Geforce Fx
Crazy_Monkey
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8453Members
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8453Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">POC?</div> Yeah, I paid $180 for a GF FX 5600 256megs, and guess what I got? Something that wasn't backwards compatible. I also learned that you have to get the 5900 for reasonable clock speeds that run everything.
I overclocked the 5600 (yeah, I still took it back and got a XP 2800+ instead :-D) about 3-5%. That improved all framerates by 5-15%. That says alot. I'm guessing that if you overclocked the 5900 that much, you'd be able to run all programs quite well. As it stands, my ti 4200 is still faster on OpenGL and DX8 or less applications than the 5600.
With the 5600: WC3 was slightly choppy, NS didn't sit at 100 FPS, C&C Generals FPS started dropping when we had 5 nukes, 2 particle cannons, and a scud storm going at once in my 1600x1200 space. What's the deal? Stupid Nvidia. Things need to be backwards compatible.... Though, my GF4 ran about 50-75% slower on DX9 benchmarks, and stalled on things such as pixel shaders and greater that 8 point lighting tests. So what? It wasn't meant to even try DX9 applications.
Okay, enough rants. Anyone else try and GFFX card yet?
I overclocked the 5600 (yeah, I still took it back and got a XP 2800+ instead :-D) about 3-5%. That improved all framerates by 5-15%. That says alot. I'm guessing that if you overclocked the 5900 that much, you'd be able to run all programs quite well. As it stands, my ti 4200 is still faster on OpenGL and DX8 or less applications than the 5600.
With the 5600: WC3 was slightly choppy, NS didn't sit at 100 FPS, C&C Generals FPS started dropping when we had 5 nukes, 2 particle cannons, and a scud storm going at once in my 1600x1200 space. What's the deal? Stupid Nvidia. Things need to be backwards compatible.... Though, my GF4 ran about 50-75% slower on DX9 benchmarks, and stalled on things such as pixel shaders and greater that 8 point lighting tests. So what? It wasn't meant to even try DX9 applications.
Okay, enough rants. Anyone else try and GFFX card yet?
Comments
Hence why I took it back....
It was fine for DX9 applications, and it would have been fine, for the cost, if it had run as well or better on my older applications.
9500? I didn't know one exsisted, and I just looked at it's not on ati.com
Whatever. I had an ati card not too long ago, and it sucked. Got the GF4 and I was happy. So, I'll stick with NV for now.
ATI is worse. At least nVidia dosen't issue cards as series filler (9000pro)
ATI is worse. At least nVidia dosen't issue cards as series filler (9000pro) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Instead they make a whole new useless serie (yeah im talking about mx <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
ATI is worse. At least nVidia dosen't issue cards as series filler (9000pro) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Instead they make a whole new useless serie (yeah im talking about mx <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But for some of us, the MX cards are a godsend. I don't have a lot of money to throw at my computer, and my GeForce FX 5200 runs great, and at a retail price of $60, i'm not complaining.
Yeah, it helps that the 9700 is one of thier flagship products....
Was that the 9000 was the 'budget' card, 9500 was the 'enthusiast' card, and the 9700 was the 'Oh my god I have too much money' card. Now, it's the 9200, 9600, and 9800, with the old line being quietly phased out due to a few fun facts that were discovered... since the 9500 and 9700 were essentially the same chip, the 9500 Pro could simply be overclocked into a 9700, for all intents and purposes. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The current iteration offers unlimited pixel shaders (though not even a quarter of those on the 9500 are used in any current-day game) and a beefier high-end, which continues to outstrip the top-grade nVidia solution in terms of framerate and image quality... gaps which only widen if you enable FSAA and/or Anisotropic filtering.
In short, we've come half-circle. Now, nVidia are the 'cheapie' cards and ATI are the 'quality' cards... even though the nVidia offerings are running at almost twice the clockspeed of the ATI.
Personally, I can't wait for ATI to pop down the next gradiation of fabbing, so they can dissipate what little heat they generate even more effectively, ramp up to meet the current nVidia clockspeeds, and blow them completely out of the water by more than doubling their delivered available framerates. The effectiveness of starting with an efficient model and then adding speed, rather than trying to start with speed and get efficient. In the latter case, you get lazy.
65$ for a good card w/ TV-out.
Yeah, it helps that the 9700 is one of thier flagship products.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but it's not extravagantly expensive, if that's what you're getting at.
Oh, and this discussion is all nice, but please, let's not descend to the ridiculousness of another Nvidia-ATI-World War VII.
For 1/2 the cost it's good.
Also worth noting - It may not be the fact the card is slowing your pc down, maybe your computer simply can't support it as the Motherboard/whatever is oldish? If this is the case it is not the card's fault. As far as I have heard about the (good - yes there are bad ones, some are cheaply made, others well made) 5200's, They can be made to work better than the Geforce 4 Ti4200. I'd go with a "Gainward golden sample" thingy card.
Also, anyone know where the best place to find a FX 5900 ultra is?
As noted previously. Positions have changed... for a true 'budget' part, you stick with an nVidia. For quality, speed, and better price/performance ($400 for a R9800 Pro versus $500+ for a GFFX5900, non-Ultra), you save up a little more and go with an ATI.
I'd also like to point out that ATI does their *own* card-manufacturing if you want one fully-ATI in origin, so you don't have to worry about a shoddy third-party vendor slapping cheap RAM, capacitors and bridges on the card to save a few pennies, degrading visual quality and quite possibly causing instability.
This is not true. Ive seen a non ultra for $270 check <a href='http://www.compusa.com' target='_blank'>http://www.compusa.com</a> for proof <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sorry.. PNY is just one of those 'sub-standard' third-party manufacturers. Friend had bought a PNY MX440, and it REFUSED to work with the Detonators. Had to use the ones on the CD (not even the downloaded ones would work) and it'd randomly reset the display to 640x480 in 4-color mode. Not 16 color, nor 16-bit... 4-color. I believe it was black, mint-green, aquamarine-blue, and red.
Convinced him to swap out to an R9600 Pro, and that problem disappeared... but now texturing and T&L stuff screw up a bit. I can't help but blame the cruddy Detonator-derivatives, as the card performs perfectly in another box, and his machine is a fresh wipe/install (though before I got him to swap cards). Need to figure out what was left behind and kill it off, so the Catalyst drivers can work properly. (T&L dying in Warcraft III, UT2K3, and misalignment of the dxdiag textures are the current symptoms, easily caused if rendering components were left behind, and the nVidia pipes took preference in the render-select algorithms)
Otherwise it's wipe/reinstall time, but getting to do it up properly on this run-through. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Creative Labs, Leadtek, Gainward etc etc
And the other thing is how the hell do we find out if we have a spare AGP slot and if so where the heck is it (Yes I am a nub to computers <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
The ONLY one worth taking is the 5900 Ultra, nothing else is worth it (and 256 meg of ram is a bit pointless, the 128 is good enough).
None of the others are worth a thing, even a Geforce 4 Ti42000 will outperform them in most situations. These cards are TOTALLY something to avoid.
<img src='http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/images/image005.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<img src='http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/images/image009.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<img src='http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/images/image012.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<img src='http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/images/image015.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
I think clearly that says the ti4200 competes nowhere near the others, and that most of the cards are neck and neck. Choose which one suits you. I like the Tyan Radeon 9600 Pro because it has a friggin huge heatsink, variable speed fan with temperture monitoring software, overclocking in that software, a speaker to warn of high temperature, and a decent price tag of $160.
Want to send me $500 so i can buy myself a 5900 Ultra? No? Ok, then i'll keep my 5200 which performs extremely well for a budget price. While it MAY only be as good as the lower Ti GeForce 4 cards, it's cheaper than them and also has DX9 compatability. While i know the card is barely powerful enough to run them well, it does support them, and even on games like UT2K3 and Unreal 2, my fps are fantastic and i'v ehad no problems.
I say again. Not everyone can afford $500 for a new video card, and the 5200, for it's price, performs excellently.