• 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.

FX5200 or TI4200?

’

’m‚³‚ñ

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
7,300
I picked up another machine today, it has a TI4200 in it. I have another machine that I use for general computing with a 5200 in it. It's a pixelview 5200, actually a decent card. This machine is only used for basic stuff, surfing. Would the TI be better, or should I just leave the FX?

Edit: Okay, I just pulled the card and looked closer, it's actually a GeForce 3 TI 200! Lets put this age old question to rest, and I'll bench using the FX 5200 and the GF3 and see which is better. :p
 
The 5200, but only because its capable of Direct X 9.0 features. Otherwise, in pure frame rates, the Geforce 3 Ti 200 is probably pretty close if not slightly faster. The FX5200 is pretty damned sad. Way slower than the Ti4200 it replaced.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
The 5200, but only because its capable of Direct X 9.0 features. Otherwise, in pure frame rates, the Geforce 3 Ti 200 is probably pretty close if not slightly faster. The FX5200 is pretty damned sad. Way slower than the Ti4200 it replaced.
Click to expand...
Well, this IS a long-term argument on these boards, so we'll see how the testing goes. :D

Granted, realizing for EITHER card, you will need to crank settings WAY the hell down, I'd like to see which card gets playable framerates in the following games with ANY settings (all available as demos, so if the OP doesn't have them, easy to pick up):
- Battlefield 2
- Doom 3
- Half-Life 2
- FEAR
- UT2K4
- Far Cry

6 titles - a fairly reasonable spread of modern games. I'm betting the FX 5200 comes out ahead, and 800x600 with 'medium' in-game settings will be the max.....but I'm DYING to find out!
 
those ti200s are still nice little cards. My kids play all their games on them...granted not at the highest res but still very playable. I favor the 5200 ever so slighlty just because some games wont even boot/play without dx9 support but with hack/patches, even the 4200 can play bf2 (low res of course). Man, the ti series was such as good gen of cards.
 
The only thing the FX5200 has in its favour are the features older cards lack, such as DX9 support. In terms of speed even a GF4 MX can beat it in quite a number of situations, and that's more or less an overclocked GF2.
 
Everyone so far seems to be comparing the two in terms of 3d performance, but it doesn't seem like the OP plays games, or doesn't very much. As other posters have noted, the 3d performance is pretty close between the two. With that in mind, I'd base my decision on other factors:
  • Is either card passively cooled?
If one of the cards just has a passive heatsink instead of a fan, I would choose that one. Less noise, and one less part that can fail and cause problems later on. But if both have fans, or both are fanless,​
  • Which has better analog output quality?
I once had an FX5600 that died, and while I waited for the replacement I had to use an old GeForce 2 GTS. This was before I purchased my LCD monitor, so I used the analog output of each card. Just on the Windows desktop, the colors were a lot 'muddier' with the GF2, and the sharpness of the picture was slightly reduced. (Game performance was a lot worse, too, but that was to be expected. :p ) If you're using a monitor with a DVI connection, this probably doesn't apply.​
So that's what I would look at if I was making this decision. Not as benchmarkably [H]ard as 3d performance though.
 
Er, actually, if you didn't read the edit, it's not a TI4200, it's a TI200, as in a GeForce 3. :p

They both have fans. I'm gonna test the GF3 to see if it even works, then put the 5200 back in.

Both cards have DVI out, both have TV out, the 5200 has S Video out as well.

Hey, look at that, the GF3 works! My FX needs cleaning so I might as well clean it while I have it out.
 
Arrrhg! The FX 5200's fan locked up! Crap... Hmm, I have another 5200 that died, I still have it's HSF, I'll bet it would work.
 
DanK said:
  • Which has better analog output quality?
I once had an FX5600 that died, and while I waited for the replacement I had to use an old GeForce 2 GTS. This was before I purchased my LCD monitor, so I used the analog output of each card. Just on the Windows desktop, the colors were a lot 'muddier' with the GF2, and the sharpness of the picture was slightly reduced. (Game performance was a lot worse, too, but that was to be expected. :p ) If you're using a monitor with a DVI connection, this probably doesn't apply.​
So that's what I would look at if I was making this decision. Not as benchmarkably [H]ard as 3d performance though.
Click to expand...

You'll recall, of course, that it was during the GeForce3 era when Anandtech, Tom's, etc were doing their big exposés on manufacturers cheaping out on the RAMDACs with cards. MOST GeForce3s had absolutely abysmal 2d quality compared to the ATI cards out at the time, and neither did as well as the Matrox cards (first to use 350mhz RAMDACs).
 
Well, now my PixelView 5200 has a PNY cooler on it. :p

Drivers don't like the GF3, so I'm going to stick it back into the 5th system along with a pair of HDD's, install Windows, and hope I can find a NIC and cable. :)
 
You should try detonators in the 30's ? I know I used to have 30 somthing for my Geforce2MX.
 
I would find a cheap 6200 for $90 ish and unlock the pipelines with riva tuner, and overlock it a tad bit. That way you'll get close to 6600GT performance, and a tad bit faster then a regular 6600.
 
Pkirk618 said:
Man, the ti series was such as good gen of cards.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it I skipped 3 Generations because my GF4 TI 4600 just kept putting out!

Doom3, NFS U2, HL2, Far Cry, WoW... This card could play them all, not on High levels but still 10 - 30 FPS
 
Ti-4200. It's a good bit faster, and the fx5200 isn't fast enough to use any DX9 features.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Ti-4200. It's a good bit faster, and the fx5200 isn't fast enough to use any DX9 features.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, believe it or not, I had a friend who bought my Ti-4400 from me a long time ago and he sold it and replaced it with a 5200 w/256MB of ram because he said "it's faster because of more ram." Needless to say, I haven't seen him since.
 
Hmmm what I say:

They both suck :p
I had a MSI 5200.... And it sucks. I could only just play Call of Duty of it. It sucked in NFSU:2... Its a very sad card.
 
Um... I already have both cards, just wondering which one to use.

If I wanted performance, I'd just get a pair of PCI-E 6800 Ultra's and SLI them. I'm not looking for performance for this system, just which is better to use in daily email checks. :p I've got a 5900 in my main gaming rig (it's going to get upgraded from a Socket A mainboard to a Socket 939 board and an X2 sooner or later though).

The 5200 I have will be okay for what I need it to do. I honestly cannot stand 60hz on a CRT. :p Can't wait until I get a second LCD, then I won't have to deal with refresh rates anymore. ;D
 
u shouldnt be running a crt at that rr anyway...what and why r u letting that happen?

i could feel the headaches.
 
Drivers wern't happy, that's why it was running at that rr. :p Running at a comfy 100 hz now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top