FX5200 - Good or Bad?

I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.

"Rick" wrote in message
om...
I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.

In a word "Yes" it is that bad, DX 9 performance is so bad that in some
benchmarks you get single digits for FPS, it is so bad I don't even
recognise it as having a reasonable DX 8 performance.

You would be far better with an FX5700 or FX5700 Ultra or an ATI 9600 Pro or
XT variant, obviously if your budget can stretch any model above these is
also worth looking at.

Rick wrote:
I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.

If you had really read anything you would already know the answer.

it depends on what you want the card to do. its not a good game card but its
fine for dual monitor setups and light gameing. i would say it preforms
right above a GF 3 and GF 4 mx level.
the 2d preformace is good as is the dual suport. i have one and it runs most
older games good "games like unreal 2 ran fine, planet side ran ok but had
to run at a lot lower setting." i have tryed it with a lot of games just to
see how they ran and almost all games ran ok at lower setting. they were
playable but you cant have all the eye candy turned on and the res cranced
up to high.
if your a gamer get the best card you can and pass the fx5200 up.

--


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com


"Rick" wrote in message
om...
I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.

"Rick" wrote in message
om...
I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.



Don't know about the plain 5200, but the 5200 Ultra performs very well for a
budget card. It's not much more than the non ultra and will definately beat
the crap out the Radeon 7000.

bluestringer

The FX 5200 is nVidia's entry level card, and is slowww... But, yes it's
DX9 capable.

--
DaveW



"Rick" wrote in message
om...
I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:27:13 -0500, "bluestringer"
wrote:


"Rick" wrote in message
. com...
I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.



Don't know about the plain 5200, but the 5200 Ultra performs very well for a
budget card. It's not much more than the non ultra and will definately beat
the crap out the Radeon 7000.

A GF2-MX400 can beat the crap out of the R7000.

5200 series is a FINE card for non gamers... The ULTRA version is
SLOWER than the 2yr old GF4-4200... which costs less.



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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On 2 Jan 2004 08:42:24 -0800, (Rick) wrote:

I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the

Theres a reason.

original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?

Since youre not planning on playing games, get the CHEAPEST $50~75
5200 or ATI 9200se... They are the same level of good desktop video
cards.

Want to PLAY GAMES... get a card that will do the JOB.

REad this and see what is worth while:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...ournament_2003

If your system is NOT a P4 3.2Ghz or AMD 3200, these FPS would be even
lower.


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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

"Darthy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:27:13 -0500, "bluestringer"
wrote:


"Rick" wrote in message
. com...
I have been doing some reading regarding this card. It generally
recieves poor reviews. I am looking at replacing an ATI Radeon (the
original), I think Radeon 7000 or 7200 chip with 32 meg memory. I
would have to believe the fx5200 with 128 meg of memory would be a
better than what I have. I realize it is a low end card but the price
is nice and it is supposed to support DX9. Whould this card be an
improvement over the Radeon or would the Geforce4 or Radeon 9000
series be a better choice? I realize the 5600 and newer series are
going to be a better card, but is the fx5200 really as bad as I
everyone is saying?
Thanks.



Don't know about the plain 5200, but the 5200 Ultra performs very well
for a
budget card. It's not much more than the non ultra and will definately
beat
the crap out the Radeon 7000.

A GF2-MX400 can beat the crap out of the R7000.

5200 series is a FINE card for non gamers... The ULTRA version is
SLOWER than the 2yr old GF4-4200... which costs less.



I'm a gamer and my 5200 Ultra works fine for me. It is faster than my old
ti4200 with AA and Ansio. The graphics quality is superb for this budget
type card on my system. Just shows that you don't have to spend a bundle to
get a good decent gaming card these days.

bluestringer

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:59:14 -0500, "bluestringer"
wrote:


"Darthy" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:27:13 -0500, "bluestringer"
wrote:


Don't know about the plain 5200, but the 5200 Ultra performs very well
for a
budget card. It's not much more than the non ultra and will definately
beat
the crap out the Radeon 7000.

A GF2-MX400 can beat the crap out of the R7000.

5200 series is a FINE card for non gamers... The ULTRA version is
SLOWER than the 2yr old GF4-4200... which costs less.



I'm a gamer and my 5200 Ultra works fine for me. It is faster than my old
ti4200 with AA and Ansio. The graphics quality is superb for this budget
type card on my system. Just shows that you don't have to spend a bundle to
get a good decent gaming card these days.

Yeah... the 5200Ultra is much better with FSAA than the GF4 Ti
series...

but the FSAA on the 5200 is still below standards for playablity with
MODERN games. Being 2-3 fps faster isn't anything worth calling an
"upgrade"

If you play old **** like COUNTER STRIKE then its a bit of an upgrade.
(yeah, a lof of people love this game... but it is HORRIBLE LOOKING...
play Call Of Duty)

Heres. a modern game with FSAA turned on, with P4 3.2Ghz CPU,
details on MAX:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...ournament_2003

Or the new game, Call of Duty:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...charts-15.html

Depending on which Ti4200 you HAD gained or LOST 5-6 crappy fps.

Your card is about 30th place.... Mine is in 4th/5th.... yeah, on
Multiplayer - guess who's most likely to kill you

BTW: For games like UT2003 & Halo, I see NO *NONE* Visual improvements
between my Ti4200 or ATI card... other than FSAA turned on in some
games and smoother fps in higher res. Very few games actually do
anyting with DX9 as of today.




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

Death to Palladium & WPA!!