Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Triple Ace on December 12, 2003, 08:03:18 am
-
Anyone know the difference between the two cards?
-
I forget exactly...something is removed. Maybe its video RAM? Its slower for sure...
-
which one?
-
The 5200 Ultra more than likely has its clock speeds bumped up a bit over the regular 5200. That's generally the way nVidia do that sort of things. On their other cards it's generally also the cue to up the price (Just look at the old Ti4200, 4400 and 4600. There was less than about 50Mhz between each of them and the difference in price between the 4200 and 4600 was astronomical. Anyone who bought a 4600 under those circumstances was insane) but being the "baby" of the range I don't think the price difference would be that much here.
-
Originally posted by Triple Ace
which one?
The Ultra over the regular...that goes pretty much without saying.
Admiral's got it down I think there...its probably a slightly faster core and memory clock on it and thats what makes the difference.
If you really want to know...check HardOCP (www.hardocp.com) and read the reviews.
-
I would assume, given that it's the 5200 we're talking about here, it's the difference between a polished turd and a freshly squeezed turd.
-
I need a decent card for a decent price.
-
I'd have thought you could get a GF4 Ti4200 reasonably priced nowadays, and for me at least, it's a belting little card.
-
Ironically enough...most GeForce 4 Ti4200's still seem to be more expensive than some of the FX5200's. What does that tell you? :D
-
That they heavily outperform (in some cases) the 5200. In fact, I recall reading that the 5200 was the equivalent of the GF4MX only with DX9 support.
-
Yes, and we all know what passes for 'directX 9' support in the FX series, don't we?
-
Everything except the FX5900 and the FX5700 have some serious issues with running anything in DX9 mode. Usually it works but the FPS numbers are usually in the single digits with any amount of image quality.
-
[color=cc9900]I'll be the local ATI Guy here and root for any variant of the 9600 card. My 9600 XT was relatively cheap and the performance it gives is insane.[/color]
-
The FX5200 is not a good place to start if you can avoid it - 5600 upwards. You can get a good 5600 with 256DDR on-board for £90 in the UK, dunno how that works out in $$.
-
Unless NVidia pre-empt ATI with something wonderous and fantastical they won't be able to sit on their laurels for long. Only their very latest cards with their enormous dual fans and so on have matched what is, essentially, an ATI card that's much older.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Unless NVidia pre-empt ATI with something wonderous and fantastical they won't be able to sit on their laurels for long. Only their very latest cards with their enormous dual fans and so on have matched what is, essentially, an ATI card that's much older.
I don't think Nvidia have been sitting on anything since the HL2 DX9 benchmarks, it seems they are destined to go the way of 3dfx (voodoo 4+5 anyone?) if they don't pull something out pretty soon, though I hear the NV40 (I think) is just around the corner and VERY impressive, but we shall see.
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]I'll be the local ATI Guy here and root for any variant of the 9600 card. My 9600 XT was relatively cheap and the performance it gives is insane.[/color]
Any idea where I could get one for $100 or less?
-
I want to upgrade my video card but I'm holding out on the ATI's because I'm still not happy with what I read about their drivers.
For all the people that rag on Nvidia (a pointless endevour) their driver support has always been 100% spot on for me and I've never experienced some of the problems that seem to be a too frequent (for my liking) occurance with ATI cards.
-
www.pricewatch.com is your best bet. The 9600(not XT) goes for for 120-125. XTs are more for only little performance improvement.
-
I'd recommend a GeForce FX5700 or a Radeon 9600XT. They're not as cheap as the budget cards, but their performance is well worth the price. They'll be useful for a lot longer than the 5200 and 9200, because they're much better performers and they aren't cut-down at all. :)
-
I agree with the rest here, NVIDIA cards simply do not offer the performance for their price. Unlike ATI Radeon 9600/Pro/XT which is the best performer for it's price at the moment. Other ATI products also offer better performance for their price than NVIDIA equivalents. Perhaps it will change after the launch of NV40 but we'll see, it is howewer undeniable that currently ATI 0wns NVIDIA.