• 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.

Nvidia 5200 vs ATI 9250...

L

Lyquist

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
3,368
Does anyone have experience with these cards? They are both around the same price on Newegg. Which one is faster? I have a friends who has an old Athlon 700 and he wants to upgrade from his Geforce2 MX 32MB. Thanks in advance.

Lyquist
 
Either one is OK for casual gaming, especially for older games. I had an FX5200 for a while, and it performed similarly to a GeForce 3. I also recently built a new system for a friend and put in a Radeon 9200. It was also OK. Just try to get a card that has the 128-bit memory bus, like the Biostar FX5200 "VN520XXC2B-F10" for $53, or the Sapphire Radeon 9250 "100582L" for $48. Personally, I would go for the 5200 in this case, as it has hardware DX9 support (where the 9250 does not) -- also, if you play any older DOS games, I've found that DOS likes nVidia better than ATI.
 
I think the 5200 is actually still better. The 9250 isn't that great. Just a refresh of the 9200.
 
I think I've decided to go with the 5200. The guy has an Athlon 700MHz with a Geforce2MX. Will he notice a difference?

Lyquist
 
Heh, no he probably really wont. If its not to late I'd save the money on the graphics card and hold it untill you can get some more together for a system upgrade.
 
It's pretty much a toss-up, when you consider the speed of the CPU you're dealing with. I'd probably go with the 5200 so that, when he finally upgrades, the machine will be useable with Linux ;)
 
I'd go with the 9250 for the better 2d quality and the slightly probably better performance. People here tend to underestimate how slow the 5200 is at times (as fast as a geforce3 I think not ;p).
 
the 5200 is as slow as the gf3 and crappier ti series cards and also it is not far above the gf 4 mx440 line. However, it supports directx 9.0b so it is better in 'newer' games. I have both a geforce 4 mx440 and an fx5200, not much difference.
 
Ok so it's down to 9250 or used 4200... Hard choice because the 9250 is DX9 vs the 4200 at DX8.1 but the 4200 is better for gaming and the 9250 can't be used in only dx9 mode because it's too weak to do so... but it'd be nice to have a quasi-dx9 vs dx8.1 full mode... errr... choices choices.. have fun.

~Adam
 
CleanSlate said:
Ok so it's down to 9250 or used 4200... Hard choice because the 9250 is DX9 vs the 4200 at DX8.1 but the 4200 is better for gaming and the 9250 can't be used in only dx9 mode because it's too weak to do so... but it'd be nice to have a quasi-dx9 vs dx8.1 full mode... errr... choices choices.. have fun.
Click to expand...
Ummmm....the Radeon 9250 is NOT DX9.

It's the same core as the Radeon 9200, which is the same core as the Radeon 8500, only with half the texturing units missing.

Pure DX8, through and through.

And since the Ti4200 outpaced the Radeon 8500 by a long shot, a card clocked lower with half the TMUs doesn't have a chance against it. The Ti4200 will, in most cases, have double the framerate of the 9250.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top