which is better ??

[hiko seijuro]

which card is better

geforce fx 5200 128 ddr 8x
or a
Radeon 9200 128 ddr 8x

[NoSurrender]

both arent very good whats your budget i think a Geforce 4Ti 4200 is a better choice

[phathamstr]

he didn't ask for advice on a better card, he asked which was better, i wish i knew, cuz i'd answer ya

[hiko seijuro]

so i guess there about the same ? i guess i will just stick to my geforce fx 5200 till i get some cash .. i just wonder if it will play planetside if i lower all settings

[NoSurrender]

i really dunno i would think the 9200 but if you gonna buy it leave it and go for a 9500pro cuz the 9200 is basically the 8500 but for 120 or 139 u can get a 9500 from Newegg which isnt as good but i think itll be pretty good comments anyone http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduc...EM+RADEON+9500

[ONiel]

I'd go with the 5200 honestly.

The following is from an article from PCWorld.com, click here for a link to the article.

We looked at two NVidia reference boards, each carrying 128MB of RAM (shipping boards should be available by the time you read this). Both produced largely middling performance, although early drivers may be partly to blame. For example, in our Return to Castle Wolfenstein test, at a resolution of 1600 by 1200 and at 32-bit color depth, the 5200 Ultra board reached 27 frames per second--just 2 fps faster than a shipping 64MB Asus AGP-V8170DDR card using the NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 chip, the 5200 Ultra's predecessor. In contrast to the 5200 Ultra's numbers, a shipping version of a 64MB VisionTek Xtasy card bearing ATI's Radeon 9100 chip achieved 39 fps (the Radeon chip does not have DX9 support, however).

Another bit of info, this from ZDNet's website, the article here. I highly suggest reading that article, as it shows actual benchmark comparisons between the two. Anyway...

The Radeon 9200 does not support 4X antialiasing (AA) at resolutions higher than 1,280x1,024, which is a limitation we�d chalk up to the card being in the value category if not for the fact that the GeForce FX 5200 does support this feature at high resolutions. It�s not as dire as it might seem: on our tests, at resolutions above 1,024x768 with advanced features enabled, the Radeon 9200�s performance dropped to frame rates too low for acceptable playback, but we experienced the same issue with the GeForce FX 5200. If you want to use the Radeon 9200�s image-quality-enhancing AA and anisotropic filtering (AF) features, we recommend using a resolution of 800x600 to abate the performance hit that the advanced features sets enact at higher resolutions.

Hope that helps.

[ONiel]

BTW, my honest opinion on vid cards: You get what you pay for. Save up and get a Radeon 9600 or something like it, if not better. It is WELL worth it.

[Daleon]

That doesn't make any sense Oniel. You say you prefer the 5200 but the first thread clearly states the "Ultra" version of the 5200 only gets 27fps and a 9100 gets 39 fps in the same test.

So cpl things here. The 5200 Ultra is just that, the ULTRA version of the 5200. Every 5200 that doesn't say Ultra is highly limited to 128 mem bus I think. Its also comparing this Ultra board to a 9100, a 9200 would perform marginally better even.

So this guy is asking about a 5200, I would put MONEY on it that it is not an Ultra board as 99% of the $100 pos 5200's running around out there are not ultra's. 5200 Ultra's generally go in the $165+ range which is TOTALLY out of price/performance ratio which is why NV mid to low end stuff right now is HORRIBLE. At the $165 range you have to compare the 5200 Ultra to a 9500 Pro or even a 9700NP which will totally smoke its a$$.

So to the orignal poster, yes the 9200 Pro 128 is much better. I usually seem them retail in the $140 range, which if you were smart you would get a 9500 Pro online for close to same price or save up for even better board. If you already have a 5200 just keep it for a while, as 9800 Pro's are dropping fast it seems which means the other boards will to.

Hopefully everyone will soon realize NV only has one good board out right now and it is the 5900. Anything else is a joke.

[ONiel]

I was demonstrating the fact that the two cards have trade offs. The 5200 has better capability to display graphics, if at slower frame rates. The 9200 has faster frame rates, but can't even support 4x AA at decent resolutions.

Also, as the article reads...

at a resolution of 1600 by 1200 and at 32-bit color depth

... I don't know many people running PS at this resolution, a resolution which, imo, only a 256MB vid card is going to excel at rendering graphics for. At standard resolutions of 1024x768 to 1280x1024, both cards will work fine, and the 5200 should be running at 42fps average (at 1280x1024), whereas the 9200 runs at about 45fps average. Is an extra 3 to 5 fps worth NOT being able to read allies names at distance due to 4x AA incompatability issues?

I have both these cards on 2 of my backup machines. One is a 2ghz P4, 512mb ram, NVidia 5200 128MB; the other a 2.2ghz P4, 512mb ram, Radeon 9200 128mb.

I'd also like to say that NVidia has historically been much better at producing drivers for their vidio cards than ATI has been.

So cpl things here. The 5200 Ultra is just that, the ULTRA version of the 5200. Every 5200 that doesn't say Ultra is highly limited to 128 mem bus I think. Its also comparing this Ultra board to a 9100, a 9200 would perform marginally better even.

Both the 5200 and 9200 cards are available in 128 MB. And if you were to read my full post, and the article I suggested you read comparing the two cards, you'll see that they were comparing the Ultra to the Pro. (Comparing their apples to apples.)

"Highly limited to 128 mem"? ummm... you've confused me there, so I'll simply continue. Oh, btw... The two companies have dramatically parted ways in memory bandwidth and clock speed philosophies. There are good aricles in MaximumPC which fully detail vidio cards and the like. I highly recommend checking that magazine out if you're the kind of person who likes to keep up with cutting edge gaming computers and stuff. They tend to focus more on a gamer's interest than PC World and other such consumer magazines.

... I would put MONEY on it that it is not an Ultra board ... 5200 Ultra's generally go in the $165+ range which is TOTALLY out of price/performance ratio

Check pricewatch.com. They're currently going for $60.00 with free shipping. Where's my money Daleon?

So to the orignal poster, yes the 9200 Pro 128 is much better. I usually seem them retail in the $140 range

First is arguable, the second is wrong again. $62.00 on pricewatch.com.

Hopefully everyone will soon realize NV only has one good board out right now and it is the 5900.

That's an awsome vidio card, we finally agree.

[NoSurrender]

oniel im gonna slap you

[Daleon]

Ha, ok Oniel you prove a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.

Just to clear a cpl things. A 128 bit memory bus and 128 megabytes of memory are 2 totally different things. In this case both the 9200 and 5200 both have 128 bit memory bus. But if you read closely the article you quoted clearly said they were comparing 5200/128 megabyte memory card to a 9200/64 megabyte memory card.

The memory bus/interface comes into play if the guy chooses to go with a 9700NP or higher as 256 is a very big difference. Which is what I suggested for him if he was going to go that high.

You also still clearly don't understand NV's modeling. Yes please, go pricewatch. Look at the $60 5200's. And then listen when I tell you, these are not 5200 Ultra's. They are not the boards hardware sites review when they say 5200 Ultra's. So go there, click on the $60 5200, and then add Ultra to the search string. The cheapest is a eVGA for $125. Wow, wonder why it costs more? B/c its better. I would think after the years NV has been doing ULTRA boards ppl would understand they have the cheaper pos boards and then they have the Ultra boards.

Can't blame ppl though, as NV is horrible about naming stuff and then trying to figure out if its better than something else. MX2, MX200, MX400, Ultra.. Not to mention there are now rev2 5600 Ultra's, etc.

As for the 5200 supporting DX9, yep, sure does. Does that help in PS? nope. Will the 5200 play games like DM3 and future DX9 games at playable frame rates? Not for me. Can you play PS on a 5200/128 (non-ultra) at 1024x768x32 with 4xAA/4xAF on? No way in hell would I ever try to. I don't even bother running AA/AF most of the time on my 9800 Pro, as I prefer to run circles around ppl who are trying to turn but they seem to turn so slow... hmm wonder why.

Its all cool though, I enjoy the occasional ATI vs NV chat. I have nothing for or against either, as long as you know all the real facts and don't list off the silly hype stuff and actually dig into the dirt. If you do, you would quickly see that NV does only have one good card for sale today, the 5900.

edit - Also don't say I'm wrong, when your totally wrong. Again, get your facts straight would you. The 9200/128's on Pricewatch for $62 are SE. If you knew anything about ATI's naming policy since the days of the 8500 you would know what SE and LE's meant. If you look closely or actually go the websites, many of those cards are clocked at 250 core/400 memory. I gave the price of a RETAIL Ati made, not powered by Ati, full speed 9200 Pro, which is 325 core/400 memory. The cheapest I think is $119 on Pricewatch. So first thing you should learn, you get what you pay for.

[NoSurrender]

hamma or some1 else can we get one of those owned pictures cuz daleon just 0wn3d oniel w00t gooo Daleon

[stefan231]

Look here a review of both cards the FX5200 ultra wins.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDkw