View Full Version : FX 5200 performance problems!!

Pages : [1] 2

01-04-04, 12:08 AM
I bought a Geforce FX 5200 128mb.
I have 512mb of DDR
P4 2.53ghz

In Call of Duty, I get very low fps, like 15-30. People say it should be up around 75-100.

Its really annoying and choppy. Is my card the problem? I have heard its a very crappy, low end FX card, and that a Geforce 4 Ti beats its pants off.

If this is the case, I will buy a 5600. But before I do that i wanna know if theres any hope :|

Im running CoD at 1024x768 Normal detail.

Ive also used nvidia hardpage.

01-04-04, 12:53 AM
I think your performance problem is that you have a 5200... :p

Seriously though, I'm not sure what your problem is, but I don't think you should be getting 75-100 anyway--more in the 50fps range, I think. Might you have any quality features on you're forgetting about?

01-04-04, 12:55 AM

heres the kicker

lowering options or resolution doesnt even help at all. Still stays the same crap.

Screw this POS 5200, I guess I will buy something better and RMA this junk:mad:

01-04-04, 01:00 AM
aye dude you probly got the 64 bit version i remember i got a asus fx 5200 it was soo slow it got 4000 3d marks, my mx 440 beat the crap outta it

01-04-04, 01:06 AM
128mb ddr

400mhz memory speed, 250 core.

Still sucks. I tried o/cing. More crap.

Im getting a new one asap, and Newegg can have this hunk of ass back.

01-04-04, 09:12 AM
stay away from the 5200. You probably paid what, about $80? Save your money and you can score a MUCH better 5900SE for $189 or a 5900NU for about $225. I pretty much have the same specs as you and CoD blazes on my system with all details turned up.

01-04-04, 09:20 AM
people seem to forget that the 5200 is a entry-level graphiccard which basically means it is meant for normal desktop usage (Internet, Text processing or whatever applications) and is NOT meant for "normal" gaming performance... even casual gamer should stay away from it. Think of the 5200 as a on-board videocard, not more.

If you plan on playing games more than once a week but don't want to spent 400-500 for a high-end card then buy a 5600,5700 or Radeon 9500,9600 but mind the 5200!

Vunley Long
01-04-04, 12:19 PM
OK dood, the 5200 should be able to run that game well, because if my friends MX440 can run it, you should be able to also. My advice would to be turn of VSync in the OpenGL settings. Though you will get visual "rips", you get an extremely high framerat. My eVGA e-GeForce 5900 can rock pretty much any game (brag) :afro: .

01-05-04, 02:40 PM
the 5200 clearly must be the 64bit memory bus version if your performance is THAT bad, because the rest of yoru specs sound good.

Ge a 5900SE for $188 instead from newegg. If you cant afford that, dont go any lower than the FX5700 for $148.

You mentioned the FX5600, don't get it. It's about on par with the GF3TI, assuming you don't get the crappy 64bit version of that card. A 5600Ultra for $130 isn't too bad, but for only $18 more the FX5700 is MUCH better.

01-05-04, 02:48 PM
you got the 64-bit version. you card, i bet, is really narrow. i had one of thiose and it sucked. so i rma'd it and got a 5700 ultra for $151. and i overcloked the ehck uot of it. it works great for Call of Duty.

01-05-04, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by zoomy942
...5700 ultra for $151...

Where did you find the 5700 Ultra for that price? Are you sure it wasn't a FX5700 non-ultra?

01-05-04, 03:33 PM
lol. sorry about that, i should be more clear. i got it off a friend that was getting a 5950. my brother has a non ultra 5700, and it is overclocked to well past 5700 ultra and it is a screamer! i might get one and overclock it to get away from the ddr 2 latencies

01-05-04, 03:52 PM
My god

It is NOT the 64mb version.
It is the 128.

Stop telling me its the 64, i know what I bought and its the 128.


Thats exactly what I bought and I bought it from them.

Yes, PCI bus as I bought a new Dell and no AGP slot.

I have decided to go with the Radeon 9100 (visiontek) as its on the same par as the GF5600.

01-05-04, 03:56 PM
noone here meant that it was 64 megs of video memory. what we all meant was that you had a 64-bit memory bus. and by looking at your card, i bet you did. its not the memory that hurt your stuff, it was the narrrow 64-bit memory channel your card had. most mid range and budget range have 128 bit, upper end has 256-bit. 64-bit is never ever a good idea.

01-05-04, 03:58 PM
We're not talking about 64 vs. 128 megabytes of memory. We're talking about the memory interface - 64-bit vs. 128-bit. A 128-bit memory bus is wider and allows for things like better fill rate and so forth.

Cards that use a 64-bit memory interface are worthless. They're pretty much on-par with TNT2-class cards in terms of performance.

01-05-04, 06:36 PM
heres what it says on the box

Graphics Core: 256-bit

Memory Interface - 128bit

Vertices/sec - 63million

Pixels per clock - 4

Ramdacs - 400

I dont see any mention of 64-bit...but, judging by those specs you'd think it would be half decent? Its pitiful.

01-06-04, 01:01 AM
Hmm, it does appear to be the 128 bit version, but your performence is still far below what it SHOULD be. Even a GF3 runs it at around 40-50 FPS, and a GF3 is roughly the same speed as an FX5200. However it's very odd that adjusting details doesn't help...have you set your AGP Arpature in the BIOS to 128 megs or higher? Also it may help to install updated AGP drivers for your motherboard (for example the Via 4-in-1s for a Via board, etc.).

01-06-04, 05:58 AM
do you have AA/AF enabled? That might be slowing it down a lot.

01-06-04, 08:31 AM
someone i built a pc for has a 5200 and has the drivers (the most recent) set at high performance and no AA or AF and he has Call of Duty playing wonderfully (not like my overclocked 5700, brag) and he ahs all the settings turned up in the game at 1024x768.

01-06-04, 11:46 AM

I was gonna buy a different video card, but instead im gonna take my shot at console gaming for awhile.

Thanks for the tips guys :)

01-06-04, 04:52 PM
Yeah, I've found myself focusing more on console games lately. Recently most of the good games I've played are either on consoles exclusively or are on both PC and console (PoP:SoT, DX:IW, Max Payne 2, KOTOR, etc.). But it depends on what you're looking for, a while ago I considered getting a 9800 card for $300, but then I realised I could buy an entire new system with a dozen or so games for the price of upgrading my computer.

Sorry you still can't fix your problem. It seems like there's some bottleneck in the rest of the system, rather then your video card (since lowering resolution and details doesn't seem to help). Maybe a reformat would help?

01-06-04, 05:01 PM

Reformatted. No good. This card is poopy.

01-06-04, 05:41 PM
get BFG 5900 non-ultra non-SE for only $184

01-06-04, 05:43 PM
Guess you havent been keeping up with me

Im stuck with PCI bus for now.

Im buying an Xbox :P

01-06-04, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by ClearDark
Guess you havent been keeping up with me

Im stuck with PCI bus for now.

Im buying an Xbox :P

Xbox is a PC anyway.......:P