PDA

View Full Version : Recommend graphics card for this system?


jeffc
October 28th 03, 11:10 PM
If it would be worthwhile, I'd like to add a new card to this system. It
works fine now for what I've used it for, but I'd like to get the max
performance in games. Having said that, I don't want to change anything but
the graphics. In other words, I'm pretty sure it would be overkill to put
in a $500 graphics card that I can't exploit because the rest of the system
isn't up to it. I'd be looking to get a budget price on an older card
rather than get a card that I can use again in a better system. I'll play
the most advanced games I can play (I don't mind buying last year's games),
and then get a new system in a year or 2. (I also don't care to upgrade the
sound right now, as I'm only listening through headphones.)

Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there is
no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop when
I stick in a new card.

-. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
-. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
architecture
-. VIA KM 266
-. 60 GB HDD
-. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
-. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
-. AC '97 Audio
-. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)

Tod
October 28th 03, 11:20 PM
ATI 9100 128MB

"jeffc" > wrote in message
...
> If it would be worthwhile, I'd like to add a new card to this system. It
> works fine now for what I've used it for, but I'd like to get the max
> performance in games. Having said that, I don't want to change anything
but
> the graphics. In other words, I'm pretty sure it would be overkill to put
> in a $500 graphics card that I can't exploit because the rest of the
system
> isn't up to it. I'd be looking to get a budget price on an older card
> rather than get a card that I can use again in a better system. I'll play
> the most advanced games I can play (I don't mind buying last year's
games),
> and then get a new system in a year or 2. (I also don't care to upgrade
the
> sound right now, as I'm only listening through headphones.)
>
> Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there
is
> no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
> memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop
when
> I stick in a new card.
>
> -. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
> -. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
> architecture
> -. VIA KM 266
> -. 60 GB HDD
> -. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
> -. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
> -. AC '97 Audio
> -. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)
>
>
>

jeffc
October 28th 03, 11:33 PM
"Tod" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s51...
> ATI 9100 128MB

Not what I expected on the nvidia group, but thanks :-)

Too_Much_Coffee ®
October 29th 03, 12:18 AM
"jeffc" > wrote in message
...
> If it would be worthwhile, I'd like to add a new card to this system. It
> works fine now for what I've used it for, but I'd like to get the max
> performance in games. Having said that, I don't want to change anything
but
> the graphics. In other words, I'm pretty sure it would be overkill to put
> in a $500 graphics card that I can't exploit because the rest of the
system
> isn't up to it. I'd be looking to get a budget price on an older card
> rather than get a card that I can use again in a better system. I'll play
> the most advanced games I can play (I don't mind buying last year's
games),
> and then get a new system in a year or 2. (I also don't care to upgrade
the
> sound right now, as I'm only listening through headphones.)
>
> Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there
is
> no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
> memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop
when
> I stick in a new card.

I would recommend the Ti4200 at around $80USD. It should be more than
adequate for quite awhile. It's not DX9 but even though it's an older card
it's still a good performer.

Another 256MB of ram in your system would help performance.


TMC


>
> -. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
> -. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
> architecture
> -. VIA KM 266
> -. 60 GB HDD
> -. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
> -. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
> -. AC '97 Audio
> -. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)
>
>
>

Tod
October 29th 03, 12:48 AM
Nvidia 5200 then.

"jeffc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tod" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s51...
> > ATI 9100 128MB
>
> Not what I expected on the nvidia group, but thanks :-)
>
>

DaveW
October 29th 03, 01:51 AM
NVidia FX 5700 cards are now available. About $200.

--
DaveW



"jeffc" > wrote in message
...
> If it would be worthwhile, I'd like to add a new card to this system. It
> works fine now for what I've used it for, but I'd like to get the max
> performance in games. Having said that, I don't want to change anything
but
> the graphics. In other words, I'm pretty sure it would be overkill to put
> in a $500 graphics card that I can't exploit because the rest of the
system
> isn't up to it. I'd be looking to get a budget price on an older card
> rather than get a card that I can use again in a better system. I'll play
> the most advanced games I can play (I don't mind buying last year's
games),
> and then get a new system in a year or 2. (I also don't care to upgrade
the
> sound right now, as I'm only listening through headphones.)
>
> Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there
is
> no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
> memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop
when
> I stick in a new card.
>
> -. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
> -. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
> architecture
> -. VIA KM 266
> -. 60 GB HDD
> -. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
> -. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
> -. AC '97 Audio
> -. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)
>
>
>

J.Clarke
October 29th 03, 01:51 AM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:48:49 GMT
"Tod" > wrote:

> Nvidia 5200 then.
>
> "jeffc" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tod" > wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]_s51...
> > > ATI 9100 128MB
> >
> > Not what I expected on the nvidia group, but thanks :-)

Now let's see, you've recommended the absolute bottom of the nvidia
range and a relatively old ATI with no DirectX9 acceleration that wasn't
all that fast even when it was new. The obvious choice given the stated
requirements would be a Geforce 4 Ti4200, which was a fast board when
it was new and is still a fast board even if it's not as fast as the
latest high end, and has the salient advantage that it's cheap.
Certainly a better choice for a gaming machine than an ATI 8500 (which
is what the 9100 really is).

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

god
October 29th 03, 03:27 AM
lets remember everyone, the 5200 sux it?
GO VOODOO 5

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://www.giantcompany.com


"DaveW" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s54...
> NVidia FX 5700 cards are now available. About $200.
>
> --
> DaveW
>
>
>
> "jeffc" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If it would be worthwhile, I'd like to add a new card to this system.
It
> > works fine now for what I've used it for, but I'd like to get the max
> > performance in games. Having said that, I don't want to change anything
> but
> > the graphics. In other words, I'm pretty sure it would be overkill to
put
> > in a $500 graphics card that I can't exploit because the rest of the
> system
> > isn't up to it. I'd be looking to get a budget price on an older card
> > rather than get a card that I can use again in a better system. I'll
play
> > the most advanced games I can play (I don't mind buying last year's
> games),
> > and then get a new system in a year or 2. (I also don't care to upgrade
> the
> > sound right now, as I'm only listening through headphones.)
> >
> > Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there
> is
> > no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
> > memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop
> when
> > I stick in a new card.
> >
> > -. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
> > -. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
> > architecture
> > -. VIA KM 266
> > -. 60 GB HDD
> > -. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
> > -. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
> > -. AC '97 Audio
> > -. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Biz
October 29th 03, 07:26 AM
Here are the choices I would recommend.

If DX8 is all you need:
GF4 Ti4200

If you want to take advantage of DX9 games:
GF FX5600
ATi 9600

No need to spend anymore than that....
"jeffc" > wrote in message
...
> If it would be worthwhile, I'd like to add a new card to this system. It
> works fine now for what I've used it for, but I'd like to get the max
> performance in games. Having said that, I don't want to change anything
but
> the graphics. In other words, I'm pretty sure it would be overkill to put
> in a $500 graphics card that I can't exploit because the rest of the
system
> isn't up to it. I'd be looking to get a budget price on an older card
> rather than get a card that I can use again in a better system. I'll play
> the most advanced games I can play (I don't mind buying last year's
games),
> and then get a new system in a year or 2. (I also don't care to upgrade
the
> sound right now, as I'm only listening through headphones.)
>
> Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there
is
> no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
> memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop
when
> I stick in a new card.
>
> -. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
> -. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
> architecture
> -. VIA KM 266
> -. 60 GB HDD
> -. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
> -. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
> -. AC '97 Audio
> -. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)
>
>
>

Derek Wildstar
October 29th 03, 07:37 AM
"DaveW" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s54...

> NVidia FX 5700 cards are now available. About $200.

If that's his budget, I'll second that.

Darthy
October 29th 03, 11:47 AM
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:10:02 -0500, "jeffc" >
wrote:
>Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there is
>no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
>memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop when
>I stick in a new card.

All modern built-in-graphics suck up system memory. once you add a
REAL card to your system, you get the 32mb back.

>-. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
>-. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
>architecture
>-. VIA KM 266
>-. 60 GB HDD
>-. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
>-. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
>-. AC '97 Audio
>-. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)

Upgrade recommendations:

1 - 256mb MORE RAM at least. Will make ALL the difference in the
world with WinXP-HOG OS.

2 - Buy a REAL sound card, SB-Live, SB-Audigy or Turtle beach... this
will give you another 5-15fps over built-in-audio. If it was an
NFORCE2 chipset, than this would be a NON-issue. $35~75.

3 - dump the modem if you have HiSpeed Interenet.

4 - $80 deliverd : Ti4200-64mb version (Clocked faster than 128
version, even at same clock speed, 1-2 fps faster). DX8 card.

$150 = ATI 9600Pro, $200 = fx5700Ultra (sometimes faster than ATI)
$300 = 5900 Ultra

Don't get ANY 256mb video cards... not worth $5.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

J.Clarke
October 29th 03, 11:53 AM
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:58:11 GMT
"jeffc" > wrote:

>
> "J.Clarke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Now let's see, you've recommended the absolute bottom of the nvidia
> > range and a relatively old ATI with no DirectX9 acceleration that
> > wasn't all that fast even when it was new. The obvious choice given
> > the stated requirements would be a Geforce 4 Ti4200, which was a
> > fast board when it was new and is still a fast board even if it's
> > not as fast as the latest high end, and has the salient advantage
> > that it's cheap.
>
> Actually I was leaning toward that card, but I have to admit I'm
> confused about the FX line. I thought the FX line was newer, so I
> don't really understand why the 5200 is cheaper than the 4200. The
> 5200 is "better", I assume?

"Newer" does not necessarily mean "better". Nvidia usually has two
families of video processor chip in production. One is built to a
price and is used in their entry-level boards. The other is built to
the highest performance level they can achieve while maintaining
reasonable production yields, and that is used in their midrange and
better boards.

The FX5200 uses this year's "cheap" chip, while the Ti4200 uses last
year's "fast" chip. The result is that while the Ti4200 doesn't have
all the latest and greatest features its performance level is still
significantly higher. And since it's last year's model so to speak and
thus heavily discounted right now that makes it a bargain.


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J.Clarke
October 29th 03, 11:54 AM
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:01:06 GMT
"jeffc" > wrote:

>
> "Darthy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 3 - dump the modem if you have HiSpeed Interenet.
>
> I do, but you're suggesting opening up my case and ripping out the
> modem? For what purpose? thanks

Uses up a PCI slot and generally ties up an IRQ. If you're not using it
no point in keeping it. OTOH, if you're using it as a fax machine or
for voice mail or whatever then you need to hang on to it.
>
>


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

porpoise
October 29th 03, 12:49 PM
"Biz" > wrote in message >...
> Here are the choices I would recommend.
>
> If DX8 is all you need:
> GF4 Ti4200
>
> If you want to take advantage of DX9 games:
> GF FX5600
> ATi 9600
>
> No need to spend anymore than that....

I second Biz's recommendation. I've got a 2200+ (512MB RAM though) and
I had a Ti4200. When it broke, I did the research and still ended up
with the Ti4200 and 9600 as the best choices in the low-mid end budget
range. A Ti4200 can be found for $83 on newegg.com. $10 more for
DVI/TV-out, or $30 more for a 9600 that will support fancier DirectX 9
shaders to last you a while down the road. Best bang for the buck will
be these two cards in the $80-$130 range.

jeffc
October 29th 03, 03:58 PM
"J.Clarke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now let's see, you've recommended the absolute bottom of the nvidia
> range and a relatively old ATI with no DirectX9 acceleration that wasn't
> all that fast even when it was new. The obvious choice given the stated
> requirements would be a Geforce 4 Ti4200, which was a fast board when
> it was new and is still a fast board even if it's not as fast as the
> latest high end, and has the salient advantage that it's cheap.

Actually I was leaning toward that card, but I have to admit I'm confused
about the FX line. I thought the FX line was newer, so I don't really
understand why the 5200 is cheaper than the 4200. The 5200 is "better", I
assume?

jeffc
October 29th 03, 04:01 PM
"Darthy" > wrote in message
...
>
> 3 - dump the modem if you have HiSpeed Interenet.

I do, but you're suggesting opening up my case and ripping out the modem?
For what purpose? thanks

Andy
October 29th 03, 04:53 PM
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:58:11 GMT, "jeffc" > wrote:

I have a 5200 and I'd strongly suggest not getting it. :-) Save for a
better FX card, or get a Ti 4600. When I got mine it was replacing my
aging Voodoo5 card, and I didn't do my research. The FX line is the
newer line, but the 5200 is at the bottom of the FX barrel. It
doesn't perform as well as a Ti4600.
A friend of mine has the exact same PC as I do, (MB, CPU etc) The
only difference is the Video cards. He has a 4600, I have the 5200.
Halo runs MUCH better on his pc, than it does on mine. (using Halo
as an example, since it's new)
Andy

>Actually I was leaning toward that card, but I have to admit I'm confused
>about the FX line. I thought the FX line was newer, so I don't really
>understand why the 5200 is cheaper than the 4200. The 5200 is "better", I
>assume?
>

warlord716
October 29th 03, 11:33 PM
"Derek Wildstar" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s04...
>
> "DaveW" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s54...
>
> > NVidia FX 5700 cards are now available. About $200.
>
> If that's his budget, I'll second that.
>
>
>
>
>

5700 ultra
third it

Tod
October 29th 03, 11:33 PM
"jeffc" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "J.Clarke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Now let's see, you've recommended the absolute bottom of the nvidia
> > range and a relatively old ATI with no DirectX9 acceleration that wasn't
> > all that fast even when it was new. The obvious choice given the stated
> > requirements would be a Geforce 4 Ti4200, which was a fast board when
> > it was new and is still a fast board even if it's not as fast as the
> > latest high end, and has the salient advantage that it's cheap.
>
> Actually I was leaning toward that card, but I have to admit I'm confused
> about the FX line. I thought the FX line was newer, so I don't really
> understand why the 5200 is cheaper than the 4200. The 5200 is "better", I
> assume?
>
The 4200 is part of Nvidia's fast Direct X 8.1 chip line up.
The 5200 is a newer chip designed for Direct X 9.0,
but to keep it cheap, speed was sacrificed.

Yeeyoh
October 30th 03, 04:33 AM
I just got the FX5200 at first I was a little disapointed in the default
clock speeds(same as Mx440). I've got to say though as far as game play
this card is rocking. Image quality great, speedy smooth graphics. Right
now I wouldn't go for the DX8 card. Most games say DX9 on hte box already
and before long they'll be features you can take advantage of. I wonder if
I should have got the Fx5600 a little, it really wasn't much more and would
certainly up my speeds in the benchmarks, but so far this card is rocking
for game play.
Personaly if I would have had a little more money to spend I would have
gone for the FX5600Ultra or the ATI9600Pro.(probably in the new year
sometime.)
I would say with windows Xp an extra 256mb of ram is were the money is.
I had 256 for a long time (sdram too.) The difference with 512 is "amazing"
(I upgraded my cpu at the same time so I can't be more acurate in my
description.)
Anyway if it's a nvidia card your seeking get the FX5600 (Ultra?).
Myself I'll probably try Ati next. Just for a change and because nividia
seems too need new drivers everytime a bunch of new games come out. And the
new drivers seem to be buggy and need technical dentistry to install right.
Have a good one.

"J.Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:01:06 GMT
> "jeffc" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Darthy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > 3 - dump the modem if you have HiSpeed Interenet.
> >
> > I do, but you're suggesting opening up my case and ripping out the
> > modem? For what purpose? thanks
>
> Uses up a PCI slot and generally ties up an IRQ. If you're not using it
> no point in keeping it. OTOH, if you're using it as a fax machine or
> for voice mail or whatever then you need to hang on to it.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Darthy
October 30th 03, 11:21 AM
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:54:34 -0500, "J.Clarke" >
wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:01:06 GMT
>"jeffc" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Darthy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > 3 - dump the modem if you have HiSpeed Interenet.
>>
>> I do, but you're suggesting opening up my case and ripping out the
>> modem? For what purpose? thanks
>
>Uses up a PCI slot and generally ties up an IRQ. If you're not using it
>no point in keeping it. OTOH, if you're using it as a fax machine or
>for voice mail or whatever then you need to hang on to it.

Yep... what he said!! ;)

Also.. disable any PORTS not needed... such as the OLD Printer port
and Serial ports.. that frees up 2-3 additional IRQs for your system!



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
October 30th 03, 11:23 AM
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:53:03 GMT, Andy > wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:58:11 GMT, "jeffc" > wrote:
>
>I have a 5200 and I'd strongly suggest not getting it. :-) Save for a
>better FX card, or get a Ti 4600. When I got mine it was replacing my
>aging Voodoo5 card, and I didn't do my research. The FX line is the
>newer line, but the 5200 is at the bottom of the FX barrel. It
>doesn't perform as well as a Ti4600.

A TI4200 is FASTER than the 5200... and even faster than the
5600-Plain.

>A friend of mine has the exact same PC as I do, (MB, CPU etc) The
>only difference is the Video cards. He has a 4600, I have the 5200.
>Halo runs MUCH better on his pc, than it does on mine. (using Halo
>as an example, since it's new)
>Andy

Can't refund the card... :(


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Deranged
October 30th 03, 06:13 PM
Hi Darthy,

A few suggestions to add to the below...

Darthy > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:10:02 -0500, "jeffc" >
> wrote:
> >Note that one of the things I don't like about this system is that there is
> >no integrated memory for the current graphics. It eats 32M of my system
> >memory that it reserves for graphics use. I'm assuming this will stop when
> >I stick in a new card.
>
> All modern built-in-graphics suck up system memory. once you add a
> REAL card to your system, you get the 32mb back.
>
> >-. Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
> >-. AMD AthlonT XP 2200+ Processor (1.800 GHz) with QuantiSpeedT
> >architecture
> >-. VIA KM 266
> >-. 60 GB HDD
> >-. 256 MB DDR (PC 2100)
> >-. 56K* ITU v.92 ready Fax/Modem
> >-. AC '97 Audio
> >-. S3 ProSavage8T integrated (1 AGP slot available for upgrade)
>
> Upgrade recommendations:
>
> 1 - 256mb MORE RAM at least. Will make ALL the difference in the
> world with WinXP-HOG OS.
>
> 2 - Buy a REAL sound card, SB-Live, SB-Audigy or Turtle beach... this
> will give you another 5-15fps over built-in-audio. If it was an
> NFORCE2 chipset, than this would be a NON-issue. $35~75.
>
Wouldn't it be better if u upgraded ur mobo to a nforce 2 chipset? ur
sound would be better, u wud get the Geforce 4 MX video chip (please
correct me if i am wrong)... the mobo would cost about $80-120
depending on whether u choose the vanilla version or the deluxe
version...

> 3 - dump the modem if you have HiSpeed Interenet.
>
> 4 - $80 deliverd : Ti4200-64mb version (Clocked faster than 128
> version, even at same clock speed, 1-2 fps faster). DX8 card.
>
> $150 = ATI 9600Pro, $200 = fx5700Ultra (sometimes faster than ATI)
> $300 = 5900 Ultra
>
There is also the ATI 9600 SE which sports 64mb its for $129 plus
ships with a coupon to d/l half-life 2 when its released... worth
about $50... agreed u might not want the game but if u do then the
card costs just about $80 and is direct X 9 compliant... for $200 u
also have the Radeon 9600XT for $300 u now get the ATI radeon 9800 pro
(at best buy with mail-in discount coupon)...

> Don't get ANY 256mb video cards... not worth $5.
I agree with the suggestion... so far not too many games take
advantage of 256mb memory on video cards.

Just one question... u haven't specified how much u want to spend on
the graphics card, it would be easier if u gave a budget to spend.

Hope this helps

Deranged

Andy
October 30th 03, 08:39 PM
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:23:48 GMT, Darthy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:53:03 GMT, Andy > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:58:11 GMT, "jeffc" > wrote:
>>
>>I have a 5200 and I'd strongly suggest not getting it. :-) Save for a
>>better FX card, or get a Ti 4600. When I got mine it was replacing my
>>aging Voodoo5 card, and I didn't do my research. The FX line is the
>>newer line, but the 5200 is at the bottom of the FX barrel. It
>>doesn't perform as well as a Ti4600.
>
>A TI4200 is FASTER than the 5200... and even faster than the
>5600-Plain.

I didn't know that, just knew for a fact the 4600 was since I could
compare it with my friends system. (not that I don't believe you)
In fact it doesn't surprise me at all.

>Can't refund the card... :(

Nah, been to long. :-( I'll replace it with a 5700 in a few months,
or my friend is thinking of getting the new 5950, and he said he'll
give me his 4600 card.
Andy