Author Topic: Geforce FX 5200 non ultra 128mb (Read 3983 times)

TrinireturnofGamez · « **on:** December 21, 2003, 11:09:17 PM »

my very unfortunate brother bought this card in his latest upgrade... it is slower than the TNT2 ans S4 savage [integrated] he had before......

wolfenstein : playable at 640x480 res with alot of options of only, any higher and it will lag when not looking at walls

raven shield : DX9 support eh nvidia? this ting can't support DX8! 5 fps at ANY setting on raven shield! my radeon 8500 doesn't go under 20 maxed out unless 8 models are onscreen shooting at each other!

solitaire : the only game that doesn't lag like a female dog

Nvidia has had the audacity to sell us this PIECE OF JUNK! they deserve to be BOYCOTTED!

Carigamers · « **on:** December 21, 2003, 11:09:17 PM »

Rampage · « **Reply #1 on:** December 21, 2003, 11:32:42 PM »

you mad hoss?

how you will compare a fx 5200 128mb to a tnt2? you on some high level weed.
this is a magnificant lie. not just any lie.

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #2 on:** December 22, 2003, 01:10:26 AM »

yes it has 128mb ram... yes it has DX9 support.... is it fast? NO! it FEELS like a TNT2... it may be the model..... allyuh stay clear of XFX geforce fx 5200.... it does work like crap

if yuh want proof go by me bro sometime and play ANY 3d game.

Czar · « **Reply #3 on:** December 22, 2003, 11:20:34 AM »

Sounds like your brother either got a lemon or something is wrong with the drivers or OS etc.

While I am not a proponent of the FX5200, it is nowhere near as bad as you are making it out to be.

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2003, 09:44:44 PM »

updated drivers to forceware 52.....

recorded 10 FPS in raven shield AVERAGE with FRAPS ...... all textures at low, shadows off , res 640x480 , AA off , aniso off .
when looking at another model yo get 4-5 fps.....

IT IS THAT BAD!

Carigamers · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2003, 09:44:44 PM »

Czar · « **Reply #5 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:56:56 AM »

Definitely has a lemon cause I know other peeps with this card and they are very pleased...

Personally, I'd never be caught dead with a 5200 or an MX-class card...value cards they may be, but you get what you pay for as far as I'm concerned. I shelled out the extra for my 9700pro and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

All the same, something's wrong with the card your brother has, because you should not be getting that level of performance from it...it is simply better than that...no two ways about it. Better look into RMA.

Flippant · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2003, 01:29:16 PM »

yeah something def. wrong here. it may not be the best card, but those rates are way too low.
make sure your agp is set to 4x
other than that it may be you have to return it.

~M@kaveli~ · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2003, 02:32:04 PM »

Or Do A Reformat Of Yuh Drive and see

androsovic · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2003, 04:57:51 PM »

Actually the card is balls.There was a release saying that err..it lacks somehting other dx9 compliant cards have.I think triniwitgamez has the document

Czar · « **Reply #9 on:** December 24, 2003, 01:13:58 PM »

Don't get me wrong, the card is not all that. However, it is nowhere near as bad as he is making it out to be.

Try to return it and see how things go from there.

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #10 on:** December 24, 2003, 02:16:26 PM »

dem peps prolly have a ULTRA geforce FX...... de one at de arima GL is de same way.............

the Fx5200 does not support TRUE DX9 , it only supports pixel shader and bump mapping 1.4 , DX9 games like HALO use 2.0 .

androsovic · « **Reply #11 on:** December 24, 2003, 02:18:48 PM »

What does the MX440 support?

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #12 on:** December 25, 2003, 11:10:30 PM »

mx440 has bump mapping : 0 and pixel shader : 0 .... but it is LIGHTYEARS faster than the 5200 for EVERYTHING .

Anonymous · « **Reply #13 on:** December 25, 2003, 11:33:58 PM »

no nvidia card is TRUE DX9 as yet
even their latest and greatest 5959 ultra 256 mb

ATI been DX9 compliant since thier 9500/9700 chipset : )P

Czar · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2003, 10:57:30 AM »

Quote

dem peps prolly have a ULTRA geforce FX...... de one at de arima GL is de same way.............

Nope, my partner was one cheap arse...so got the non ultra as well.

But like, whatever yo, the FX series is a waste of silicon imo...that from a one-time nVidia die-hard fan. I still wish to see them rise to greatness again, but with the kind of madness they been up to with their latest creations...only time will tell.

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:24:34 PM »

i found the problem

the geforce FX 5200 non ultra/vanilla/crap or whatever its called...

HAS A 64 BIT MEMORY CONTROLLER! , even the TNT2s use 128 bit memory controllers!!! and my radeon 8500 has 256

kapper · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2004, 12:00:49 PM »

fella u madd no ass i have that same card and it wokin real good .im playing all sorts of games with it from call of duty to NFS underground!!and im getting up to 120fps . my advice is to lapp it and get new drivers

*note * next time watch your language

The_Wickerman · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2004, 03:34:45 AM »

Quote from: "TrinithereturnofGamez"

" the geforce FX 5200 non ultra/vanilla/crap or whatever its called...

HAS A 64 BIT MEMORY CONTROLLER! "

The fx5200 has 128-bit memory interface not 64.
i have tried a few nvidia cards and the fx5200 can run any game at 800x600 smoothly .
i have seen it work like a tnt2 but that was because the system had sdram and one of those really cheap biostar boards

Carigamers · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2004, 03:34:45 AM »

Author Topic: Geforce FX 5200 non ultra 128mb (Read 3983 times)

Carigamers

Carigamers

Anonymous

Carigamers

ShoutBox