PDA

View Full Version : Re: Re FX 5200 Ultra


Wanderer
July 29th 03, 12:11 AM
On 28 Jul 2003 22:19:40 GMT, (TELTRAIN) wrote:

>How good is the 5200 ultra compared with the non ultra 5200 and non ultra 5600
>. I am still running a Voodoo 3 2000. would a upgrade to the 5200 ultra be OK ?

For the performance you get, the 5200 Ultras are way overpriced IMHO.
Getting a non-Ultra 5600 would be a better bargain.

Ron Merts
July 29th 03, 07:46 AM
They are probably 40% faster than a non-ultra 5200 and about 10-15% slower
than a 5600 non-ultra. $179-$219 (or so) will get you a 128Mb FX 5200
Ultra, $200-$240 will get you a FX 5600 non-ultra with 256Mb of memory.
Personally, I'd go for the non-ultra 5600.

Ron

"TELTRAIN" > wrote in message
...
> How good is the 5200 ultra compared with the non ultra 5200 and non ultra
5600
> . I am still running a Voodoo 3 2000. would a upgrade to the 5200 ultra be
OK ?

Ron Merts
July 31st 03, 06:08 AM
I'll have to agree with you. I have heard of a few cases where "identical"
(same manufacturer, etc) card with 128Mb is even slightly faster than the
256Mb version; and there is only 1 or 2 games that will use more than 128Mb
of video memory for textures. My take would be to save the additional money
involved with the 256Mb version and go for the 128Mb card...if it were my
money anyway.

Ron


"A.C." > wrote in message
...
> "Ron Merts" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > They are probably 40% faster than a non-ultra 5200 and about 10-15%
slower
> > than a 5600 non-ultra. $179-$219 (or so) will get you a 128Mb FX 5200
> > Ultra, $200-$240 will get you a FX 5600 non-ultra with 256Mb of memory.
> > Personally, I'd go for the non-ultra 5600.
>
> I don't know if the 256mb is worth what you pay for it. A 128mb non-ultra
> goes for like 160-170, and the performance seems to be about the same.
>
>