video card advice needed (GeForce FX 5200 or 5600???)

[TLZ] Texas Hunter · Post by **[TLZ] Texas Hunter** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 8:44 pm

Howdy.

My new Dell WinXP machine is faster (2GHz) that the old one, but the graphics are much slower because it has a built-in graphics card (Intel 82845*) instead of an outboard card.

I need advice -- looking at a GEForce FX 5200 ($100) or 5600 ($170) -- will one of them really make a big difference? Any reason the FX 5200 wouldn't be a good choice? Any experience with running 2 monitors on the FX 5600? Anyone running either of these cards?

Thanks.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:15 pm

the 5200 is basicly a fast version of the GF4MX tho it has shaders unlike the MX.

the 5600 is basicly a slowed down 5800 that dosn't use the DDR2 ram ( tho it can take up to 256 megs of mem).

For BZ they will both work fine. For other games that acualy push the graphics pipeline, you will want the 5600.

they both run dual head just fine. I have a 5200 at home and it works perfectly, tho it is slower then my GF4 Ti4600. If you can aford it the 5600 will last you longer with more games.

SGI · Post by **SGI** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 11:44 pm

Texas Hunter wrote:

I need advice -- looking at a GEForce FX 5200
($100)
or 5600
($170)
-- will one of them really make a big difference? Any reason the FX 5200 wouldn't be a good choice? Any experience with running 2 monitors on the FX 5600? Anyone running either of these cards

.
the price.......j/k......the difference between a Honda Vs Ducati

Grumbler · Post by **Grumbler** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:42 pm

I have the 5200 with a 2x AGP I/F. Works fine for BZ. I usually get ~140 fps......and i typically run 1280x1024 during the game, 1600x1200 for work. both are fine on my 21" monitor.

KnightMare · Post by **KnightMare** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:42 am

hell, i use a mmx 440 and run it full screen on a 19" @ ummm, hell i forget... but i get like 145 fps. Anything would be an improvement over the built in video. $50.00 well spent...

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:37 pm

Like I say BZ dosn't push the boundrys of the video card. WIth modern cards the screen size won't mater, since the cards can all fill the screen before BZ sends it the next frame. We are presently CPU bound, as should be shown by KnightMare and Koba's similar frame rates, the FX is a faster card then a GF2MX by far.

The Red Baron · Post by **The Red Baron** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:16 pm

Yes, bzflag does run better with on a faster CPU. I have 1.2ghz, 650mhz, and 450mhz. You can't even play bzflag on the 450mhz even though it has a decent graphic card. I'll have to check if you want details. the 1.2ghz runs bzflag extremely smooth.

The Red Baron · Post by **The Red Baron** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:23 pm

posted in the wrong board (ignore)

Post by **blast** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:16 pm

For the longest time, I used the build-in Intel 810 on my computer. It worked for what I did, but I really began to see how slow it was in some of the highly detailed maps. Plus I wanted to run 3DMark 2003. My only option was to go PCI, as I don't have an AGP slot. So I went and bought the 5200. It blows away the 810. The one card you don't want is the 256MB 5900. No game needs that much memory. Plus, when they do, it won't be able to maintain a descent frame rate. Also note, my processor is only a PIII 800MHz, and i can get a FPS of over 200 or 300, if I turn off v-sync. The 8x AGP version, last I checked, is actually cheaper than the PCI.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Blast, on that piddly little CPU of course a 5900 would be wasted. the intell 810 isn't even a real video chipset, it's the mobo chipset using some of it's cycles to do video, it's a joke in the industry.

But don't speak a bout things you don't know. There are things that would take full advantage of a 5900, and fill all that ram. Most modern game engine s (doom 3, UT 2k3, etc..) will generate gigs of texture information for each level, and the more you can put on the card the better. Also most systems that use shaders are using multiple texture maps per pixel, all those textures need to be in the card. Card mem is allways better then AGP ram.

Heck, you aren't even feeding the 5200 all the data it can handle thru that PCI bus, This is a core upgrade problem on the emachines, HP, Compaq, or whatever it is you have. Running anyof the modern cards on PCI is just gimping them big time.

BZ won't even push any card to the limit today. Well cept maybe that 810, or a 3s Verge

But then ya gotta go with what you can afford.

Post by **blast** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:46 pm

Actually, you must have missed me saying that I don't have an AGP slot. Thus, I wouldn't have the option of wasting a 5900 on my CPU...

My friend mentioned to me the 5900 was a waste of money, and that's what he told me.

I do have to admit, my CPU is now the limiting factor in my computer's performance. That, and the fact that I'm still running Windoze.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:47 pm

I mean your wasting a FX5200 on that PCI bus, that's your bottleneck, even with a faster CPU you won't send any more data to that sucker, that was my point. I know why you got a PCI, but a cheaper PCI card would give you the same speed, like a GF4MX or a 2MX, cus your bus limited. just a shame to see a FX gimped like that

If you don't like windows change it, tho for 3d applications I don't see any noticable speed difrences between my redhat and windows XP systems, and they are configured very similararly.

Post by **blast** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:21 am

I was browsing the Tech TV forums and I found this:
http://cgi.techtv.com/messageboards?act ... id=1702643

Also, the main reason I went with the 5200, is because I wanted full DX9.0 enhancements. I'm not really concerned with the top speed of PCI.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:43 pm

Yeah the shaders are cool.

teatree · Post by **teatree** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:50 pm

Well its so cheap in the US damn. In Europe that thing costes till 500 € up so about 500$ . In my opinion there isnt much difference between the 256 and 128 but hmm. The are both extremly lowed and take alot of energie away and i would suggest the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro ... super 3D-Power ... etz etz in germany the cheapest version of that is the 128 for 410 € ....lol this is such a differnce.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 11:18 pm

radeon drivers blow hardcore, they have non compliant GL implementations. I do not know about linux support, the 8000+ series is suposed to have linux drivers, but who knows with those driver monkeys. I had a 9800, I gave it away, it was horible. often would not draw lines properly in BZ. the 9800pro 128 meg is like 300$ here.

For BZ really a 5200 is even overkill. for other games a 5600 128 should server you well,a nd they are like 130$ for an ultra ( faster speed ).

you may also want to look at a GF4 Ti 4600, they are kick ass cards, and they are older so you may find a good deal on one.

wingnut · Post by **wingnut** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:29 pm

I have a Gainward FX5200/128 in an AGP 8 slot on an OC'ed P4 2.4 pumped to 3Ghz. I run the FX5200 OC'ed into the "orange" zone at 1280x1024 72Hz but with Vsync disabled on a Dell 19" LCD. I have everything turned on in BZ and I average about 120fps.

Anything over about 35-40fps is beyond the range of human recognition but will give you an advantage playing.

I bought the FX5200 so that I would have DirectX 9 support. There are a bunch of ex-SGI OpenGL programmers working at nVidia (the nVidia HW is like 3 exits down the 101 from the SGI HQ at the SHoreline exit) so nVidia will probably be ahead of the OpenGL curve from most vendors for a little while longer.

I am seriously considering an FX5950 just to see if I can break the 200fps barrier in BZ.