Stronger card? Geforce3Ti500 or Geforce FX5200 128mb

H

H4rM

n00b
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
16
Which card is stronger? I have both and don't know which one is better than the other?
 
Looking at Cleanslate's website, which did not contain a Geforce3 Ti 500, but rather a Ti 200, I'd say they are the same speed, for old games. With the FX 5200's core helping it in new games, and allowing it to actually play new games.

FX 5200 > Geforce3 Ti 500, by an extremely small margin.
 
I loved my ti500. Those were the days!

What you playing anyway. The Ti500 may be better deal as they cost like 30 bucks on ebay.
 
heh, just reread ur post. if ya have both here's an idea....


BENCH THEM AND TELL US!!!!!
 
Either way, they won't be playing tomorrow's games. And the FX had bad image quality. So, 9600 Pro if you're real cheap. If you were wondering what kind of card to get for a low price.
 
illgiveumorality said:
You are just too crafty, aren't you :D

The funny thing is the geforce 3 really is faster than the 5200
Click to expand...

How is that funny?
An old HIGH-END card beat a newer BOTTOM-LINE card?
The GF3 Ti 500 was made for gaming, I doubt you will find any that will say the same about the FX5200, wich is made for common use ;)

Terra...
 
Terra said:
How is that funny?
An old HIGH-END card beat a newer BOTTOM-LINE card?
The GF3 Ti 500 was made for gaming, I doubt you will find any that will say the same about the FX5200, wich is made for common use ;)

Terra...
Click to expand...

haha yeah exactly. I love how everyone is always like "omg nvidia SO screwed up with the 5200!!!1one! It sucks so much!!!1on3" Well of COURSE it sucks. It's a budget card. No one is supposed to expect anything from it. And of course the next gen budget card is slower than the previous gen flagship card...products don't cycle that quickly. Does anyone honestly expect the Geforce 7 super-budget card to outrun a 6800?
 
Eva_Unit_0 said:
haha yeah exactly. I love how everyone is always like "omg nvidia SO screwed up with the 5200!!!1one! It sucks so much!!!1on3" Well of COURSE it sucks. It's a budget card. No one is supposed to expect anything from it. And of course the next gen budget card is slower than the previous gen flagship card...products don't cycle that quickly. Does anyone honestly expect the Geforce 7 super-budget card to outrun a 6800?
Click to expand...

I just found out something very spooky :eek:
In the lastet Steam Survey
Wich is offset by all the ATI buyers who got a Free HL-2 game sticker on buying a new ATI card....the FX5200 holds a 4TH place :eek:
*falls of chair and slams jaw against desk*
.oO(Ouch...)

That is wild:
1. ATI Radeon 9800 Series 121,579 10.37 %
2. ATI Radeon 9600 Series 117,084 9.99 %
3 .NVidia GeForce4 MX Series 99,358 8.47 %
4. NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Series 97,734 8.34 %

Terra - I wonder what setting those pees play at :confused:
 
Please do not use a 5200.

god-kills-kitten.jpg
 
Wich is offset by all the ATI buyers who got a Free HL-2 game sticker on buying a new ATI card
Click to expand...
None the less the 9800 was still a better product and I think more people would have gotten one anyway.
 
Terra, what is so spooky about that? I take it you do know low end and mid range out sell any high end cards always.

The 5200 was a crappy card compared to other cards at the time at its price range. You could get a much better card for the money and that's the main reason its regarded as being SHIT. You should be more scared of the pure crap Geforce4 MX cards, which have been crap, and always will be crap.

The FX cards from day one have sucked. Period. They had bad image quality, terrible performance in any Direct X 9 based game, and the mid range cards sucked horribly. The only card worth a dime during the FX days were the 5900XT's which didnt come till the end. They sucked too though once newer games started coming out.

Even still, if you're only option is either a FX5200 or a Geforce3 Ti 500 then I'd suggest the FX5200. Its just a simple fact that the Geforce3 can not play games that are starting to come out, BF2 is a good example of this.
 
Skrying said:
Terra, what is so spooky about that? I take it you do know low end and mid range out sell any high end cards always.

The 5200 was a crappy card compared to other cards at the time at its price range. You could get a much better card for the money and that's the main reason its regarded as being SHIT. You should be more scared of the pure crap Geforce4 MX cards, which have been crap, and always will be crap.

The FX cards from day one have sucked. Period. They had bad image quality, terrible performance in any Direct X 9 based game, and the mid range cards sucked horribly. The only card worth a dime during the FX days were the 5900XT's which didnt come till the end. They sucked too though once newer games started coming out.

Even still, if you're only option is either a FX5200 or a Geforce3 Ti 500 then I'd suggest the FX5200. Its just a simple fact that the Geforce3 can not play games that are starting to come out, BF2 is a good example of this.
Click to expand...
The 5900XT was not the fastest of the 5900 cards,The XT was not the faster version like.
ATI. And as usual you comments are bullshit about the FX cards.
 
I couldn't find the link to an article that had side by side images of the fx5950 ultra against the Ti4200, but you could clearly see how fuzzy the fx card was. It was odd and sad.
For the same price range, there is the ATI 9550, then the ATI 9600 Pro. If I had more money then you could move up to 9800 Pro or 6600 GT, X700 Pro, whatever...
 
forumposter32 said:
I couldn't find the link to an article that had side by side images of the fx5950 ultra against the Ti4200, but you could clearly see how fuzzy the fx card was. It was odd and sad.
For the same price range, there is the ATI 9550, then the ATI 9600 Pro. If I had more money then you could move up to 9800 Pro or 6600 GT, X700 Pro, whatever...
Click to expand...

How about looking at the FX vs 9800 at [H]ArdOCP? ;)
Linky

Terra...
 
Terra said:
How is that funny?
An old HIGH-END card beat a newer BOTTOM-LINE card?
The GF3 Ti 500 was made for gaming, I doubt you will find any that will say the same about the FX5200, wich is made for common use ;)

Terra...
Click to expand...

Well sure, you are right, but the FX is two generations ahead, they might as well just have taken the GF3 and made it the FX5200
 
CMAN said:
The 5900XT was not the fastest of the 5900 cards,The XT was not the faster version like.
ATI. And as usual you comments are bullshit about the FX cards.
Click to expand...

He didn't say it was the fastest version he said it was the only version worth getting.

And no his comments about the FX cards are right on, the 5900 series is the only one with getting for gamers and even then you can get a 9700p for about the same money I think.

The FX series is just not a good series unless all you play is Quake 2 and HL/CS (not source). The FX series is a broken series and you defending them doesn't change the fact that they suck in D3d.

~Adam
 
what I find especially humorous is that before nv30 was released, you could go on any forum and nearly everyone was like "OMG t3h GF FX is going to t3h RapE ATI and the 9700. OMG just wait until Nvidia roxxorz t3h GF fX." And now people get flamed for even trying to defend it lol. I'm not trying to offend anyone...I just think it's funny how that all played out.
 
CMAN said:
The 5900XT was not the fastest of the 5900 cards,The XT was not the faster version like.
ATI. And as usual you comments are bullshit about the FX cards.
Click to expand...

You seem to not be able to read. I said the 5900XT was the best value, and it was in the FX cards. I did not say it was the fastest. Its sad when you must defend an FX card, it was pure crap, only time someone should have bought one was if they though Quake 3/2 or some old game demanded a new graphics card update because its a simple fact the FX's SUCK in D3D based games and cant even began to try in current games, but yet we still see the 9x000 cards recommended on a regular basis to this day.
 
Skrying said:
You seem to not be able to read. I said the 5900XT was the best value, and it was in the FX cards. I did not say it was the fastest. Its sad when you must defend an FX card, it was pure crap, only time someone should have bought one was if they though Quake 3/2 or some old game demanded a new graphics card update because its a simple fact the FX's SUCK in D3D based games and cant even began to try in current games, but yet we still see the 9x000 cards recommended on a regular basis to this day.
Click to expand...

How you figure the XT was better than the Ultra is beyond me,that is like saying the 9800 Pro is a better value than the XT because it is cheaper. It was merely a cheaper version of the 5900 Ultra with less performance less money for less performance,whats the value in that. and how you can compare cards when you never owned one. Theres are a lot of recomendations for cards here that are totaly wrong,just because some one like you recomends one card over another one doesn't make it right. If someone base video card performance from these forums and replys from people like you,you deserve what you get.
Also at the time the 5900 supported Open GL where the 9800 did not,so it anything is sad it's if you wanted Open GLYou couldn't even use an ATI card.
 
Geez, just find the extra $10 and find a Ti4600. I bought a Ti500 for very little and then found a online store selling a unused Ti4600 about two moinths later for not much more.

Great looking card, very flash. The lower end later cards may be slightly faster but I do like the idea that my card has at least been built from quality components on a limited production run. Plus its kind of cool having a component in your rig that once cost $400 two years ago and you got it for $40. :)

I then bought a 6800GT about two weeks after that. I sold the 4600 to a mate for $35.
 
CMAN said:
How you figure the XT was better than the Ultra is beyond me,that is like saying the 9800 Pro is a better value than the XT because it is cheaper. It was merely a cheaper version of the 5900 Ultra with less performance less money for less performance,whats the value in that. and how you can compare cards when you never owned one. Theres are a lot of recomendations for cards here that are totaly wrong,just because some one like you recomends one card over another one doesn't make it right. If someone base video card performance from these forums and replys from people like you,you deserve what you get.
Also at the time the 5900 supported Open GL where the 9800 did not,so it anything is sad it's if you wanted Open GLYou couldn't even use an ATI card.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? How in the hell do you get that a 9800 card did not support OpenGL, are you insane? The 9800 cards never have any issues with OpenGL and most of the time out performaned the 5900s at it too.

I have used all of the cards I recommend. In fact I have two 6800GTs, one X850XT, three 6800nus and two 7800GTXs laying on my desk behind me right now. Back when the 9800 and the 5900 came out you could expect a similair layout on my desk. I do use pretty much all of these cards, I build and repair systems every single day, tons of them, gaming systems, home systems, HTPC systems, whatever my clients want I build. Its my JOB.

The 5900XT was easily a better VALUE than the 5900Ultra or 5950. It costed half of the price and beat ATi's mid range cards then except in heavily shader based games. It was a great value, period. To bad it came so late in the FX series lifetime, but the fact of the matter is that it did. You really need to find a dictionary and read the meaning of value. That does not mean its the fastest, it means it offers great performance for its price. The other FX cards simply did not do this.

I highly doubt you used even near the amount of FX series cards I have, or 9x00 cards I have. I dont recommend things I have not used and I base my recommendations on personal use, not some review I've read on the internet or some word I get from a member of a forum.
 
CMAN said:
Also at the time the 5900 supported Open GL where the 9800 did not,so it anything is sad it's if you wanted Open GLYou couldn't even use an ATI card.
Click to expand...
This is why I yell at people on the hard forum. Where the hell did you pull that from? Must have been right out of your ass.

People talk here too much on "Speculation" and "what they think" and not the Facts.

Open GL has been supported since like 1998... on every card... its a standard API.... for all Graphics cards.

Please people, Unless you know for sure what you are talking about, do a quick google to confirm your speculation before you post here. People come here for help... if a noobie who didnt know anything read your post, he would beleive that 9800 didnt support Open Gl and be all confused. We are not here to confuse. Know the Facts.

Remember, Assuming makes an ass out of you, and me.
 
I love that quote... (the assuming thing)

my most recent card was a fx5200. It can run stuff like Age of Empires pretty well with crap for other components in the computer, but put it up with Warcraft 3 and you are toast. I can only run WC3 with lowest settings on 1024x768 (I can't stand 800x600 on rts, not enough screen space). I think that's mostly my ram's fault though (256mb of sdram). I had 640mb at one point, but I had to remove 128mb and 256mb b/c they were faulty (actually it was only the 256, but I never got around to putting the 128 back in.)

soooooo.... My friend also had a fx5200. We actually both have the BFG 256mb version. He beat Doom3 (and I think half life 2) with it, but he had a better cpu and ram than me. I'm not sure about HL2 b/c he got a new comp with a winnie 3500+ and 6800GT sli at about the time HL2 came out. It was a few months after it came out, so he might have beaten it with his old comp.

I don't think they were that bad. I mean, its just like any other graphics card, the level of performance only differs a certain amount. Obviously you wouldn't expect a Commadore64 to run Doom3, but just how much better will your computer run pong than it could?
 
You prove a point though. I beat Warcraft 3 with a Radeon 9000. This card was made to go against Geforce 4 MX's, and not FX5200s, the 9000 could handle WC3 at 1024x768 with everything at high no problems.
 
You can get a 9600pro 128mb for 73.00 dollars just checked pricewatch dont even mess with either of them cards.
 
The Biggest Reason that the FX series sucked, was because it was suppose to be the next generation after the GeForce 4 series. And in Most cases... the GeForce 4 ended up beating it....

So thats where the Hate for the FX came in.
 
Well he's not buying a card. In case you actually READ the op. He's already got those two cards. I'd hope he could go a little bit better than a 9600pro for his next upgrade...

I only got the fx5200 because it was one of only two cards that walmart had when I looked. The 5200 was $120 and there was a ATI that was only 128mb for $90. I wonder what it was.... I can't remember. Recently I've been wondering if it would have given me more performance.
 
Skrying said:
Unfair comparison. That's the crap mid range FX compared to top of the line Geforce 4.
Click to expand...
Well thats why i just threw the link out there, you can customize it anyway you want to to compare.

And also, It shouldnt matter. Top of the Line last gen, should always fall to anything of the newer Generation. I think thats horrible marketing and buisness. The Lowest card of the newest gen, should beat the highest card of the last gen.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
And also, It shouldnt matter. Top of the Line last gen, should always fall to anything of the newer Generation. I think thats horrible marketing and buisness. The Lowest card of the newest gen, should beat the highest card of the last gen.
Click to expand...

What? Are you being serious? Do you mean thatyou honestly expect say, an X300, to beat a 9800xt? You honestly expect the ENTIRE generation to fall on top of the old one? that's not how it works, man. They shift down by one spot. The add a new flagship. flagship becomes mainstream. Mainstream becomes value. Value becomes bargain bin. Look at last generation...the 6600gt and x700pro (both mainstream cards) are almost dead even with the 9800 pro's and 5950U's (previous generation flagship) How about before that? A ti4200 (mainstream) was about a fast as a Geforce 3 ti500 (previous generation flagship). Think about every generation...that's how it works. If you honestly expect the lowest Geforce 7-series card to outrun a 6800 ultra then you're going to be disappointed. I expect it to be about the same as a 6600 non-gt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top