Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
forumposter32 said:5200 sucks
CleanSlate said:And the answer is... USE A SEARCH ENGINE. It literally took me 30 seconds to find the answer to this question on yahoo.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/
~Adam
illgiveumorality said:You are just too crafty, aren't you
The funny thing is the geforce 3 really is faster than the 5200
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...
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?
None the less the 9800 was still a better product and I think more people would have gotten one anyway.Wich is offset by all the ATI buyers who got a Free HL-2 game sticker on buying a new ATI card
rfwinters77 said:
The 5900XT was not the fastest of the 5900 cards,The XT was not the faster version like.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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
USMC2Hard4U said:Look at this site. It is a good site.
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=147&card2=135
their is just an example, you can play with it alot.
Compare cards...
I mean, The FX is like a whole year newer than the GF4... so why the step backwards?
Well thats why i just threw the link out there, you can customize it anyway you want to to compare.Skrying said:Unfair comparison. That's the crap mid range FX compared to top of the line Geforce 4.
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.