At the moment I am stuck using Intel i810 integrated graphics. I figure that *anything* would give me better graphics then what I have now. The problem is that my motherboard does not have an AGP or PCI-E slot, so I am stuck with the ageing PCI I am afraid. So I want to buy a PCI graphics card capable of running XGL (3D desktop) and *some* games. The most graphically intense games that I play are Enemy Territory and Savage I been looking at the Geforce FX 5200 but a quick search on these forums reveals it's a horrible gfx card? I would like to go nVidia because I use Linux, but I would consider ATi. To give me an idea of the performance of the 5200, how would you say it compares to a Geforce2 Ultra?
The best you going to hope for is an FX5500 PCI. Apart from that is the [already mentioned] FX5200 and the Radeon 9250 thses days. If your integrated Intel can do XGL, i'm sure the FX5500 can too As for comparison, there is not much to be done. Being faster, more advanced and with it's DX9 support, it's an easy win for the FX.
I don't know what sort of chance you have getting a card like this in Britain but it's worth checking: DIAMOND X1300PCI256SB Radeon X1300 Vista Ready Video Card - Retail at Newegg.com You could also try looking for 6200's as a few models were released for PCI as well. I would say the 9250 is probably a bit better for most DX games while the 5200 is probably a little stronger for OpenGL games, not that it much matters as this point in time though.
The FX5200 was the low-end card of the GeForce FX series, which nVidia had kinda biffed on while ATi was able to get a good card out and have drivers to complement it. If this is going in a Linux box, purely from a driver standpoint, nVidia is the way to go. The Radeon X1300 Pro is better, but I'm not sure if spending $120US is worth it. If you're going to spend that much, you're just as well off to snag an AGP motherboard and a GeForce 6600.
Yeah that's a good point, if he was going to spend that much he might as well save up and revamp the whole lot. So unless you find a cheap 6200 or an elusive 5700 lying around the 5200 makes sense I guess. It's it a DX 9 compliant card?
I am looking to buy a card on the cheap. Cheap as in "on eBay" As you say, there is little point spending too much money on a PCI card because it would be more cost effective to buy a better motherboard. I've seen quite a few Geforce4 MX 64MB PCI cards which go for a little less then the FX. I assume that a Geforce4 could at least handle Enemy Territory?
Well, the GF4 MX's are basically higher clocked GeForce 2 MX's, but given that ET is a Quake 3-based game, it should be able to run that. A 5500 would be better.
I've got a GeForce 4 MX 64MB (AGP 2x I believe) in my old school Mac desktop and it's not exactly a speed demon naturally but it does alright with Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast I think it is which uses the Quake 3 engine. It's not ideal for Unreal Tournament 2k4 or games on that engine but it can do okay with mediumish settings. I imagine you'd get much better fps on your rig though with that card.
I've decided to go for the Innovision Geforce FX5200 PCI card. What do you guys think? I know it's probably not that great but should be enough for my requirements.
I had 2 FX5200's, i payed 60 quid for a PNY one, 128mb, then 100quid for a 256mb BFG one, couldent even run games like GTA SA at super low settings :\, couldent run anything tbh, its ok i suppose for a linux rig though. However the 256mb one ran Doom 3 at medium 2 high settings which was unusual, it also ran ut2k4 on high wierdly enough :s
Wow, that fetched a pretty good price. Good for you. I guess it goes to show what a bit of optimization can do, getting a demanding game like D3 and all to run that well.
I am in shock... I installed Nexuiz 2.2 on both my machines to compare the framerates. I wanted to see how much of a difference the Geforce FX 5200 PCI had made to my main box. Main Box: Intel Pentium 4 2800/533/512 768MB PC2700 RAM Geforce FX 5200 128MB PCI Vs. Second box: Intel Pentium 3 1120/112/256 (overclocked) 384MB PC100 RAM Geforce2 Ultra 64MB AGP x2 I used the same settings for both computers in Nexuiz. Guess which computer achieved the higher FPS? Yep, my second box :doh: My main box achieved a whopping 9-20FPS whereas my second box averaged 40-60FPS! Is it just me or does the Geforce FX 5200 REALLY suck? I am sure the results may be different if I were running a DirectX 9 game but what use it that when I run Linux? Nevermind. At least it can run Beryl :chk:
The 5200 Sucks big time, infact i heard the whole FX series except maybe the FX5900's were a big flop tbh lol.
Perhaps the best of the FX series was the 5950 Ultra. Yes it was beefy, noisy and had high power requirements but it did alright. Still sucked compared to the 9800XT though
In a lot of tests I saw when the FX 5900's and 9800'swere going head to head seems to show that in a lot of ways the cards performed pretty simiarly, some games favored the FX, some the XT, depends really.
