nvidia gf4-mx440 faster that fx5200 ?

Mgiese · Veteran Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 1630 Location: indiana

hi there,

i got a nvidia graphics card in my pc : model geforce4mx400 with 64mb of ram , i compiled the nvidia drivers, everything works fine. now i just get a nvidia fx5200 with 128mb of ram , and i didnt recompile the nvidia modul, and i just recognize the card seems to be slower than my old 64mb card, how is that possible ? the mx4-440 is nearly 5 years old. the fx5200 was bought 2 weeks before today. THX a LOT
_________________
I do not have a Superman complex, for I am God not Superman

Ryzen9 7950x (powersave governor) ; Radeon 7900XTX ; kernel 6.11.3 ; XFCE

StringCheesian · l33t Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 887

Well, the 5200 is a crippled budget card, but it shouldn't be too much slower than a 4 MX. There are lots of things that matter more than the amount of ram on the card. Like core/mem frequency, number of shaders, etc.

This page lists specifications for different nVidia cards:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=1

The 5200 has shader model 2.0 and twice as many ROPs, but both cards are about the same on MTexels/s and memory bandwidth. It probably depends if your 5200 has a 128 or 64 bit memory interface.

And here are some benchmarks comparing an FX 5200 to a 4 MX:
http://www.techtree.com/India/Reviews/S-Media_GeForce_FX_5200/551-49240-537.html

Mgiese · Veteran Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 1630 Location: indiana

hmm

all i can say is that the 5200fx-128mb-dvi is in the test which is important for me (Counterstrike Source Video Stress Test) is at least 10 fps slower than the old geforce4-mx400 with 64mb ...

thx so far

do i eventually have to recompile the nvidia-kernel-modul in order to get full or more performance ? the card is working with the same OLD kernel modul as the mx4-400..
_________________
I do not have a Superman complex, for I am God not Superman

Ryzen9 7950x (powersave governor) ; Radeon 7900XTX ; kernel 6.11.3 ; XFCE

whig · l33t Joined: 27 Nov 2004 Posts: 973 Location: New Zealand

The 5200 is a poor performer. Even the 4200 was much better (the best mid-range card at the time). The 5xxx is years old now. After the 5xxx series came 6, 7, and now we are at 8800.

Mgiese · Veteran Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 1630 Location: indiana

madisonicus · Veteran Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 1130

Mgiese · Veteran Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 1630 Location: indiana

i like to know which card you mean . i need an agp card.. gimme one example, maybe at ebay... thx a lot

it would only make sense if the card is realy cheap and also faster than the geforce4mx400-64mb
_________________
I do not have a Superman complex, for I am God not Superman

Ryzen9 7950x (powersave governor) ; Radeon 7900XTX ; kernel 6.11.3 ; XFCE

whig · l33t Joined: 27 Nov 2004 Posts: 973 Location: New Zealand

Like I hinted, a 4200 (or up to 4800) would do better. The next real choice going up is a 5600/5700. The 5200-5400, 6200-6400, 7200-7400 are duds in terms of performance really. Okay for 2D, but not for games. 3D desktop might be okay on those slow cards, haven't tried.