PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone explain this to an old 3DFX Guy?


T-Bird
05-19-04, 10:29 PM
Hey, as you can probrably tell from the thread title, I am relatively new to nVidia cards. I currently have an Asus V8200 T5 Deluxe (GF3 Ti500) with 64 meg. I bought this after an old game I used to play became updated and no longer supported "glide" (I used to have a Voodoo 5). I purchased at the time, the most current nVidia card, a MX400 (PNY), and what a kick in the head going from glide to D3D with that thing, so I tried open GL and it was worse than the Voodoo. After some research, I decided on my current card. This GF3 outperforms the MX400 and I just couldn't figure that out. Anyway, I have recently purchased an FX5200 with 256 meg. That seems to do worse than the MX400 (which is way worse than the GF3). I thought that the new engine and 4X more mem would be a grand increase. I'm using the 56.64 drivers, which bumped up the performance of the GF3, but the other 2 don't work near as well. The particular game I'm speaking of is Falcon4. There are a lot of people who will tell you that Falcon is a CPU stressing game and that the GFX card has no effect on the game, but here's a history: Falcon in glide: (80fps with 450 MHz K6), Falcon in D3D & Voodoo: 8-10 fps (same cpu). There are many configs up to my current, but I'll skip to what made me post the question I originally had:

GF3: 27-200 fps (depending on many factors)
FX5200: 0.5-11 fps


How can this be that the old outperforms the new?

T-Bird (confused)

system specs:
Win XP SP-1
AMD Athalon 2600+
1 Gig DDR400
Asus A7V600 MB
(video card above)

MUYA
05-19-04, 10:34 PM
we have many instances of this. Whereas fx5200 is dx9 compatible it is a half quad architecture I think, I mean 2 pipes whereas gf3 is 1 quad or 4 pipes and the clocks are similar. Maybe also your FX5200 only has a 64 bit memory interface so that might explain it. Remeber the FX5200 is the lowest in the foodchain of NV GPUs.

rewt
05-19-04, 11:08 PM
lol. it sure performed a heck of a lot better than my old mx420! i sure hope you meant lowest in the foodchain of FX GPUs ;)

saturnotaku
05-19-04, 11:21 PM
I thought that the new engine and 4X more mem would be a grand increase.

Not when you're hobbling on a 64-bit memory interface as compared to the 128-bit on the GeForce3. All in the memory in the world isn't worth a hill of beans when its interface is crippled. When it comes to video cards, as with a lot of things in life, you get what you pay for.

Edge
05-19-04, 11:21 PM
Hmm, sounds like you have a 64-bit version of the FX5200, which is really crappy (basically half the speed of the 128-bit standard version). A good FX5200 will perform roughly the same as a GF3, but the 64-bit ones are total garbage. I'd recommend returning the FX5200, and waiting until the current cards come down in price a little with the release of the next generation so close at hand. If you're lucky, you should be able to get an FX5900 or 9700-ish card for only $100, which would be a HUGE increase from what you have now. Oh, and video ram makes very little difference, there's almost no point to getting a 256meg card rather than a 128meg card right now.

And I agree, going from Voodoo's Glide to a GF2 MX was painful, in UT I got 40 FPS at 1024x768 with my Voodoo 3, when I put in a (albiet crappy) GF2mx, I got 20 FPS at 640x480. Luckly later drivers helped a lot, but still it was almost terrifying to see such a huge drop in quality when I first played it.

saturnotaku
05-19-04, 11:26 PM
If you hit up the refurbished section of Newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com/app/manufactory.asp?catalog=48&Type=Refurbish) you can usually pick up good cards for a song. At the time of my writing this (11:30 p.m. CDT), you can pick up an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro or a Gainward GeForce FX 5900 Golden Sample for less than $170. Both of those cards will give you a tremendous performance boost over what you have. They'll scale wonderfully with your CPU and you'll be more than prepared for games that are out now. You shouldn't hesitate to act, though as these refurbs tend to sell out quickly.

Ronin
05-20-04, 12:56 AM
Look at the FX 5200 as the MX of the FX line, and it makes sense (especially the PCI version) :|

ChrisRay
05-20-04, 03:06 AM
Well the Geforce FX 5200 series "For the most:part is faster than the Geforce 4 MX series, You have to compare the series with its comparitive counterpart.

FX 5200 Ultra, FX 5200 To MX 420/MX440

FX 5200 64 Bit cards, to MX 420 and MX 440-SE

As both cards had really crummy 64 bit versions.

Greg
05-21-04, 05:14 AM
T-Bird, I felt sad and a bit angry reading your experience because you have quite innocently bought a new card with a bigger number on it and been mislead. I have friends who have bought first and asked later also. It is incredibly difficult to make a good hardware purchase decision at the moment without research. You should immediatly return that card and consider one of the following:

Minimum to get real gain:

nVidia FX5700
Radeon R9600

Recommended but more expensive:

Radeon 9600XT
nVidia FX5900XT

Above these are expensive cards.

Your budget will determine your choice. I have put those cards in roughly the order I would consider (lower down the page is better). Don't buy a software bundle with the card, just get something plain and cheaper. I recommend you do a little research first online to make sure you dont get a special crippled version of one of the above cards since the manufactures are allowed to modify the spec and often skimp on RAM speed to save dollars. Do a google search for reviews of the card you plan to purchase comparing performance and also note the default clock speeds if possible.

Edit: This is a link to a comparison of 80 video cards:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/

takuma
05-21-04, 08:53 AM
also one thing the geforce 3 you have is a old but top end geforce3 the mx400 and the 5200 are lowest new ends. also basically nothing needs 256mb videocard memory and if it did the 5200 deffiantly be able to use it anyway because of its crappyness. another thing is how much can you spend and how much did you pay for the 5200.

T-Bird
05-22-04, 10:21 AM
Thanks to everyone for the posts, I deffinately have ammunition now. I miss the days when it made since that the Higher numbers ment Higher performance. This 5200 says 128 bit on the box, but sure sounds like the 64 bit ver. I was so afraid that the coments were going to say that I needed an nForce MB to use the new cards.

Thanks again for all the help, off to shop...

stncttr908
05-22-04, 01:19 PM
Thanks to everyone for the posts, I deffinately have ammunition now. I miss the days when it made since that the Higher numbers ment Higher performance. This 5200 says 128 bit on the box, but sure sounds like the 64 bit ver. I was so afraid that the coments were going to say that I needed an nForce MB to use the new cards.

Thanks again for all the help, off to shop...I don't think the 256MB version of the 5200 would be a 64-bit card. In fact I think most of the 64-bit cards are only 64MB. Either way, the 256MB is worthless on that card since it's so slow. You'd be better off returning it and keeping the GF3. If you wanted to step up to perhaps a 5700 then you'd be much better off. Try and avoid the 5600 series as well.