Ti4600 or FX5200

K

kaw

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
107
What do yall think I just got a new Dell for my desk at work and it came with a FX5200 128 my old system has a Ti4600 128. I looked for some comparisons between the 2 but could not find any. What card is faster/better?
 
the ti4600 will own a fx5200 at dx8 games, and dx9 games play way too slow on the fx5200 that it doesnt matter.
 
the fx5200, while being the newer card, is more comparable to a GF 4 MX440. The Ti 4600 you have will blow it away, in any test.


I'm sorry to say this but, " Dude! You got a dell!"

Just make sure installing the new card in your dell doesn't void the warrenty. Since it might not be worth it if you have any intention of using the warrenty.
 
Originally posted by archevilangel
the ti4600 will own a fx5200 at dx8 games, and dx9 games play way too slow on the fx5200 that it doesnt matter.
Click to expand...

The ti-4600 will own in dx 9 games too since it can´t display any dx 9 effects :D
 
If you install the 4600 Dell cannot legally deny your warranty unless they can prove the video card or improper installation caused the problems.

4600 is a much better card, unless you live for the Nvidia Dawn demo...
 
A Ti4600 is no slouch.. I find my MSI 4600 runs current games at higher framerates than my 9600 pro in my second box. Stay away from any Geforce Fx card below the 5700.
 
hands down ti4600 the only reason i would pick a fx5200 if it was against a gf4mx440 then yes fx5200 is the better card....but the ti4600 even a ti4200 would own the fx5200....i even think a ti4600 owns a fx5600nu

i dissagree staying away from fx cards...i find the fx5900nu a GREAT card and GREAT DEAL! the only fx card worth it is a fx5900nu or a fx5950ultra if you got the cash...
 
Originally posted by KingPariah777
Hmmm...Stay away from any GeForce FX altogether.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. I just put in a Gainward 5900NU and overclocked it past the 5950 speeds right out of the box.

That makes for a really nice upgrade for not a lot of $$$
 
The 5200 is pathetic. The Ti4600 isn't any sort of slouch in games. And as far as it being faster than a 9600Pro I can only say that it is true if you trust 3D Mark 2K3. All my games run better on the 9600Pro which replaced a failed Ti4600 that was overclocked.

However dual monitor support bites on the ATi cards. I miss being able to have two seperate wallpapers. And override refresh rates in games.

60Hz blows goats.
 
Originally posted by Mikey20
hands down ti4600 the only reason i would pick a fx5200 if it was against a gf4mx440 then yes fx5200 is the better card....but the ti4600 even a ti4200 would own the fx5200....i even think a ti4600 owns a fx5600nu

i dissagree staying away from fx cards...i find the fx5900nu a GREAT card and GREAT DEAL! the only fx card worth it is a fx5900nu or a fx5950ultra if you got the cash...
Click to expand...
Someone recently posted benchmark comparison between the 440 and the 5200, the 440 got higher fps in nearly everything but the 5200 beat it in 3dmark with lower fps because it could run the entire demo, nature and such.

I personally wouldn't touch the 5200 unless I had a G2MX or below and only needed replacement, not performance.
I'd probably still get a G4 MX or low end Radeon tho...
 
The 5200 is pathetic. The Ti4600 isn't any sort of slouch in games. And as far as it being faster than a 9600Pro I can only say that it is true if you trust 3D Mark 2K3. All my games run better on the 9600Pro which replaced a failed Ti4600 that was overclocked.
Click to expand...

I hope you mean 3dmark01, because a 9600pro will kick a 4600's ass in 3dmark03
 
Originally posted by laban
I would have to disagree. I just put in a Gainward 5900NU and overclocked it past the 5950 speeds right out of the box.

That makes for a really nice upgrade for not a lot of $$$
Click to expand...

Whats your point? If i get a good overclock on a GeForce 2, does that mean its better than a 9800? GeForce FX cards suck when you start putting them to the test with AA, AF or any type of DX9 application.

Originally posted by Roost426
I hope you mean 3dmark01, because a 9600pro will kick a 4600's ass in 3dmark03
Click to expand...

Wow, so the 9600pro will whoop ass in a canned DX9 benchmark that isn't representative of any game out on the market? AMAZING. As an rabid UT2k3 veteran, I can quite honestly say that I have absolutely no interest in any of the mid-level cards on the market today, because without AA or AF, my ti4400 (with a slight overclock) can beat them. Not worth the upgrade whatsoever.

Now when Doom 3 and HL2 come out, then you might see some benefits to the 9600 chipset. But until then, Ill keep my sweet DX8.1 speed with my ti4400.
 
if the 5200 sucks so royally bad why do I keep seeing reviewers giving it 70%, 75% even 80%?
 
Originally posted by KingPariah777
Whats your point? If i get a good overclock on a GeForce 2, does that mean its better than a 9800? GeForce FX cards suck when you start putting them to the test with AA, AF or any type of DX9 application.



Wow, so the 9600pro will whoop ass in a canned DX9 benchmark that isn't representative of any game out on the market? AMAZING. As an rabid UT2k3 veteran, I can quite honestly say that I have absolutely no interest in any of the mid-level cards on the market today, because without AA or AF, my ti4400 (with a slight overclock) can beat them. Not worth the upgrade whatsoever.

Now when Doom 3 and HL2 come out, then you might see some benefits to the 9600 chipset. But until then, Ill keep my sweet DX8.1 speed with my ti4400.
Click to expand...

UT2K3 is a CPU benchmark. UT games always has been...
 
Originally posted by DXSE
if the 5200 sucks so royally bad why do I keep seeing reviewers giving it 70%, 75% even 80%?
Click to expand...
Beats me. Depends on the focus of the review.

It is a decent card, but there are many cards I would buy before the 5200 tho. It supports DX9 features but isn't fast enough to use them.
The Geforce 4 MX 440 has better performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top