Graphics cards - FX5500 vs GF3 Ti 200

Which is the best & worst from these 3 graphics cards?

[li]Sparkle GF FX5200 128MB 8X AGP
[/li][li]Sparkle GF FX5500 128MB 8X AGP
[/li][li]Sparkle GF3 Ti 200 128MB 4X AGP

Obviously bullet 2 is better than 1, but what is the order of power?


The FX5500 is just an overclocked FX5200, i’d say the GF3 has probably got more raw horsepower so to speak than both those cards, the GF3 has a 128 bit memory bus width whereas both those FX cards are only 64bit, imho i’d stick the GF3 in your main system, although the FX5200 and FX5500 are DX9 capable they fall flat on their arse if they try to render it.

thanx. ill take ur advice.
Whilst we’re talking about graphics cards, will any of these be able to handle half life 2?

Hmm well it depends how you mean ‘handle’ they should all be able to run it however if you want it to be playable i suggest using the lowest possible graphics settings, if you want a decent card for that system thats not too expensive i suggest looking at the 6600 range

Both the FX cards at the lowest settings can play half life 2. I had a fx5200 and just about managed to play HL2 at everything set to low. Game didnt look good though. Upgraded to a Radeon 9800 pro and everything is set to high now and works great

I think you’d be slightly better off with the fx5500. I’m not sure if it’s an overclocked 5200, I assumed it was a neutered 5700 because the specs for those are the same as the 5700le (in most cases). I think there are both 64 and 128-bit memory bus versions. NEVER get anything 64-bit. An fx5700le is better than my ti4200 in almost all benches, so I’d say there’s a good chance the fx5500 will be better than the gf3, unless it’s 64-bit.

i am not actually planning on buying a new graphics card, but I happen to own numbers 2 & 3 from above. I have just checked about the memory inferfaces - The GF3 Ti and FX5500 cards are both 128 Bit - it is actually the FX5200 which can be 64 or 128 bit.

I will put my best graphics card into my best system, and hopefully i can get some decent game play with the power of my system partially compensating for a below par graphics card. From the sounds of things the cards I have are probably similar in performance, but the specs seem to say the FX5500 is better than the Ti200. [Ti200] [FX5500]

The FX5200, FX5500 and FX5700LE can be either 64Bit or 128bit, with your 5500 being 128Bit it puts it closer to the the top although im not sure which is faster its best to benchmark the both of them in your system and see which one performs better i do remember however that the 5200/5500 core is fairly weak, i also suggest disabling DX9 support through Rivatuner if your planning on using games that use DX9 shaders and force the 5200/5500 to use DX8 instead as the 5200/5500 will slow to a few fps when rendering DX9

also i did make a mistake in my first post saying that the FX5200/FX5500 was just 64bit, the FX5200 does have a 128bit version called the FX5200 Ultra but with so many different companies selling these cards its not always reffered to as the Ultra simply as a 128bit FX5200

In that case, the above is accurate for Sparkle made graphics cards, not Nvida ones in general.

Can you suggest a few benchmarking appz, preferable not designed for experts.

btw, I am right in thinking that the power of my system will go some way to compensating for my slower graphics card?

Download 3dmark2001 from here newer versions such as 2003/2005 etc focus primarly on the graphics itself whereas 2001 focuses more on the system as a whole, also benchmarks arent always the best way of telling performance sometimes playing a few games and seeing for yourself is the best way.

I tried Tom’s hardware, but the Geforce 3 has never gone up against the later cards.

The Fx5200 seems to be a 250/400 clock speed, the FX5500 a 270/400 (faster core clock.

Out of two reviews, the FX5200 overclocked to 309 core / 405 RAM, while the FX5500 managed 325/411

With unheatsinked ram operating at rated speed already, the lack of any worthwhile RAM overclock is understandable, but the possible core overclock is impressive - looks like 300/400 should be possible from either - I wouldn’t bother trying to grab an extra 1-2% on the RAM, as there’s so little leeway - maybe it would go a touch further with ramsinks fitted?

Hi!I am a new user,even though i am that.I firstly had
GeForce 2MX then
GeForce FX 5500 agp x4(that was good,i was able to play half life 2 and other source-like games on high,enabling 800 X 600 and 2x AA with HDR,but shadows were on medium).That card was really great(from PALiT) and when i read any other forum it says that card was crappy.It wasn’t.It was really great(Most wanted was very perfect,assuming my 15 inch old screen ,now i have 22 inch,tell you later about that,with 800 X 600 and 2 x AA and everything else was on and on high).Also,i have played nfs carbon with no problems.I had the 250 watt PSU and the fx5500 ran great on it.But,sure,that card wasn’t the best from that series.But it is still good!

Now,i have Radeon 9800 pro(i know that is old,but it is so powerfull)And i haven’t got any money to upgrade to a newer one.This pc is equipped with 350 watt PSU and 1 GB of ram along with AMD Athlon 3500+.The motherboard is AGP 8x.Still,it is a nice upgrade since my LAST YEAR PC!which had motherboard agp 4x,512 mb SDRAM, intel celeron 1.8 ghz…When i collect more money,i will buy a much powerfull PC,i think it will be with a 9800 GTX…:bigsmile: Thank god i don’t have that shit geforce 2 that i used untill 2006 :bow: :bow: