• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

5200 64bit or 5700 LE ?

C

chrisf6969

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
9,011
I was thinking about getting a half height card for this slim PC.

I was looking at 5200 like this one: http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-139-165&depa=0&manufactory=BROWSE $57

I was looking for something with more power that was still only a half height card... and the only thing I saw was this: 5700LE http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-145-091&depa=0&manufactory=BROWSE

But looking at benchmarks it actually looks like the 5200 64-bit is still faster than a 5700LE. Not very familiar with the lowend stuff. I've always had the high end stuff and wouldnt touch a card like this normally, but its all that will fit in this mini pc.

Any advice for a low profile/ half height card with decent performance? ?
 
Actually, you got misleading performance claims. The GeForce FX 5200 64-bit actually has only 64-bit access to its graphics memory, instead of the 128-bit memory access like the higher-end GeForce FX series cards. In fact, the GeForce 5200 64-bit is actually slower than the standard GeForce FX 5200 - and slower than even a GeForce4 MX440.

The GeForce FX 5700LE is faster than any GeForce FX 5200-series card. But it won't win any speed awards.

Oh, wait a minute! I've just checked those links, and the low-profile GeForce FX 5700LE that they're selling also has only 64-bit access to its memory. That would make it as slow as a standard GeForce FX 5200!
 
yeah, thats what I'm talking about.

They both look about even in specs. 4x1 pipes (right?)
Then the speeds on those 2 cards are both 250/400.

Is there any half height card that does give decent performance? (preferably Nvidia) :eek:

I think there are some 9200/9250 or something but they are right about in line with a 5200 performance I think.
 
I can't stress this, just save money and buy something decent.
You got 50 bucks now you're willing to spend.
Take another 50 out of your next paycheck now you have 100
Minium i would say spend 150 on a video card

You might as well take that 50 and flush it down the toilet with those.
It'll be about as much fun
 
Netrat33 said:
I can't stress this, just save money and buy something decent.
You got 50 bucks now you're willing to spend.
Take another 50 out of your next paycheck now you have 100
Minium i would say spend 150 on a video card

You might as well take that 50 and flush it down the toilet with those.
It'll be about as much fun
Click to expand...

Actually, I would get something like a 5900xt if they were available in half height cards.

This is going in a SLIM PC which can only fit half height cards.

I really dont need high end performance, this is just a back up/guest gamer.... My main rig has a 3.6Ghz P4 and 6800GT so I've got my performance rig. What I dont know is whats the best performing HALF HEIGHT card.
 
Cool, that cable is detachable. And if you need dual display you can just attach it to one of the PCI slot plates.

So I would think that would be faster than the 5200 or 5700le.

Thanks.
 
There is an abit 9550 on newegg that should work for you. It is 128bit card.
 
Yeah that Abit 9550 looks like it will be the ticket. Even though I prefer Nvidia.

I'm just trying to find some benchmarks to make sure the performance is where it should be.

IE: the numbers game doesnt always work.
Like :
ti4200 would kick a 5200's ass. but 4200 < 5200?
or a GF3ti200 would kick a GF4mx460, but GF3 < GF4 & ti200<mx460 ?

Just want to make sure what exactly a 9550 is.

Anyone know whats its comparable to? a 9500 np? 9500 pro? etc? 9600?
 
chrisf6969 said:
Just want to make sure what exactly a 9550 is.

Anyone know whats its comparable to? a 9500 np? 9500 pro? etc? 9600?
Click to expand...

It is a underclocked 9600. Some are only 64bit memory bus, but if it is 128bit, it should not be too bad a card..

==>Lazn
 
It's a slow version of the 9600 (standard)
At least it's the 128 bit one.

Put a bigger heatsink/fan on the GPU and turn it up to 9600 (or close to) speeds.

RADEON 9600 XT – 500MHz GPU, 128MB/256MB 600MHz memory .. 128-bit bus
RADEON 9600 PRO – 400MHz GPU, 128MB/256MB 600MHz memory .. 128-bit bus

RADEON 9600 – 325MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 128-bit bus
RADEON 9550 – 250MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 128-bit bus

RADEON 9600 SE – 325MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 64-bit bus (<--- POOP!! -->)
RADEON 9550 SE – 250MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 64-bit bus(<--- POOP!! -->)
 
9550's perform about like full 128-bit 9200's, but they have a 9600 core, i.e. full DX9 support.
 
Spudsdude said:
It's a slow version of the 9600 (standard)
At least it's the 128 bit one.

Put a bigger heatsink/fan on the GPU and turn it up to 9600 (or close to) speeds.

RADEON 9600 XT – 500MHz GPU, 128MB/256MB 600MHz memory .. 128-bit bus
RADEON 9600 PRO – 400MHz GPU, 128MB/256MB 600MHz memory .. 128-bit bus

RADEON 9600 – 325MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 128-bit bus
RADEON 9550 – 250MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 128-bit bus

RADEON 9600 SE – 325MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 64-bit bus (<--- POOP!! -->)
RADEON 9550 SE – 250MHz GPU, 128MB 400MHz memory .. 64-bit bus(<--- POOP!! -->)
Click to expand...

THANKS, thats exactly what I was looking for!!

Damn its only HALF the speed of the 9600XT!
 
I did some looking around for some reviews. Seems you can play most games at 800x600 or even 1024 on a fiew.
 
Still a toss up, it does provide a little better DX9.0 performance but its at a level which is really unplayable. I hate when reviews show a 20fps vs 15fps competition. If the FPS are that low, turn down the resolution or game settings!

It did win most benchmarks so I'll probably get it. It just wasnt a cut & dry smashing. It looks like in some older Q3 based games(JediKnight) the 5200 would win. And I play SOF2 (Q3 based) so if I have a friend over we might be playing that, him on the crappy rig of course.

Wonder how they would do in Doom3? (both crappy, just which one is less crappy?!)
 
My cousin has a 9600pro and it plays D3 at 800x600, medium detail very well. Since the 9550 is a slower versio, I'm fairly sure its preformance is greater than the 5200's :p
 
gamer1drew said:
Looking at the benchmarks its makes sence the 128 bit 9550 would be better than a nonpro 128 bit 9500 but worse than a 9500pro. IF you place it there then it beats the 5200 considerably. These http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/tul9550/5.html put them close, but the 9550 wins, and the 5200 they used is probably 128 bit so its better than the 64 bit half height one originally proposed.
Click to expand...


The 9550 is a deceiving model number. It is in no way better than a 9500 non pro.
 
if you look at the reviews, it is right behind the regualar 9600...right where it should be. The 9500 np/pro's were just beasts......
 
icthus13 said:
The 9550 is a deceiving model number. It is in no way better than a 9500 non pro.
Click to expand...

It probably should have been called a 9400.

Better than a 9200, worse than a 9600. from the even number generation.

9100, 9500, 9700 (odd number generation- older)
9200, 9600, 9800 (even number gen - newer)

So they could have squeeze it in there as a 9400, 9450, 9400 pro or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top