Go Back   nV News Forums > Linux Support Forums > NVIDIA Linux

Newegg Daily Deals

Thread Tools
Old 04-23-03, 06:43 PM   #1
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12
Default question: relative speed of GFX 5200 vs. G3 Ti 200

I just replaced my GeForce3 Ti 200 with a GeForceFX 5200 in my redhat 9 box (Duron 1.3 GHz). To my surprise, my FPS in glxgears went down! Here is the comparison:

GeForce3 Ti 200, 24-bit X: 2387.800 FPS
GeforceFX 5200, 24-bit X: 1301.200 FPS

What gives? That is a pretty substantial hit. The new card is a BFGTech Asylum GeForceFX 5200, 128MB, and I am using the latest nvidia drivers (1.0-4349). I know the GeForceFX may not be everything and a bag of chips, but shouldn't it be faster than the G3 Ti 200?

Does anyone know of a web review with a benchmark containing both of these cards?
deadlycheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-03, 08:41 PM   #2
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,262

Well, someone correct me if I'm wrong (PLEASE! ), but I believe that the FX5200, simply because it's the 5200, isn't all that great. I think it's like the GF4 MX series cards -- they're actually NV17 chips, where the GF4 Ti's are NV25. This might be a small part of it, if I'm right (which I'm not so sure on, BTW).

Or, it might just be that glxgears is being funky on you. It has been known to do that... how does stuff like tuxracer or Q3 or UT2k3 (if you have any of those) compare between cards?

You didn't change any config settings, right?
Registered Linux User #219692
bwkaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-03, 11:20 PM   #3
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12

Yeah, the 5200s and 5600s, are, from what I can tell, artificially crippled, much like the MX series. They are basically a budget, DX9 capable part to allow nvidia to capture the low end.

However, it was only $99, and I thought that it would be a step up from the Ti 200. Even if it is only a step up when FSAA is enabled, that would be OK, although I would expect it to beat the GeForce3 series cards straight up -- it is, after all, two generations newer.

I am aware that glxgears is not a very reliable test. What I usually do is check the CPU load, and run it several times over a couple of days and see how much it varies. If I get consistent frame rates, that is what I record. I agree, UT and Q3 tests would be better, but I haven't been very diligent about obtaining those benchmarks. I have run UT and Q3 on the 5200, and it seems to be faster than the Ti 200, but I would like to see some benchmarks, or a simple diagram from nVidia that shows the horsepower rating of all their parts.

My fear is that the rankings may be as follows:

4xxMX series
FX 5200
GeForce3 series
GeForce4 series
FX 5800

That would suck. Can anyone shed any legitimate information on this? The answer would be useful to many GeForce3 Ti 200 owners -- is an FX 5200 an upgrade or a downgrade?
deadlycheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-03, 01:03 PM   #4
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12

Well, the point is moot for me now. I took the GeForceFX 5200 back. I have to admit, I looked long and hard at the available ATI cards; if one of them had been a really good deal I would have jumped ship to ATI. Nvidia really needs to publish a ranking of all their chipsets/boards, because an episode like this really leaves a sour taste in your mouth. By the way, I did try the new 4363 drivers before giving up -- no difference.

Since I didn't find a particularly good deal on an ATI card, I came home and bought a GeForce4 Ti 4200 off the net. I found an Xtasy 128MB at CompuVest.com (http://www.compuvest.com) for $112! That is a much better deal than the FX 5200 for $99 that I returned to Fry's.

If anyone knows of a decent benchmark/ranking of all of nvidia's cards, I would still be interested in seeing it.

Last edited by deadlycheese; 04-26-03 at 01:08 PM.
deadlycheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-03, 01:57 PM   #5
GeForce 4 420 Go & FX5200
k3ant's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lansford, Pa. USA
Posts: 25
Thumbs up FX5200 glxgears results...

FYI, I just installed an ASUS V9520-TD/GeForce FX5200 w/128MB in my HP Pavilion 750n, P4/1.6 GHz running Red Hat Linux 9.0 and my glxgears results is 2480 FPS.

Just to let you know where I had started from, it was with a RIVA TNT2 M64 w/32MB and it only ran at 284 FPS! No, I didn't forget a digit! The system went from 284 FPS to 2480 FPS @ 'millions of colors' - @ 'thousands of colors' the speed is 2970 FPS!

I don't think the FX5200 chip is slow, compared to a much more expensive board maybe, but for costing me only $117 USD, no, this isn't what I would call slow at all...

Last edited by k3ant; 05-18-03 at 10:09 AM.
k3ant is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.