GeForce FX 5200 not a good option?

[bunnyfubbles]

Gamer's Depot has released some test results between a mobile 9200 and a mobile 5200. While the big news is that nVidia is going to be supporting DX9 throughout their entire product line, it seem here that the "lowly" DX8 Radeon 9200 has what it takes to compete with the 5200 offering superior performance accross the board. Ofcourse these are the mobile versions and that doesn't exactly consdier the Ultra and Pro versions either, although it could be an accurate indication of how they cards will end up performing. The 5200 looked somewhat promising being very inexpensive and supporting DX9, although if it cannot even keep up with a DX8 board then it'll be all but worthless for DX9. Gotta wonder how many people will still eat up the 5200 because of the DX9 support...

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Gamer's Depot has released some test results between a mobile 9200 and a mobile 5200. While the big news is that nVidia is going to be supporting DX9 throughout their entire product line, it seem here that the "lowly" DX8 Radeon 9200 has what it takes to compete with the 5200 offering superior performance accross the board. Ofcourse these are the mobile versions and that doesn't exactly consdier the Ultra and Pro versions either, although it could be an accurate indication of how they cards will end up performing. The 5200 looked somewhat promising being very inexpensive and supporting DX9, although if it cannot even keep up with a DX8 board then it'll be all but worthless for DX9. Gotta wonder how many people will still eat up the 5200 because of the DX9 support...

What's that smell, more gamers despot bulls*it by any chance?

Don't you think it's funny how gamers despot information is usually "This info comes from a leading OEM" and then doesn't mention the source of their (usually) false information.

 

[DClark]

The performance advantage of the mobile Radeon 9200 over the moblie FX 5200 has been reported in The Inquirer as well (this article), including nearly identical 3DMark01, 3DMark03, and UT2003 Asbestos results.

 

[FearoftheNight]

lol theinquirer...;D

 

[DClark]

You can dismiss The Inquirer all you want, but when two different websites get similar results it tends to drastically increase the merit of the results.

 

[Zen0ps]

Well, it would help if peeps managed to benchmark chipsets on an equal level.

The Radeon mobilty 9200 is designed for very entry level notebooks, the .13 micron Radeon mobility 9600 is what is going to be used in the higher-end notebooks.

That the Mobility 9200 (a slower energy efficient version of the 9000, with the 9000 alread being about 50 percent slower than the 8500) is holding its ground against the FX5200Go is quite amazing really.

12 watts of power is too much for a videochipset to consume, I'd really like to use my laptop for more than 90 minutes please...

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: DClark
You can dismiss The Inquirer all you want, but when two different websites get similar results it tends to drastically increase the merit of the results.

The Inquirer's so called "exclusive" results are just the results from the Gamers Despot article altered abit. Inquirer is well known for doing such things. Why do you think both articles used the "exact" same system and used the "exact" same benchmarks?

 

[DClark]

No, I think that a reporter representing the Gamers Depot and a reporter representing The Inquirer were both at the same place (most likely some sort of gathering set up by "a leading OEM") and allowed use of the same equipment for a small amount of time to do benchmarks. The set of benchmark programs were most likely pre-loaded by the OEM in question. Run both 3DMark2001 and 3DMark2003 twice each with your computer, and you'll get small variances like what was reported. Both results were most likely from the same computers, but they were done by different reporters (which is why Gamers Depot reported overclocking results and The Inquirer didn't).

Companies do that all the time, letting reporters play with their upcoming products in a situation that can be monitored and controlled instead of just handing out samples and saying - here's our newest <card, processor, motherboard, etc.>; go have fun and run all the tests you want.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: DClark
No, I think that a reporter representing the Gamers Depot and a reporter representing The Inquirer were both at the same place (most likely some sort of gathering set up by "a leading OEM") and allowed use of the same equipment for a small amount of time to do benchmarks. The set of benchmark programs were most likely pre-loaded by the OEM in question. Run both 3DMark2001 and 3DMark2003 twice each with your computer, and you'll get small variances like what was reported. Both results were most likely from the same computers, but they were done by different reporters (which is why Gamers Depot reported overclocking results and The Inquirer didn't).

Companies do that all the time, letting reporters play with their upcoming products in a situation that can be monitored and controlled instead of just handing out samples and saying - here's our newest <card, processor, motherboard, etc.>; go have fun and run all the tests you want.

Your proof to backup this claim is? I've seen loads of these so called "exclusives" and from my experience 99% are bogus or copied from other sources. I think I'll wait for a hardware site like anandtech or tom's hardware guide to release more reliable information.

 

[DClark]

What's your proof to back up your claim that they didn't have a reporter at the OEM gathering? Last time I checked, you're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

 

[kylebisme]

naw DClark, you are loosing touch; these days we just lynch people whenever we suspect them of wrongdoing. go check out the war forums if you want more examples. :disgust: