PDA

View Full Version : FX5200 64mg?


Dragon
July 25th 03, 03:06 AM
Say a discussion a while ago about 5200 boards with 4 mem chips vs 8 mem
chips = 64mb vs 128mb.Question: My MSI FX5200 has four chips but shows as
128mb in NVidia panel,SiSoft Sandra,and Windows XP. Comments?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003

Chimera
July 25th 03, 03:19 AM
Dragon wrote:
> Say a discussion a while ago about 5200 boards with 4 mem chips vs 8 mem
> chips = 64mb vs 128mb.Question: My MSI FX5200 has four chips but shows as
> 128mb in NVidia panel,SiSoft Sandra,and Windows XP. Comments?

they were talking about the address bus width, ie how many bits of data are
transferred on each clock. The physical size of the memory is the same,
just the bandwidth with which the card can access it. The 64bit data path
is a really cruel thing that nVidia does, advertising it as a latest
generation card, fast 3D gaming card, then crippling it beyond care.
I can just see the OEMs buying up on the 5200 lite cards and putting huge
GeForce FX stickers all over their ads.

I see ATI is following suit, bringing out a 9200 SE, which will be a vanilla
9200 with a 64 bit data bus.

Dragon
July 25th 03, 03:35 AM
"Chimera" > wrote in message
...
> Dragon wrote:
> > Say a discussion a while ago about 5200 boards with 4 mem chips vs 8 mem
> > chips = 64mb vs 128mb.Question: My MSI FX5200 has four chips but shows
as
> > 128mb in NVidia panel,SiSoft Sandra,and Windows XP. Comments?
>
> they were talking about the address bus width, ie how many bits of data
are
> transferred on each clock. The physical size of the memory is the same,
> just the bandwidth with which the card can access it. The 64bit data path
> is a really cruel thing that nVidia does, advertising it as a latest
> generation card, fast 3D gaming card, then crippling it beyond care.
> I can just see the OEMs buying up on the 5200 lite cards and putting huge
> GeForce FX stickers all over their ads.
>
> I see ATI is following suit, bringing out a 9200 SE, which will be a
vanilla
> 9200 with a 64 bit data bus.
>
>

So even though the MSI photo of the 8911 board shows 8 ddr ram chips and
my board has 4 its still 128mb? Its the claimed 256 bit part thats
important? So I'll go ahead and install the Vantec Iceberq VGA cooler and
not worry about returning the board? So this whole message is questions?
(Thanks for replying to any of them.) : )


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003

Chimera
July 25th 03, 04:06 AM
<snip>
>
> So even though the MSI photo of the 8911 board shows 8 ddr ram chips
and
> my board has 4 its still 128mb? Its the claimed 256 bit part thats
> important? So I'll go ahead and install the Vantec Iceberq VGA cooler and
> not worry about returning the board? So this whole message is questions?
> (Thanks for replying to any of them.) : )

Anyway, I looked at the MSI site, found the MS-8911.
The specs on that card say the memory bandwidth is 6.4Gb/s and 400Mhz DDR.
Quick calc reveals it is a 128-bit data path card.

<data bus width bits> = <memory bandwidth Gb/s> / <DDR memory speed Mhz> *
8000

Chimera
July 25th 03, 04:15 AM
Chimera wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> So even though the MSI photo of the 8911 board shows 8 ddr ram chips
and
>> my board has 4 its still 128mb? Its the claimed 256 bit part thats
>> important? So I'll go ahead and install the Vantec Iceberq VGA cooler and
>> not worry about returning the board? So this whole message is questions?
>> (Thanks for replying to any of them.) : )
>
> Anyway, I looked at the MSI site, found the MS-8911.
> The specs on that card say the memory bandwidth is 6.4Gb/s and 400Mhz DDR.
> Quick calc reveals it is a 128-bit data path card.
>
> <data bus width bits> = <memory bandwidth Gb/s> / <DDR memory speed Mhz> *
> 8000

just as a follow, Ive read through your post again, and all I can tell you
is that the MSI specifications state that the card is 128-bit, but from your
description being different to the web site, I guess Im not sure.

There is a program called AIDA32, which scans your computer and displays the
memory bus width.
http://www.aida32.hu/aida32.php

in the display->gpu tab, it gives full details, and my guess is it will be
accurate

Dragon
July 25th 03, 04:17 AM
"Chimera" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
> >
> > So even though the MSI photo of the 8911 board shows 8 ddr ram chips
> and
> > my board has 4 its still 128mb? Its the claimed 256 bit part thats
> > important? So I'll go ahead and install the Vantec Iceberq VGA cooler
and
> > not worry about returning the board? So this whole message is questions?
> > (Thanks for replying to any of them.) : )
>
> Anyway, I looked at the MSI site, found the MS-8911.
> The specs on that card say the memory bandwidth is 6.4Gb/s and 400Mhz DDR.
> Quick calc reveals it is a 128-bit data path card.
>
> <data bus width bits> = <memory bandwidth Gb/s> / <DDR memory speed Mhz> *
> 8000
>
>

Yes,one site showed 128 bit,another 256 bit.The 128 bit seems more
reasonable and your calculations prove it out. The improvement over 8mb
onboard was so huge it could have claimed 512 mb and 1024 bit and I would
have gone along with it. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Really
appreciate the help,the reseach,and the good math. Now where did I put that
fan set?
Thanks!!!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 25/07/2003

Dragon
July 25th 03, 04:50 AM
> >
>
> who claimed it was 256 bit? I can understand the 64/128 bit mistakes, but
> since no 5200 will ever or has ever had a 256 bit bus, it seems like a
> pretty blatant error. The 256-bit busses are reserved for the much more
> expensive cards in the series. Im more of an ATI person, and I believe
its
> only the 9500/9600/9700/9800 Pro cards with the 256 bit bus. Equivalent
> nVidia might be 5600/5800/5900 Ultra cards.
>
>
The 256 bit was on a reseller's site as "graphics core 256bit 2d/3d
accelerator"
They also showed the bandwidth as 10.4 gb/sec. Aida32 gave 6688 GB/sec.
Fudgy math = better sales?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 25/07/2003

Dragon
July 25th 03, 11:14 AM
>
> Just looking around, the FX chips all have their 256bit cinematic 2D/3D
> core, but that would be referring to the mathematical processing
capabilites
> of the unit, the memory bus width is a different thing. The only card
that
> has a 256 bit memory bus is the 5900 series, the rest are 128 (or 64 for
the
> crippled), the speed of the bus is the only varying factor.
>
> Its a worry where the MSI site get their specs from, there are many
> technical inconsistencies.
> MS-8912 is quoted as a FX5600 card, 550Mhz mem clock. That would give it
a
> memory bandiwdth of 8.8Gb/s, although they are quoting 11.2Gb/s. Sure,
with
> some liquid nitrogen cooling and a quick 150Mhz overclock!
>
> MS-8931 is a FX5600U card, and is clearly stated on the MSI site as having
a
> 256-bit data bus, memory clock 800Mhz. Strangley they also say 11.2Gb/s
> memory bandwidth again! All other FX5600U specs I have read, including
the
> nVidia site itself say it has a 128-bit memory bus. But, even with the
> right maths, 128-bit @ 800Mhz = 12.8Gb/s, 256-bit @ 800Mhz = 25.6Gb/s,
> neither of which match their specs anyway.
>
> So not only can't they get the figures right, they have now told us that
the
> 550Mhz memory bus on the 5600 has the same bandwidth as the 800 Mhz bus on
> the 5600U, and Im not even going to ask how they got a 256-bit bus in
there!
> MMM, ok. if you reckon sir. Who proofs this crap? obviously not the guy
> that knows what he is talking about.
>
>
Math courtesy of the advertising department?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003

July 25th 03, 01:39 PM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:15:45 GMT, "Chimera" > wrote:



>
>in the display->gpu tab, it gives full details, and my guess is it will be
>accurate
>

I have an ancient MX 400 that shows up as 128-bit SDR.

Wanderer
July 25th 03, 04:36 PM
Don't put too much faith into AIDA everyone as it is reporting my card
incorrectly. My BFG Tech Asylum FX 5200 128MB is indeed a 64-bit card
(verified by looking up the capabilities of the 4 ram chips online)
yet AIDA reports this:

Memory Bus Properties:
Bus Type DDR
Bus Width 128-bit
Real Clock 202 MHz (DDR)
Effective Clock 405 MHz
Bandwidth 6480 MB/s

Just like Sandra, it is a good, fairly accurate program, but is by no
means perfect. My card doesn't have a 128-bit bus yet it erroneously
thinks it does.

FX
July 25th 03, 09:53 PM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:15:45 GMT, "Chimera" > wrote:

-Chimera wrote:
-> <snip>
->>
->> So even though the MSI photo of the 8911 board shows 8 ddr ram
chips
-and
->> my board has 4 its still 128mb? Its the claimed 256 bit part thats
->> important? So I'll go ahead and install the Vantec Iceberq VGA cooler
and
->> not worry about returning the board? So this whole message is
questions?
->> (Thanks for replying to any of them.) : )
->
-> Anyway, I looked at the MSI site, found the MS-8911.
-> The specs on that card say the memory bandwidth is 6.4Gb/s and 400Mhz
DDR.
-> Quick calc reveals it is a 128-bit data path card.
->
-> <data bus width bits> = <memory bandwidth Gb/s> / <DDR memory speed
Mhz> *
-> 8000
-
-just as a follow, Ive read through your post again, and all I can tell
you
-is that the MSI specifications state that the card is 128-bit, but from
your
-description being different to the web site, I guess Im not sure.
-
-There is a program called AIDA32, which scans your computer and displays
the
-memory bus width.
-http://www.aida32.hu/aida32.php
-
>-in the display->gpu tab, it gives full details, and my guess is it will be
-accurate
-
Is this program ok it say 350mghz of ramdac instead of 400mghz
The asus web site of my fx5200td say that it suppose to be 400mghz
of ramdac.

Ps: it a really nice program to use...

Wanderer
July 26th 03, 01:50 AM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:53:55 -0400, FX > wrote:

>-
>Is this program ok it say 350mghz of ramdac instead of 400mghz
>The asus web site of my fx5200td say that it suppose to be 400mghz
>of ramdac.
>
>Ps: it a really nice program to use...

Asus' website is obviously incorrect. All NV34 chips have 350MHz
RAMDACs.

FX
July 26th 03, 03:52 AM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:50:01 -0500, Wanderer
> wrote:

-On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:53:55 -0400, FX > wrote:
-
->-
->Is this program ok it say 350mghz of ramdac instead of 400mghz
->The asus web site of my fx5200td say that it suppose to be 400mghz
->of ramdac.
->
->Ps: it a really nice program to use...
-
-Asus' website is obviously incorrect. All NV34 chips have 350MHz
-RAMDACs.

So we can say that asus fraud people how count on low budget videocard.
I decide to take an asus VC because it was suppose to get around the ati
radeon 9000pro in 3dmark01.

What i get now is only the half score of what i can see on futuremark.
Ok maybe it my old motherboard who's slowing down the card.
that i can handle it, then i add to get another card in the fx5200 series
cause it was'nt a 128bits version like they were saying by their 128bits
color memory. they did get me on this one. but now i have the td version.
finaly they say that the card posses a 400 mghz ramdac, i was happy with
this cause it was better than the 9000pro and now it change it a 350mhgz.

And let's talk about their on-line support witch you need to get
registrated,to be answered, bull ****.

Now i know why auther brand mobo and VC are taking that much space in are
computer shop.

Chimera
July 28th 03, 12:12 AM
Wanderer wrote:
> Don't put too much faith into AIDA everyone as it is reporting my card
> incorrectly. My BFG Tech Asylum FX 5200 128MB is indeed a 64-bit card
> (verified by looking up the capabilities of the 4 ram chips online)
> yet AIDA reports this:
>
> Memory Bus Properties:
> Bus Type DDR
> Bus Width 128-bit
> Real Clock 202 MHz (DDR)
> Effective Clock 405 MHz
> Bandwidth 6480 MB/s
>
> Just like Sandra, it is a good, fairly accurate program, but is by no
> means perfect. My card doesn't have a 128-bit bus yet it erroneously
> thinks it does.

not sure if I actually posted it Friday or not, but I was thinking when I
was playing around in AIDA, Ill bet this information is coming from tables
of information rather than actually checking in hardware.
I guess you just have to be careful

Dragon
July 28th 03, 01:02 AM
"Chimera" > wrote in message
...
> Wanderer wrote:
> > Don't put too much faith into AIDA everyone as it is reporting my card
> > incorrectly. My BFG Tech Asylum FX 5200 128MB is indeed a 64-bit card
> > (verified by looking up the capabilities of the 4 ram chips online)
> > yet AIDA reports this:
> >
> > Memory Bus Properties:
> > Bus Type DDR
> > Bus Width 128-bit
> > Real Clock 202 MHz (DDR)
> > Effective Clock 405 MHz
> > Bandwidth 6480 MB/s
> >
> > Just like Sandra, it is a good, fairly accurate program, but is by no
> > means perfect. My card doesn't have a 128-bit bus yet it erroneously
> > thinks it does.
>

Sorry but my understanding of the chips was 4 x 16 =64 bit but with
ddr ram it runs on both the up and down cycle so 64 ddr doubles again = 64
x2 = 128 bit bus. The mem on my card is 4 x Nanya 16m16bt-5 and their list
seems to show the double-it-cause-its-ddr-thing. Some earlier cards had 8
chips but they were 8 bit non-ddr or 4 bit ddr so 64 bit bus. Newer cards
have the 16 bit ddr so 128 bus? IMHO.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003

Chimera
July 28th 03, 04:55 AM
> Benchmarks come up to 128 bit standards,Aida32 shows 128 bit,Nvidia
> control shows 128 bit,hardpage gives 128 bit clock speeds. This is where I
> get confused. Physically the card appears to be a 64 bit.All the software
> says 128.

So its probably 128-bit.

> If the transfer rate is doubled by using ddr does that give you an
effective
> bus width of 128? Not a hardware measure but a usable virtual bus? An
> emulation seen at the software level and usable by programs and games?
i.e.
> the bus has 64 In physical lines and 64 Out,all transferable with ddr. 128
> per cycle.

400Mhz SDR memory @ 128-bit = 3.2Gb/s maximum bandwidth
400Mhz DDR memory @ 64-bit = 3.2Gb/s maximum bandwidth
400Mhz DDR memory @ 128-bit = 6.4Gb/s maximum bandwidth

forget about virutal busses, the problem is 3D accelerators use massive
memory bandwidth, and even at 6.4Gb/s, it will be a major bottleneck in the
system. Try overclocking to see.

> Just trying to figure out how these two bit measures can come
> together.May be reaching a bit. (pun) But how the heck did the vidcard
> companies calculate this? Or are they selling goods not as advertised? Is
> this a scam or are there legit numbers behind it?
> Colour me confused.

The deciding factor is the benchmarks. With a half bus width, the memory
speeds would have choked the benchmarks, and there is no fudging that!

Dragon
July 28th 03, 05:14 AM
"Chimera" > wrote in message
...
> > Benchmarks come up to 128 bit standards,Aida32 shows 128 bit,Nvidia
> > control shows 128 bit,hardpage gives 128 bit clock speeds. This is where
I
> > get confused. Physically the card appears to be a 64 bit.All the
software
> > says 128.
>
> So its probably 128-bit.
>
> > If the transfer rate is doubled by using ddr does that give you an
> effective
> > bus width of 128? Not a hardware measure but a usable virtual bus? An
> > emulation seen at the software level and usable by programs and games?
> i.e.
> > the bus has 64 In physical lines and 64 Out,all transferable with ddr.
128
> > per cycle.
>
> 400Mhz SDR memory @ 128-bit = 3.2Gb/s maximum bandwidth
> 400Mhz DDR memory @ 64-bit = 3.2Gb/s maximum bandwidth
> 400Mhz DDR memory @ 128-bit = 6.4Gb/s maximum bandwidth
>
> forget about virutal busses, the problem is 3D accelerators use massive
> memory bandwidth, and even at 6.4Gb/s, it will be a major bottleneck in
the
> system. Try overclocking to see.
>
> > Just trying to figure out how these two bit measures can come
> > together.May be reaching a bit. (pun) But how the heck did the vidcard
> > companies calculate this? Or are they selling goods not as advertised?
Is
> > this a scam or are there legit numbers behind it?
> > Colour me confused.
>
> The deciding factor is the benchmarks. With a half bus width, the memory
> speeds would have choked the benchmarks, and there is no fudging that!
>
>
Test shows card should be stable at 455 mhz memory clock,but I'm only
edging it up a bit at a time--at 420 right now. The benchmarks are not bad.
This is only a 1.5ghz AMD so I don't expect top scores but they seem
respectable for the card,lower range but at least in the range. So call it a
128 bit on the tests and lay it to rest. Thanks for your expertise. I'm
still confused,but that's my normal state. ; \


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003

Chimera
July 28th 03, 05:47 AM
<snip>

All good then. Im getting the feeling this question is going to keep coming
up time after time again, and many people are going to get confused about
it.
nVidia should insist on a better naming scheme if they intend on doing
something like this