PDA

View Full Version : Leadtek Winfast GeForceFX 5200???



vtcom
04-11-2003, 11:43 PM
Here's my big question!!!

Should I replace my Leadtek Winfast A170 DDR TH GeForce4 MX440SE 64MB DDR MyViVo with a Leadtek Winfast A340 TDH GeForceFX 5200 128MB?

Here's The comparison (Based on card specifications)

Leadtek Winfast A170 DDR TH GeForce4 MX440SE 64MB DDR MyViVo
Graphics Core : 256-bit
Memory Bandwidth : 8.8GB/Sec.
Fill Rate : 1.2 Billion Texels
Vertices per Second : N/A
Default Clock : 300/460MHz
More Info @ http://www.leadtek.com.tw/3d_graphic/winfast_a170_ddrth_myvivo_2.html

Leadtek Winfast A340 TDH GeForceFX 5200 128MB
Graphics Core : 256-bit
Memory Bandwidth : 10.4GB/Sec.
Fill Rate : 1.3 Billion Texels
Vertices per Second : 81 Million/Sec
Default Clock : N/A
More Info @ http://www.leadtek.com/graphics/a340tdh128/a340tdh128.htm

Extra questions & comments:

1. The GeForceFX 5200 will costs me only USD115.00

2. Can anyone tell me the what's the exact "Default Clock" for GeForceFX 5200?

3. Is it meant for O/Cing? (The website says that it's an over-clocked version with several added features)

4. What are the extra visual enhancements that I could get for this card? Eg: Need For Speed:Hot Pursuit 2.

5. This card doesn't come with a ViVo (Video In/Video Out) function, which is better? To have a 2-in-1 card or split cards?

6. Can anyone tell me whether this card is equiped with SDR or DDR memory interface?

7. Existing card (GeForce4 MX440SE) has metal fan & heatsink covering from top to bottom of card. The GeForceFX 5200 only shows a metal fan & heatsink covering the main chip. (GeForceFX 5200 image below)
http://www.leadtek.com/graphics/a340tdh128/a340tdh-5200-spec_files/board.jpg

8. My MoBo is currently running at AGP 4X, the GeforceFX 5200 uses AGP 4X/8X. Will this degrade the card's performance tremendously based on the card's specifications?

Please help with answering this questions as I'm very, very tempted to get this card. Suggestions on other GeForce cards or brands are also welcomed.

Wiggo
04-11-2003, 11:58 PM
Basically a GF4 Ti4200 will trounce a GF4 MX440SE as the later only supports DX7.1 and has a crippled memory bus while the former isn't crippled plus supports DX8.1 so a A340 TDH would slaughter it plus have DX9 support but only 3DMark2003 supports that yet and I'm still waiting for more DX8/8.1 supported software. :beer:

vtcom
04-12-2003, 10:40 PM
I found out the card that I'm buying is actually a A340 TDH 128MB DDR instead of the initial post of mine that was supposed to be a A340 Ultra TD. Therefore, here's the updated specifications for A340 TDH.

Updated from NewsWare

Core / Memory Clock : 250/500MHz (GF4 MX440SE @ 300/460)
Memory Bandwidth : 6.4GB/Sec (GF4 MX440SE @ 8.8GB/Sec)

A clearer image of the card...

http://www.newsware.ws/images/videocards/leadtek/pic1.jpg

Wiggo, from what you can tell, izzit worth buying it, stick to my current GF4 MX440SE 64MB or get a GF4 Ti series?

Wiggo
04-18-2003, 12:22 AM
Quite frankly the GF FX5200 is crap and DX9 is only supported in a benchmark so a R9500KPro would be a better investment (soz but nVIDIA has lost the speed crown by some distance atm and the GF4 Ti4200 does a lot better in most game benchmarks). :beer:

kenny83
04-18-2003, 05:27 PM
:confused:
Judging from the FX 5200 Ultra results i'll hate to see a non-Ultra. Its performance is closer to a Geforce 3 with better AA and AF.
The Geforce FX 5200 is not a good buy, you won't get good gaming performance out of it, much better off getting a Geforce Ti 4200 or Radeon 9500/9600 Pro. Reading the HardOcp review of the Radeon 9600 Pro, it overclocks heaps ...the went from 400/600 to 567/716 with performance coming close to the 9700 Pro.

For $115 US, I reckon Radeon 9100 or Ti 4200 is a better buy since they are so cheap now days, and it runs current games better than the FX 5200. The DirectX 9 compliamce of the FX 5200 is a waste of time as it too slow to run it at any decent frame rates, it does have efficient AA and AF compared to older cards but its no good havin AA and AF if you get around 30-40 fps.

:thumb:

vtcom
04-18-2003, 10:17 PM
Aaahhhh... Finally, Tweaktown is up again. I haven't been able to visit it almost a week. Anyway, I thank you all for posting your replies. It's been stated by nVidia's official site that playing one of GeForceFX's selected games eg: Rallisport Challenge & Unreal II - The Awakening would produce cinematic experience (CineFX). I've bought these 2 games already, eager to try it out with my new GFFX 5200 TDH. Will my current GF4 MX440SE or buying a new GF4 Ti series give cinematics effects otherwise recommended by nVidia?

Wiggo
04-19-2003, 12:03 PM
Well ya should look at the FX5600 if ya want some performance as the FX5200 is just plain slow. :beer:

[ TrancE ]
04-19-2003, 12:11 PM
Hrm same here, i would just go for Ti4200. It does its job. As far as i know noone wants to get rid of it whoever already has it :)

But i SERIOUSLY wouldnt go for ANY FX right now.

1st. DX 9 is nowhere yet. Unless of course you want to enjoy an hour of fiddle with 3D Mark 03 with about 15 FPS average on every test.

2nd. Later, DX 9 will be everywhere... and guess what? FX will go down in price too. So you will get the same card, with same support, exept you will be able to use it eveywhere with its best performance, and you will save big moneys too :)

and 3rd... Frankly FX looks a bit budget to me.

I would go for Ti4200.

kenny83
04-21-2003, 05:53 PM
:hammer:

Haha, Geforce FX 5200 will give you a headache with its poor frame rates in Unreal II. Cinefx is just marketing ploy, trying to suck in buyers on they're **** Geforce FX series. Wait for the next series when the NV35 comes out and hopefully they will make decent cards. If you want a card now get ATi, Radeon 9500/9600 cards will give you much better performance and image quality. You should check out the overclock scores the ppl over at HardOcp managed with the 9600 Pro.

www.hardocp.com :devil win

Bastille Day
05-03-2003, 05:35 AM
In two demo tests: Serious Sam2 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein as presented in " A Brief Retrospective of 3D Accelerators", the G4MX440 was faster than the FX5200. Stay with the card you have now and wait for DX9.0 games (that you would like to play) to come out.

The FX5200 seems a safe bet for someone upgrading from a Voodoo 3 or and ATI 128. The best thing going for it is DX9.0 compatability and Nvidia drivers.

[ TrancE ]
05-04-2003, 10:32 AM
Rofl i just cloked Unreal2 with my mate. Took us 4 hours on medium. And the best part - we used GeForce 2 MX 400 (64DDR)... we were getting about 60-100 FPS normally during the game. Everything low exept for High textures, and 640X480.
Then we tried 800X600 EVERYTHING on high, and we were getting about 20-50 FPS while walking round and about 5-10 FPS in serious battles... I used Athlon Tbird 1.4..

WTF i was pretty surprised :confused: