GeForce 5200 FX vs GeForce 3 Ti

Let me start by saying that I did not choose this video card. My computer and my GeForce 3 Ti was still under warranty by Best Buy when I took it in for problems earlier this week. One of the problems was that the fan on the video card had stopped working. So, they install a new video card for me. Yay! Except, it’s not a GeForce 3 Ti because they don’t sell those anymore. They installed a GeForce 5200 FX (not Ultra).

So here is my question: Is the GeForce 5200 FX a good replacement for my GeForce 3 Ti. My main concern is with it being in the MX/FX line instead of the Ti line. When I bought the GeForce 3 Ti, I chose it over the GeForce 4 MX which was the same price. Am I getting ripped off in this case or is this really a comparable card?

I haven’t had the best week dealing with Best Buy. They returned my computer to me, still not working, after keeping it for 3 weeks. I spoke to everyone up to the store manager to get them to fix it while I waited because I was so upset. I guess at this point, I’m just don’t trust them that much. Any advice or information would be appreciated.

You are getting hosed. The 5200 FX (non-ultra) is the lowest of the low and is not worth spit. I would try to get an ultra version at least.

The product line as I see it went 3ti (yours was a 200?)-> 4ti 4200-> FX5600 Ultra

From http://www.boogletech.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=34&page=1

FX 5800 Ultra - Ti4800 (Ti4600)
FX 5800 - Ti4800SE (Ti4400)
FX 5600 Ultra - Ti4200
FX 5600 - MX460
FX 5200 Ultra - MX440
FX 5200 - MX420

Good luck!

Thanks for your thoughts. I’m not looking for an upgrade, since this is a warranty replacement, but I don’t want to end up with a video card that isn’t as good as my original.

To answer your question, my card was a GeForce 3 Ti200 with 128MB. The GeForce 5200 they installed also has 128MB. That’s probably as much as they cared about for giving me a similar card. Further thoughts would be appreciated.

The size of the memory (128 vs. 64) in the real world is mostly insignifigant. In many cases, 64 meg versions have actually benchmarked fasted then their 128 meg siblings. (odd, I know)

As Anon said, you’re getting hosed.

the 5200 is an entry level DX9 card… the Geforce 3 is a DX8 card. Depending on the game/benchmark you might get better performance out of the 5200 FX… but only for DX9 games.

Yep, you got hosed. The Geforce FX Ti5200 generally performs about the level of a Geforce2 Titanium, making it significantly slower than your old card. Take it back, demand they give you a much faster card. I wouldn’t take less than a Geforce FX 5600 Ultra in replacement, or a Geforce4 non-MX card. If they stock them, a Radeon 9100 card would be a very fair trade, and a Radeon 9500-series card would put you significantly ahead. You may try to push for that, given all the BS they’ve put you through.

It’s not odd - they typically put faster memory on 64 meg cards because cost isn’t as big a factor as it is with 128, so they bench higher sometimes.

For instance, as far as I know, a ti4200 64 meg card has a default clock of 500 mhz for the memory (or is that 250mhz clock, 500 ddr? Probably) and 450 for the 128 meg.

Oh, and as for the card, I’m not so sure you got “hosed” - a value card that’s 2 generations ahead can perform as good or better than a main line older card.

The 5200 benches though have been up and down.

Btw, “FX” isn’t the value line, it’s the prefix of geforce-FX cards, which the 5200-5900 are. In this case, the budget cards aren’t labelled by a prefix so much as their number. Where as in previous graphics cards, 4200 vs 4400 vs 4600 was basically the exact same card with parts rated for lower or higher speeds, the 5200 vs the 5600 vs the 5800 vs the 5900 are all slightly different cards with different engineering and different speeds, I think. In other words, there’s not really a geforce FX MX line.
Try running some games you commonly play… if you feel like the image quality is worse or that it’s slower, then try to do something about it.

Oh, and use the newer detonator drivers… they’ve got more optimization for the FX cards.

You got ripped off. The GeforceFX 5200 is marginally faster than the Geforce4 MX line, and in any game available today the Geforce3 would be faster. Of course, the GeforceFX 5200 has DirectX 9.0 support, but no DX9.0 games are available right now; by the time they do become available, the 5200 will be way too slow to play any of them at acceptible levels.

Go back and demand to get a Geforce3, or a acceptable substitute, like a Radeon 9100 (about the same speed), a Geforce 4 Ti 4200, or a GeforceFX 5600.

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. I had a feeling that they might be trying to replace my card with the least expensive one on the shelf that they thought they could get away with. My experience with Best Buy has been wonderful…until this past week, or month if you want to look at it that way. I am going to go to the store on Monday and speak with the manager. I hope that I can get them to offer me a different card. Thanks for all the interpretations. I had trouble determining how the GeForce 5200 FX compared with the GeForce 3 Ti200, mostly because the benchmarks I found didn’t compare these two cards to one another.