Does anyone have this card? I read many complains about Nexuiz being slow with that card in general.. and i mean really slow as in too slow for what i would expect. How does Nexuiz run for you?

Well I can't talk about 5200 but my girlfriend has a GF4MX440 wich should be the slowest card in the 4 series as well as 5200 is the slowest on FX series.
I AM able to run Nexuiz fine with this MX440 card but it as necessary to run the game with low.cfg.
With this I was possible to run the game with more than 100 FPS.
I will try to create an optimal performance config for this card on the weekend and post it here.

Additionally other experiences with the 5200 series. My brother owned one. He wanted to play Doom3, but even with ALL effects off and 640x480 it ran at 10FPS or so. A downgrade to an old GF4TI4800 made it much better...

Right now i'm looking for owners of exactly that card as i have read some bad reports in other forums..

I know

I know this kind of cards very well. I haven't one here, but I can try to fit a configuration to the MX series, which should run very well on a 5200, too. It's not a bug in the game, it IS the card itself for sure.

I think it's just generally rubbish. Unrelated but from the Tenebrae readme:

5200 may give very bad performance

I'm here now. You can call me a 5200 specialist (methinks You mean the FX5200, not a "NV" which doesnt exist)



I owned an FX5200 Ultra at home and an FX5200 in my company PC. I have one machine with it at work (which is not used for any games) and I built one in my girfriends PC where I play Nexuiz as well. The Ultra has a few MHz more and is fan cooled. Not so much difference in performance.

The performance of this chips depend quite heavily on the CPU of the rig. Indeed it's quite weak, but Nexuiz was always slightly playable with it. In comparison to the older Nexuiz versions You can achieve about 40 to 50fps in Version 2.0, running on the low.cfg even with a 1024 resolution.

Having in mind this kinda cards are available at 40 Eurons, there's not much to complain about IMHO. Ambitious players however would never be satisfied with ANY cheap VGA.

Zico, the GF4 4800 Ti is an older generation, but was top of the range at that time and expensive like shit. Still it's a very powerful card (even though several current standards arent supported anymore). You just can't compare it to an FX5200 which was always an entry model. Even the MX 440 was higher value than the FX5200. "downgrading" is definately the wrong subscription


Valuable informations to performance ranking of VGAs You can also get on this list: http://pc-erfahrung.de/Grafikrangliste.php

Descriptions (in german) about many GPU types and lots of other stuff can be found here: http://pc-erfahrung.de/



esteel: If You are mad about testing a GF5200 we could talk about it

Well that is more like what i would expect. I read several reports of 10fps with that card EVEN with low.cfg.. and thats not good. And i'm glad Urmel reports more then 10 fps Can you give me a little more information about that system and drivers?

Urmel... wrote:Zico, the GF4 4800 Ti is an older generation, but was top of the range at that time and expensive like shit. Still it's a very powerful card (even though several current standards arent supported anymore). You just can't compare it to an FX5200 which was always an entry model. Even the MX 440 was higher value than the FX5200. "downgrading" is definately the wrong subscription

Well ok, it's hard to describe for me... I'm not so good in speaking english. "downgrading" was just my way to tell "changing to an older generation". But I ineed did not know even a MX440 would be faster.

So sorry from my side, in that case my config I will create would be useless for this card

esteel wrote:Can you give me a little more information about that system and drivers?

my Girlfriends PC is an AMD 1900+ with 512MB RAM (some weeks before it was 256MB and stilly playable). Driver iirc is 1 year old (some 71.xx).

my company PC is a P4 2.6 and at the time the GF5200 was built in, also 512MB RAM. Always the latest drivers, courze

my home PC is an AMD 2600+ with a gig of RAM, drivers always up to date.

All systems ave been runinng on Win XP SP2 for years without any reinstall, with huge amounts of software testing fractals and other crap, surely all the three could run much better with a fresh winstallation

Btw Ofram/Opferlamm is quite experienced now in tweaking antique systems under Win XP

esteel wrote:Well that is more like what i would expect. I read several reports of 10fps with that card EVEN with low.cfg.. and thats not good. And i'm glad Urmel reports more then 10 fps Can you give me a little more information about that system and drivers?

Can't be THAT crap Even my poor Gef2Mx 100/200 can sqeeze out 30 fps on low detailed maps

Well, I had a FX5200 for a short time. I was able to play Nexuiz 1.x at 16bpp at 1024x768 with "okay" framerates.

However, it's really important to have a recent driver. With newer drivers Doom3 is on the edge of being "playable" on my FX5200 - nVidia seems to have optimized the crap out it.

Whatever claims to be a "Windows standard driver" for sure is crap - those drivers don't care for OpenGL at all. It's really necessary to install a fresh driver from nvidia.com.

I'm using an FX5200 right now

Nexuiz runs around 140fps in 800x600x16 with good texture quality and realtime light off, so i'm okay

I get steady 100 ish on my mx420 (fps capped at 115) on local games.
Thats with all on but bloom and RLLights, good textures, 800x600 32bit.
I'm really suprized how bad the fx5200 performs in general.

PHREAK wrote:I'm really suprized how bad the fx5200 performs in general.

Why? It's always been an entry model

i own two agp vga boards with fx5200 gpus and one agp vga board with a fx5900xt gpu.

the performance of the fx5900xt gpu is ok for nexuiz, but the fx5200s' performance is really disappointing! as urmel said, these gpus are bloody entry models...

if you're lucky and own a good sample of the fx5200 gpu, you can use nvclock to overclock the gpu and memory in a wide range. the fx5200 scales quite good with higher clock rates! please note, that using nvclock is on your own risk and there's nobody to blame if the vga card ends up in magic smoke ;)

have fun!

CheapAlert wrote:Nexuiz runs around 140fps in 800x600x16 with good texture quality and realtime light off, so i'm okay

That sounds actually quite good for that card. At least it shows the card can run better then many people seem to report

esteel wrote:

CheapAlert wrote:Nexuiz runs around 140fps in 800x600x16 with good texture quality and realtime light off, so i'm okay

That sounds actually quite good for that card. At least it shows the card can run better then many people seem to report

Although I'm a little astonished about CheapAlert's statement....

i'm running a radeon again now, and i still stand by that fx5200 performance brag statement

I have a 5200FX. Initially, I had severe performance issues (5-10fps on default settings.) I turned off dynamic light and shadows and now get over 100fps.

But I have the MX420!!!
This card is outdated as hell and it seems still better then fx5200. This is just a suprise to me...thats all.
Also nvclock is only good for linux so us poor windows bastards are a bit fudged, but that aint nothing new

Sorry, but i can't believe this

Yes, i am the tuning specialist with FX 5200 and 5500 cards *g*

In my opinion the best driver for this cards is the DHzerOpoint 0.7803. With this driver i get moderatly 30-50 Fps at the 2.0 Version of Nexuiz. But at the moment i use the FX 5500, cause this card comes with a fan and so i can overclock it a little bit. The card runs stable with 291 MHz Corefrequenzy and 311 MHz Memoryfrequency.

The FX 5200 that i own, is a passive one with no cooling fan.

Well the overall response was very mixed.. but at least it seems possible to play with a 5200. So there is still hope for the future with new models to make it 'ok'

I remember 1.0 being playable at what I suppose might be a medium configuration, but I ditched it for a 6600 not long after 1.0's release.

My friend still has a 5200 and says that 2.0 is totally unplayable for him, unless he turns everything down to the absolute lowest, and that level of muddiness and lack of eye candy just doesn't suit him. He's upgrading his PC here soon, though.

Hmm there are people telling otherwise.. would be nice to find out whats the different on the systems it runs ok and were it does not.

quite easy, last is the least:

1. the performance of this chip is quite heavly influenced by the power of the whole system.

2. people have different oppinions of "playable" or "acceptable".

3. performance isn't provided by the GPU only. Many of the newer cards have slower RAM, and many of the older (cheaper) models are crappy in other ways.

Are there different revisions of the 5200 by any chance?
It wouldn't be the first time, that different hardware is sold under the name...

I know of different versions... some with 128 and others with even 256MB VRAM... Different clock speeds are (at least on some NVidia cards) not unusual as well ... depends on the vendor.

KadaverJack wrote:Are there different revisions of the 5200 by any chance?
It wouldn't be the first time, that different hardware is sold under the name...

can anyone say athlon, celeron, p4, and duron

well i havent seen any diffrent cores on em, but clock speeeds seems to be rather diffrent. specialy on the "gs" ones.

5200's (including PCX5300 and 5500 as they are derivatives) were available in a few different versions:

Code: Select all

Model        Core          Clocks            memory bus 
FX 5200    NV34    1:4:4    250/200    64 or 128 bit    
FX 5200 Ultra    NV34    1:4:4    325/325    128 bit
PCX 5300    NV34    1:4:4    250/325    64 or 128 bit
FX 5500    NV34    1:4:4    270/200    128 or 256 bit

Entry level chip. Replacement for GeForce4 MX family. Quadro FX 330, 500, 600 is based on the GeForceFX 5200. Lacked IntelliSample technology. No lossless color compression or Z compression. PCX uses AGP to PCIe bridge chip for use on PCIe motherboards. Has 2 pixel pipelines if pixel shading is used. Each pixel pipe = 1 FP32 ALU handling 2 TMUs + 2 FX12 Mini-ALU (each one can do 2 MULs or 1 ADD or 1 MAD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geforce_fx ... _FX_models