I bought the Fx5200

[Trickle]

There are better reviews on the web for individual cards - i.e. head to hexus's homepage but when you just want a quick overview on whats what in the gfx card lineup you goto....

www.tomshardware.com

I may also get flamed for posting that, but when peeps are buying FX5200's, then you need to call on desperate measures ;D

[Trickle]

Originally posted by KeZZeR
eek, bad card to buy! I don't see why people don't just save up and get something decent!

Because the so called decent cards at Bling Bling prices are pretty S*&te this year?

[Austin]

Originally posted by Ravens Nest
Just a thought has anyone got the time to compile a chart of the different graphics cards and there performance in top 10 i.e.
9800pro
9700pro
5900ultra
9600pro
5600ultra
e.t.c.

and then the moderators make it a sticky?

It's just confusing with all these different model numbers, hard to tell the difference sometimes!

If you need to know the info, just ask on here! Trickle FX5200 are not bad cards per se, it's a hugely better budget option than we've had previously (TNT2M64, GF2, GF4MX, Rad7500) and better than the competition at that price point (eg Rad9000-9200). Of course the GF4TI4200 totally owns it and can be had new for similar prices now too. But FX5200 is not awful, GF3TI200 type speeds but with DX9 (LOL), hugely better AA+AF & '2D' image quality and standardised TVout & Dual Display.

In terms of how the cards stack up in raw 3D perf, as an accurately rough guide (LOL) slowest to fastest...

1. Most onboard chipsets.
2. Rad7500, GF2, GF4MX, KyroII, Rad9000-9200 (only 9x00 come with DX8).
3. GF3, Rad8500, FX5200 (all effectively DX8, FX too slow to use DX9).
4. GF4TI, Rad9600, Rad9500, Rad9800SE, FX5600 (first DX8, latter all DX9).
5. Rad9700, Rad9800, FX5900.

With any new gfx card 128MB is what you should plump for now but 256MB is still a big waste. AGP8x is pointless even on top cards. DX8 however is a must, DX9 is nice but only really worth it if you plan to keep your card for quite a while or love high AA+AF. In terms of the many model variants (eg MX, SE, PRO, Ultra etc)...

1. GF2MX200 & TNT2 (non M64 which is slower)
2. GF2MX/MX400, GF1 & GF4MX420/MX440SE
3. GF2GTS/TI/Ultra, GF4MX440 & Rad7500
4. GF4MX440-8X, GF4MX460 & Rad9000-9200 (but Rad9x00 DX8)
5. GF3TI200, FX5200 & Rad9000PRO
6. GF3 & Rad8500LE
7. GF3TI500, Rad8500, Rad9600, Rad9800SE(128bit), FX5200ultra & FX5600 (all but first 2 are DX9 but probably still too slow for it)
8. GF4TI4200, Rad9600PRO, Rad9800SE(256bitDDR) & FX5600ultra (last 3 are DX9)
9. GF4TI4400/4800SE, Rad9500PRO, FX5600ultra2(flipchip)
10. GF4TI4600 & 4800
11. Rad9700
12. Rad9700PRO, Rad9800 & FX5900
13. Rad9800PRO & FX5900ultra

Please don't flame me, I know it's not possible to be 100% accurate here but as a reasonably accurate rough guide I think it stands up well. Do rem a lot depends on your PC, eg if the CPU is slow many gfx cards will perform VERY similar or alternatively using very little system RAM (eg < 256MB) is likely to hurt your perf badly too. Of course gfx card is THE most important part when gaming, just be sure you don't have a deficiency (eg too little RAM or a P4 using SDR PC133) and use a reasonaby fast CPU (eg. XP2000+, P4 2.0ghz, Celeron 2.6ghz or better) esp with the better gfx cards, upping the AA+AF, game details and res are all ways to help use up the untapped gfx card power when using a slower CPU.

Also rem the speed grades aren't equal steps, so the diff between '1.' and '2.' MAY be bigger than the diff between '2.' and '3.'. Also consider that things change depending upon game engine and things such as res, details and AA+AF. There are also other factors other than speed, eg GF2 and GF3 were notorious for poor '2D' image quality (quality and clarity of the signal sent to the monitor), Rad8500-9200 sucked at AA but were fast for AF etc. Finally there is plenty of variance in clock speed (and hence actual speed), most notably Rad8500 and to a lesser degree Rad9000-9200, GF4MX, GF4TI4800SE and FX5200 as well as others. For example something could be 20-30% slower than the official specs and still be called by the same name as a card using the same chipset at the true clock speeds. There are also 'suped up' variants too, meaning a 4200 (8 layer with BGA RAM) could beat a 4800SE. Another factor is how the cards o/c, esp those which can have dormant pipelines enabled (though that's like winning the lottery). HTH!

[Ravens Nest]

Thanks austin , that will help some people out.. im o.k. for a videocard at the moment.

It upsets me that people are getting conned out of there hard earned money only to find another (probably cheaper) video card would probably run your games better.