Fx 5200 would be enough ? [ Leadtek ]

No I got My Ti4200 128 had MX420 64mb

Go look at the reviews those 5200 ultra and 5600 ultra dont cut it point period no matter the amount you would pay ... they cant hold a candle to a Ti4800

And my card at $120us Compared to $230 for the 5600 ultra LOLOLOL no way get real show me where it can out perform me by 2x to justify that cost!!!:)

come on be real dude its a crappy card dx9 or not
 
with the FX 5600 having 256MB Memory, surely in the long run, that i would do something for the card..

so lets compare what the FX 5600 and the Geforce 4 ti4200 has to offer:

GeForce4 Ti 4200

Vertices per Second: 113 Million
Fill Rate: 4 Billion AA Samples/Sec.
Operations per Second: 1.03 Trillion
Memory Bandwidth: up to 8GB/Sec.
Maximum Memory: 128MB

GeForce FX 5600

Graphics Core: 256-bit
Memory Bandwidth: 11.2GB/sec.
Fill Rate: 1.4 billion texels/sec.
Vertices per Second: 88 million
Maximum Memory: 256MB

Well.. looking at the two specs, they both really cancel each other out. Looking at them both. Even thought the 5600 is quicker with memory bandwith and it has more memory, the geforce 4 ti then kicks back with more vertices per second and more fill rate. But what would you say would be better off in the long run? being able to support more on the screen? hence the need for more memory or a quicker fill rate?

At first i was actually supporting the 5600 much better than the Geforce ti 4200 but really they are both kinda equal with one another

sorry kermit dude :(

Sincerly Alex:cool:
 
NP dude and look at cost 5600 ultra is 2X the cost!!!

I would not want someone to spend so much on a card that really is not what it should be ......I would save my money and get a high end FX 5800 or FX5900 or go for ATI

I was not looking to put ya down in no way buddy:)

See for about what 60 pounds uk you get my card and my clocks are below take a look its almost at the Ti4800 default rates :)
 
Originally posted by Kermit
I was not looking to put ya down in no way buddy:)

No worries dude :)

Originally posted by Kermit
See for about what 60 pounds uk you get my card and my clocks are below take a look its almost at the Ti4800 default rates :)

I was just looking for your Geforce 4 ti4200 and i found a 64mb version costing £120 (NVIDIA Geforce Ti4200 chipset, with 64MB DDR RAM at 500 MHz)

i take it for the 128MB version, it would cost abit more...

After searching through MSN, i found a number of price ranges for the Geforce 4 ti 4200 128MB version.. ranging from £90 - £144

Just thought id let you know:happy:

Sincerly Alex:cool:
 
And for the 5600 ultra in the UK??


GC - SPARKLE GEFORCE FX 5600 ULTRA (GEFORCE 5) AGP GRAPHICS CARD FOR PC

Format: PC

AGP GeForce graphics cards for PC. Have next generation power of the GeForce FX chipset for an affordable price with this latest offering from Sparkle! Features include:

• nVidia NV30 (GeForce FX) chipset

• AGP 8x bus connection

• 128 MB DDR RAM (double data rate)

• 325 MHz core clock speed

• 650 MHz memory clock speed

• 4 rendering pipelines

• 2 texture units per pipeline

• 10.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth

• 1.3 Billion fill-rate

• 81 Million Verticles per Second

• TV out
» Stock Availability: Unreleased e-Me

» Release Date: 16/6/2003

» SAVE £60 off RRP. Only £204.25 ex VAT
» Free UK Mainland Delivery
£239.99 inc. VAT

This one dont have vivo ...... ouch its 2x mine bud and I can do 600/300 clocks but its sweet spot is what is set below in my sig
:)
 
SO many gf2 mx400 64mb's where sold because people saw "64MB!!!" on the front and thought that they were getting a great card. fact of the matter is, a gf2 gts 32mb whoops it twice over and was about the same price. when games came out that actually use near 64mb of textures and all, their gpu and memory bandwidth was too slow to turn the detail up.

same would go for a 5200 or even 5600. sure, they're dx9... but not many games are out that are dx8, even. and once dx9 games become common, either of those cards will be too slow to run them and high detail... pretty much negating the dx9 hardware support. you'd be better off with a ti4200-8x on those games. this applies to 256mb of video memory, too... sure, the card can hold all those textures, but how do you expect it to process them all smoothly and give good fps?
 
not sure if this helps but ( I am in the US by the way) I just bought a g4 Ti4200 128MB 8x Agp with VGA + DVI + VIVO for 120 dollars US. IT's made by XFX and rocks...I went from the g2 mx 400 64MB and couldn't believe the difference...if there is anyway you could somehow get that price in the UK look for it. I bought from www.newegg.com...

Probably doesn't help since I'm USA but it was so cheap and had vivo
 
we could always get american exports :D hehe :p

Geforce 2MX 400 is actually a pretty good card. I mean ok, obviously its not a good card like the Geforce 3, 4 and fx series but it does its job pretty good and it was great for its time when it was released. Didnt the Geforce 2 gts get realesed a while after the geforce2's or am i thinking about the Geforce 2 ti? :huh:

Dont diss the Geforce 2 MX 400 :p hehe

Between the Geforce 2 MX 400 and the Geforce 2 MX 200, there is quite a big difference in performance i have noticed. I have both cards and i have tested the performance of the both of them on a game. On the game, i can run it on 800 x 600 32bit colour on the Geforce 2 MX 400 and be able to give it around 70frames where as on the Geforce 2 MX 200, i can only run the game on 640 x 700 on 16bit colour and still only be able to give it around 50 frames.

I also own a Geforce 4 MX 440.. and my Geforce 2 MX 400 is just around the same in performance wise as that because it was made by hercules (kyro II).. the low end of Geforce 4 MX 440 :p hehe

I got this image showing all the graphic cards 3dMark 2001 test results.. ill add it here:

image005.gif


im pleased my card isnt at the very bottom :D hehe

Sincerly Alex :cool:
 
Originally posted by Cosmin
I've decided to change my actual MX440 from Leadtek with an DX9 compatible vid.card .
From what I've understood there is not so much difference between actual and the new Fx5200 even I'ts price is more than attractive .

I would like to be helped decidind if the new card would be an intelligent decision or waiting ( not more than 2-3 moth ) for Fx 5600 .. same brand . :)
Thanks for all , Cosmin ..

personally I would not recommend the gf FX 5200 to anyone unless they specifically want a dx9 card in that price range...

it can't play dx9 games @ effective frame rates @ a decent resolution and is underpowered compared to the gf4ti series...

its a decent card for what it does but it does not do much unfortunately..

the 5600 is a better card... in the ultra flavor but the performance is comparable to that of a gf4 ti 4200...

compare prices and go from there...

the FX engine is a buzz word and the major performance difference only really comes @ the high end... 5800/5900 series...

and of course the 5600 but only when comparing AA and FSAA performance to the gf4ti series... and even then it is quite low...

consider getting the 5200 only if you HAVE to else save up for something more significant :)

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDQ0

a GOOD review by sean P... a lad who has done some excellent reviews lately...

consider giving it a read...
 
well this is wot im thinkin ov gettin This!! but i might wait till the 9700 pro comes down in price :D
 
I am glad to see more imput into this thread because of course being the owner of the Ti4200 128mb AGP 8x some might have thought my opinion was a little biased, I would like to know what rig was used in that 3dmark test we see above ...anyone can go look at my score and see I get in the 10,700 range on my ok oc'ed rig but hell I still only paid $120us for the card .... and I would be on the top of that graph woot woot !!! :p


No seriously I wanted to help you make a good choice for your card ... like I have said I will buy me a good DX9 card when DX9 is common in games not just one or two :) and when we see the second gen of the DX9 cards .... :)
 
Kermit, HOW much better is the GF4 ti4200 from the GF3 ti 500? i ant to know if the Performance increase is worth the £90 jump.?
 
Originally posted by Flatbeat_Eddy
Kermit, HOW much better is the GF4 ti4200 from the GF3 ti 500? i ant to know if the Performance increase is worth the £90 jump.?
really only about 20% faster, but has dx8.1 hardware support, too.

but where are you shopping? a ti4200 shouldn't cost that much more than a ti500.
 
that seems like a decent buy. doesn't answer my question, but that's okay. :)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back