GeForceFX 5200 speeds?

Ehem, for 80$ you'll get Radeon 8500/9100 which is better than any FX5200 ever. No DX9 with those Radeons? DX9 on FX5200 is unusable, it's so goddamn slow!

 

Reread what I wrote :

As you can see, I mentioned the 3 tests, so it's 3 out of 3 and not 1 out of 3...

Since you seem to have difficulties in reading the site, let me assist you :

Test 1 - Serious Sam II :
SiS Xabre 400 64 MB - 66,4 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 128 MB - 50,9 fps

Test 2 - RTCW :
SiS Xabre 400 64 MB - 114,8 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 128 MB - 76,4 fps

Test 1 - UT 2003 :
SiS Xabre 400 64 MB - 56,8 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 128 MB - 54,3 fps

If you still fail to see that the Xabre 400 64MB outperformed the GF FX 5200 in the 3 tests, then something is wrong.

 

Actually it reads like this -

Test 1 - Serious Sam II :
NV Geforce FX 5200 Ultra 128 MB - 75 fps
SiS Xabre 400 64 MB - 67,8 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 NON-ULTRA 128 MB - 63,5 fps

Test 2 - RTCW :
SiS Xabre 400 64 MB - 114,8 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 Ultra 128 MB - 107.5 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 NON-ULTRA 128 MB - 76,4 fps

Test 1 - UT 2003 :
NV Geforce FX 5200 Ultra 128 MB - 75,1 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 NON-ULTRA 128 MB - 63,3 fps
SiS Xabre 400 64 MB - 56,8 fps
NV Geforce FX 5200 NON-ULTRA (clocked at 250/300 )128 MB - 54,3 fps

So, although the Xabre does well, it is 1 out of 3 in reference to the 5200 Ultra version.

 

Ah, it appears that you have edited your post to remove the Ultra.

I'm not knocking the Xabre. I think it does well considering it was SiS first stab at this market.

 

the point for me was having fully programmable pixel and vertex shaders for 80$. Not a large investment to develop dx9 graphics.

 

California.... Best Buy and Fry's.....FX 5200 non Ultra's cost $100 dollars and more......people need to quit spouting that $79 dollar price.

 

Micron, there's 2 version of the 5200 non ultra, one @ 99$ the other @ 79$

 

.....Ummm, I knew that....

 

Well, when i look @ pricewatch i see a GFFX 5200 64Mo @ 76$ and the 128 Mo @ 79$, so

 

Just out of curiosity, have you tried actually running shader apps on a 5200 non-ultra? I'd be surprised if you get more than a few fps... and that's assuming you can find a driver that supports floating point render targets.

This is one of the dumbest things about the 5200. If you try to use any DX9 features on them, games will probably become unplayable. If you instead fall back to DX8 mode to make it playable, then the card runs much slower then a cheaper GF4 MX or Radeon 9100/8500. Either way, you're worse off.

But I'm sure the "DX9" bullet item, the "FX" in the name and the $80 price will be enough to fool lots of people in to buying one. After all, Nvidia's "MX" strategy worked so well for them, why should they stop now?

 

yep I have.
I suppose I am a novice shader writer but I am using dx9 features. The frame rate has been perfectly acceptable to me (not jittery at all). There are one or two shaders in the CG browser that are jittery but the effects are still visible and overall it is passable. I am not gonna use this thing to play DoomIII, but so far it has been perfectly acceptable for working on shaders, which is what I bought it for.

(oh and I did buy it for something like 86$, so it is available at that price.)