo?

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have thrown out a number like that. It's just based on my futzing around in single player mode and taking an occasional glance at the frame rate counter. This was from a game with one bot at 1024x768, 32 bit color, all internal settings like geometry and texture detail maxed, no AA, no AF.

Edge
06-03-03, 05:02 AM
I think most people are a bit to critical about speed. Overall I think a TI4200 will be a bit faster then a FX5200, but with DX9 support and half the retail cost, it's really good. If you already have a TI4200 I wouldn't bother, but if you are upgrading from another card I'd say get the FX5200. Actually, I saw a dual-VGA with S-video FX5200 card in Bestbuy the other day for only $100! You really can't beat that price-to-performence ratio. Speed is always good, but if you're looking for a card in the $150-$200 range I'd pick up a Radeon 9500, those seem to be pretty fast.

StealthHawk
06-03-03, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Edge
I think most people are a bit to critical about speed. Overall I think a TI4200 will be a bit faster then a FX5200, but with DX9 support and half the retail cost, it's really good. If you already have a TI4200 I wouldn't bother, but if you are upgrading from another card I'd say get the FX5200. Actually, I saw a dual-VGA with S-video FX5200 card in Bestbuy the other day for only $100! You really can't beat that price-to-performence ratio. Speed is always good, but if you're looking for a card in the $150-$200 range I'd pick up a Radeon 9500, those seem to be pretty fast.

I think "a bit faster" is an understatement. The gf4mx is "a bit faster" than the gfFX5200. Unless we are talking about the Ultra here. If you didn't have a gf4 I might recommend the gfFX5200Ultra...but I think those are overpriced and anyone would be better off with a gfFX5600 or r9500/r9600.

The gfFX5200 is far to slow at DX9 functions to ever be able to play DX9 games. Sad, but true. It's unfortunate because otherwise the gfFX5200 would be a great low end card.

Mandarb1
06-03-03, 10:22 AM
So what is the best low-end card then for current gen games?

ragejg
06-03-03, 11:08 AM
If you have ability to trade up with friends, or if you go to hardware trading forums, you can get a GF3 ti200 for $50 - $65...

GREAT DEAL!!

Radeon 8500's are find-able fro $60-$75, and they're nice, too...

Those are my pics for low end cards for CURRENT games...

:)