FX5200 vs. Ti4200...so confusing

Status
Not open for further replies.

PizzatheHut06

Daemon Poster
Messages
900
I was looking at benchmarks, and the Ti4200 beats the FX5200 by at least 60% in frames per second. The part that confuses me is the Ti4200 is 64 MB and the FX5200 is 128 MB, and the Ti4200 is DX 8.1 and the FX5200 is DX 9.0. Why does the FX5200 get beaten so badly? I don't know too much about the architecture of video cards.
 
FPS isnt made out of the amount of ram you have, the FX series werent any good until the 5900's.
 
GameGURU said:
FPS isnt made out of the amount of ram you have, the FX series werent any good until the 5900's.
uhh the geforce FX 5700 ULTRAS are nice and will beat the radeon 9600XT anyday in my opinion
 
err.. actually, i'm glad you stated that it was in your opinion.. because although the cards are practically equal (1 card beats the other, and visa versa) the 9600xt may loose in 3dmark03 and other benchmarks, but in actual gameplay, you'll see that it is better than the 5700ultra, not by a huge amount, but by enough that you'd rather have the 9600xt over the 5700u

http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=274&PageID=1

-w00t
 
I got a 5200 and am perfectly happy about it. The problem you may have with the Ti is in newer games as you may not be able to play them with that card. The reason is in the use of pixel shaders and vertex shaders and the need for dx 9 or above. Thief will NOT work, for example, with out it. I've tried 3d analyse and without pixel shader 1.0 or above support it was hopeless :( Anyhow, that is one other thing to consider.
 
Oh, and not saying that dx 8.1 doesn't support ps 1.0, I'm just saying to be sure the card you get does. I believe the Ti does, but the MX cards do not (I'm pretty sure on that, but if anyone knows different, please correct me and show me the link... for my own research ;) ) thanx
 
well see this :

image009.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom