Another funny [H]-review...

[T2k]

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDkw

Conclusion

Heading into this comparison, it appeared as though the GeForce FX 5200 would have a slight edge. Given the fact that each 128MB card could be found online for roughly $75, the NVIDIA card also brought new features and full DX9 support to the table. On one hand, you had a totally new core that was based upon a flagship product.

(...)

Editor's Note: There is a bit of confusion right now about the GeForceFX 5200 (non-Ultra) video card. There are two flavors of the GFFX 5200. One sports a 64-bit memory interface while the other takes advantage of a 128-bit memory interface. BOTH of these cards are being sold in the USA. THIS REVIEW REFLECTS THE 128-BIT MEMEORY INTERFACE GFFX 5200. We highly suggest that if you are to invest in a GFFX 5200, that it utilize a 128-bit memory interface.

T2k's note: ridiculous notes. Seriously... it's so pathetic: $75 IS A 64 BIT MEMORY VERSION - of course, they're using and offering, mentioning a 128 bit and ULTRA version!
Even paired with a low-level 9200 (they didn't bother themselves to get a PRO for the sake of a fair comparison), 5200 ULTRA couldn't win ANY of noAA tests. You said, filters enabled? Almost nothing is playable on both cards.

And after all these kind of nonsenses... here they come:

At the end of the day, we are left looking at a landslide of sorts. Without question, the GeForce FX 5200 is the undisputed budget performance champion. Even with that said, newer games such as Splinter Cell and UT2K3 are going to almost require you go to 800x600 resolution with no AA or AF in order to get playable frame rates.

No other value-oriented card brings as much performance or support for the latest features as the NVIDIA 5200. This is not to say that the NVIDIA card is not without its faults. One look at the CodeCreatures results illustrates one of this card’s greatest faults. After all, what good is having support for the latest pixel and vertex shaders if the shaders themselves are not powerful enough to provide acceptable performance? Despite a few flaws here and there, the GeForce FX 5200 is the card to buy if you’re in the market for a sub-$100 graphics card. As we have seen, it can run the latest games at 1024x768 to 1280x1024 with respectable frame-rates, and can even provide enough headroom for some enhanced image quality settings. Add to that the possibility of stealing even more performance through overclocked core and memory frequencies and you have yourself an incredible bargain for roughly $75. For the gaming enthusiast who finds themselves on a strict budget, we find it hard to do much better than the GeForce FX 5200.

Such a joke, isn't it?

Rhetorical question: [H]ow low can you go?

(PS: It was a rhetorical question, Erol - what did I tell you about thinking? )

EDIT: typos

 

[cthellis42]

The GF4 Ti4200 still reigns supreme in the sub-$100 category, considering the "advanced features" of the 5200 or 9200 will run about as fast as a parapalegic in the La Brea Tar Pits.

That, or pay $50 for a quality blackjack and a ski mask and mug someone on the way home with a better video card.

Meanwhile on the "points" they do look a bit odd. Still, these budget cards are pretty dopey. I'd just as soon use an integrated solution until I could free up $150+ for a card that will DO something.

 

[Bjorn]

T2k's note: ridiculous notes. Seriously... it's so pathetic: $75 IS A 64 BIT MEMORY VERSION - of course, they're using and offering, mentioning a 128 bit and ULTRA version!

Even paired with a low-level 9200 (they didn't bother themselves to get a PRO for the sake of a fair comparison), 5200 ULTRA couldn't win ANY of noAA tests. You said, filters enabled? Almost nothing is playable on both cards.

Well, in Sweden, the 128 bit version (128 Mb) cost about the same as the 9200 so i think it's valid comparision. Don't know about other countries though.

And the almost nothing is playable with FSAA and AF seems to be wrong imo. In Serious Sam 2, you get over 60 fps at 1024, 2X FSAA enabled. And about the same numbers for RTCW. Jedi Knight 2, over 60 fps at 1280 + 2X FSAA. UT2003 was a bit more troublesome but you could probably go for 2X FSAA at 800*600.
And usually, the 9200 got half the fps at these settings. So i don't see the big problem with the review.

 

[Zvekan]

Here regular FX 5200 (128 MB, don't know mem bus width) cost around 900 kuna (something like 130 USD) while Raden 9200 (64 MB) can be bought for around 600 (90 USD).

Zvekan

 

[digitalwanderer]

Damn it, and I like Pelly too.

 

[WaltC]

Such a joke, isn't it?

Rhetorical question: [H]ow low can you go?

(PS: It was a rhetorical question, Erol - what did I tell you about thinking? )

EDIT: typos

It would have been nice had they included a link to substantiate what the article says--that you can buy a 128-bit, 128mb 5200 for $75. Of course, if you can't actually do that, then it's not surprising that the article doesn't reference a link for price....

It appears that the "bit of confusion right now" concerning which 5200 costs $75 and which does not is entirely on the part of the author of the review... Nice of Kyle to tell people to "invest" in the card they tested rather than the $75 card whose price they quoted, while not managing to directly state that the Ultra can't be had for $75.

Or, can it?

 

[Tim]

It appears that the "bit of confusion right now" concerning which 5200 costs $75 and which does not is entirely on the part of the author of the review... Nice of Kyle to tell people to "invest" in the card they tested rather than the $75 card whose price they quoted, while not managing to directly state that the Ultra can't be had for $75.

Or, can it?

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...e=0&propertycode=&propertycodevalue=4635,3668

If all 128MB 5200s are 128bit then there are plenty of sub $75 128bit 5200s.

 

[WaltC]

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...e=0&propertycode=&propertycodevalue=4635,3668

If all 128MB 5200s are 128bit then there are plenty of sub $75 128bit 5200s.

Thanks for the link--yes, I have to say it really is confusing--I saw only three 5200's listed which identified the bus width, and none of them at all were marked "U" that I saw.

 

[PatrickL]

Tim in the link you provided the first card is:
Prolink Geforce FX5200 128MB 64bit W/TV/DVI , 8X AGP, - RETAIL, No Win DVD,No Game software for $ 66.

So i guess all others 5200 128 mob in that price range are also 64 bit bus.[/b]

 

[Tim]

Tim in the link you provided the first card is:
Prolink Geforce FX5200 128MB 64bit W/TV/DVI , 8X AGP, - RETAIL, No Win DVD,No Game software for $ 66.

So i guess all others 5200 128 mob in that price range are also 64 bit bus.[/b]

Yes I think you are right the cheapest 128bit card might very well be the $89 Gainward card.

 

[cho]

In China Mainland, the 5200 128MB 128bits only price RMB599($60).

 

[Tim]

In China Mainland, the 5200 128MB 128bits only price RMB599($60).

And you are absolutely sure that it is not a 64bit version.

 

[cho]

In China Mainland, the 5200 128MB 128bits only price RMB599($60).

And you are absolutely sure that it is not a 64bit version.

yes, i can sure.

the 64bit 64MB version price RMB499($50).

 

[PatrickL]

You can only compare prices in same areas. Pricing is so dependant of who you think that will be able to buy your products than prices can't be transposed from china to usa or europe.

On a side note in the USA you seem to always post prices without the taxes. In france for exemple it is illegal to advertise prices without taxes if yout buyer is not a professional. (Because professionals can get the taxes back and others not)

 

[deflate]

the 64bit 64MB version price RMB499($50).

And how does that compare....?

 

[Tim]

yes, i can sure.

the 64bit 64MB version price RMB499($50).

How much is a 64bit 128MB card?

 

[Pete]

Only the first Prolink in Tim's link is 64bit (and marked as such). The second one, for $72, is not only 128-bit, but also clocked higher than most 5200's. It also appears to have poorer signal quality than most, according to reviews.

The Chaintech above the $72 Prolink also appears to be 128-bit.

 

[T2k]

Only the first Prolink in Tim's link is 64bit (and marked as such). The second one, for $72, is not only 128-bit, but also clocked higher than most 5200's. It also appears to have poorer signal quality than most, according to reviews.

The Chaintech above the $72 Prolink also appears to be 128-bit.

Sorry to interrupt you, but it's not seems to be the true:

Interface	
AGP interface 

4x/8x AGP supports

Chipset	
nVIDIA GeForce FX5200 

Memory	
64/128/256MB DDR SDRAM

General features	
0.15u process technology

[b]64/128-bit memory interface[/b]

256-bit graphics architecture

250 MHz engine clock

400 MHz memory clock 

350 MHz internal RAMDAC

63 Million vertices/ sec

1.0 Billion texels/ sec fill rate

5.3 GB/sec memory bandwidth(128bit,332Mhz) 
2.65 GB/sec memory bandwidth(64bit,332Mhz) 
6.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth(128bit) 
3.2 GB/sec memory bandwidth(64bit) 
4 pixels per clock rendering engine

16 texels per pixel with 8 textures applied per clock

CineFX Shading Architecture

128-bit studio-precision color 

High-performance, high-precision 3D rendering engine

High-performance 2D rendering engine

Advanced Display Pipeline with full nView Capabilities

Digital Vibrance Control (DVC) 3.0

NVIDIA nView multi-display technology

Unified Driver Architecture (UDA)

Quoted from Chaintech's product page: http://www.chaintech.com.tw/tw/eng/product_spec.asp?MPSNo=14&PISNo=127

I'm quite sure it's NOT the 128bit version 'cuse usually all the 128 bit 5200s are in $100-130 price range.

EDIT: Not to mention Newegg's list HAS 64 bit Chaintech - even for a little bit HIGHER price than that wannabe-128bit version...
Gainward FX5200, 8X AGP, 128MB(64bit) DDR, memory.
(...)
$74.99

Exactly what [H] mentioned, huh? Mysterious accident...

 

[Natoma]

At the end of the day, we are left looking at a landslide of sorts. Without question, the GeForce FX 5200 is the undisputed budget performance champion. Even with that said, newer games such as Splinter Cell and UT2K3 are going to almost require you go to 800x600 resolution with no AA or AF in order to get playable frame rates.

Isn't this conclusion misleading considering in most of the noAA/noAF tests, the 9200 came out ahead? So why say that the 5200 is the undisputed budget king and that there's a landslide on one hand, but on the other hand state that the only way to get playable frame rates is to play with noAA/noAF.

Yikes.....

 

[cho]

yes, i can sure.

the 64bit 64MB version price RMB499($50).

How much is a 64bit 128MB card?

there is not 64bit 128MB FX5200, the memory cost maybe higher than 128bit 128MB version.