Which one is better: GeForce Ti 4600 or FX5200?

[pecel]

I have GeForce Ti 4600 and GeForce FX5200.
I think both have 128mb ram.
Which one is better in performance especially for gaming?

Thanks.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Ti4600, hands down. It'll still suck unless you're playing 4+ year old games but I'm sure you know that.

The FX5200 was renowned for its suckage. The Ti4600, on the other hand, was popular and powerful in its day.

 

[Creig]

The Ti4600 is definitely much faster than the FX5200. It was designed as an enthusiast card whereas the FX5200 was built as a mainstream card. The only advantage the FX5200 has is that it is DX9 compatible where the TI4600 is DX8. However, I would still easily choose the TI4600.

 

[pecel]

Thanks for the information.
Bad thing about Ti4600 is the long board. Hard to put on small case.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: pecel
I have GeForce Ti 4600 and GeForce FX5200.
I think both have 128mb ram.
Which one is better in performance especially for gaming?

Thanks.

GeForce FX 5200

3DMARK 2001 SE = 4233
3DMARK 2003 = 919

GeForce4 TI4600

3DMARK 2001 SE = 12408 (66% faster)
3DMARK 2003 = 2004 (44% faster)

It's not just 3dmark that the GeForce4 Ti4600 is faster than a FX5200 but especially games as well. The GeForce FX does very badly using DX9 and the GeForce4 Ti4600 will even beat a GeForce FX 5900 with most games.

I used this performance database to get the 3dmark scores.

 

[alcoholbob]

As long as you're playing something along the lines of the original Neverwinter Nights or the Serious Sam series you'll do fine. Beyond that may be a bit of a struggle.

But Geforce 4 was a MIGHTY fine card though, then trumped by the Radeon 9700...damn that was like the golden age of video cards, you could pretty much max any game for years back in the day, and prices/performance were a lot more palatable.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
GeForce FX 5200

3DMARK 2001 SE = 4233
3DMARK 2003 = 919

GeForce4 TI4600

3DMARK 2001 SE = 12408 (66% faster)
3DMARK 2003 = 2004 (44% faster)

Wow, didn't realize there was that great a disparity. I had forgotten how horrible the 5200 was/is. By the way, your math/wording is a bit off - 12408 isn't 66% more than 4233; it's roughly 3 times higher (a 200% increase). Same with the 3dm03 scores - the 4600 is 118% faster.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Creig
It was designed as an enthusiast card whereas the FX5200 was built as a mainstream card.

Actually it was more like an entry level card. Mainstream was the FX5700/5700 ultra. Craptastic cards Nvidia had back then.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
GeForce FX 5200

3DMARK 2001 SE = 4233
3DMARK 2003 = 919

GeForce4 TI4600

3DMARK 2001 SE = 12408 (66% faster)
3DMARK 2003 = 2004 (44% faster)

Wow, didn't realize there was that great a disparity. I had forgotten how horrible the 5200 was/is. By the way, your math/wording is a bit off - 12408 isn't 66% more than 4233; it's roughly 3 times higher (a 200% increase). Same with the 3dm03 scores - the 4600 is 118% faster.

It's actually almost 3x faster, or ~293% faster.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Ti4600>FX5200
The Ti4600 was a high end card, the FX5200 was a low end card.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I would just stay away from any FX card.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Dont let DX9 fool you on FX series cards. It can barely use that feature.

The Geforce Ti4600 is the choice here. I would avoid any FX5200 cards like the plague. On the otherhand, if it was something like FX5900/FX5700 or ATi based 9700pro/9600pro than I would go for those instead.

 

[alcoholbob]

Damn those high end FX cards were notorious due to the dust buster fan, somehow they managed to be huge monolithic room heaters while being slower than the competing card (ATI 9700).

 

[Qbah]

By today's standards they both suck terribly. It's just that the FX5200 sucks beyond terribly and the Ti4600 just sucks. A 9500GT/HD4350/HD3450 will blow those away without breaking a sweat.

If you want to play some legacy titles, stick with the Ti4600 though. It's like 2-3 times faster than the FX5200.

 

[Cookie Monster]

@Astrallite
Only the FX5800 had the FlowFX "dustbuster" cooling. (Correct me if I am wrong though, its been awhile since Ive talked about NV3x stuff, makes me sick just thinking about it)

@Qbah
He probably has an AGP motherboard, so cards you suggested wont be usable.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: pecel
I have GeForce Ti 4600 and GeForce FX5200.
I think both have 128mb ram.
Which one is better in performance especially for gaming?

Thanks.

GeForce FX 5200

3DMARK 2001 SE = 4233
3DMARK 2003 = 919

GeForce4 TI4600

3DMARK 2001 SE = 12408 (66% faster)
3DMARK 2003 = 2004 (44% faster)

It's not just 3dmark that the GeForce4 Ti4600 is faster than a FX5200 but especially games as well. The GeForce FX does very badly using DX9 and the GeForce4 Ti4600 will even beat a GeForce FX 5900 with most games.

I used this performance database to get the 3dmark scores.

Need to re-work those math skills.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
@Qbah
He probably has an AGP motherboard, so cards you suggested wont be usable.

My general statement regarding the power of the cards, comparing them to up-to-date ones:

By today's standards they both suck terribly. It's just that the FX5200 sucks beyond terribly and the Ti4600 just sucks. A 9500GT/HD4350/HD3450 will blow those away without breaking a sweat.

My advice to the OP regarding his choice between the two he owns:

If you want to play some legacy titles, stick with the Ti4600 though. It's like 2-3 times faster than the FX5200.

I never suggested he should buy anything Besides, I'm pretty sure there's a HD3450 for AGP. Like this one.

 

[Stumps]

if you have to...use the 4600 it's miles faster than the 5200...

there are plenty of AGP cards out there that are miles faster than both of those put together...6800 series or 7x00series cards if you want to keep using nvidia cards.

ATI has even faster AGP cards availible...but it all depends on your system specs.

 

[vj8usa]

For a bit more info on the FX series's half-assed DX9/SM2 capabilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geforce_fx#Shaders
That hardly even matters with a 5200 though, considering how weak the card is to begin with (in terms of raw power).

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
GeForce FX 5200

3DMARK 2001 SE = 4233
3DMARK 2003 = 919

GeForce4 TI4600

3DMARK 2001 SE = 12408 (66% faster)
3DMARK 2003 = 2004 (44% faster)

Wow, didn't realize there was that great a disparity. I had forgotten how horrible the 5200 was/is. By the way, your math/wording is a bit off - 12408 isn't 66% more than 4233; it's roughly 3 times higher (a 200% increase). Same with the 3dm03 scores - the 4600 is 118% faster.

It's actually almost 3x faster, or ~293% faster.

Er, not quite. 2.93x faster would mean 193% faster than the 4600 (or 293% the speed of the 4600, to word it differently).

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: pecel
Thanks for the information.
Bad thing about Ti4600 is the long board. Hard to put on small case.

That's what she said.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have a Leadtek Ti4600 sitting here next to me. I'm building a retro-rig with it and a 950MHz socket A Athlon. I'm looking forward to some old games to play on this thing.

I'm thinking Win2k, but might go with 98, but my guess is 98 will frustrate me much more then W2k as far as stability.

Quick question some of you might be able to answer... for the Ti4x00 cards I remember there was a specific driver that was a good deal faster then the drivers that followed for the FX cards and above. I want to say it was version 50-something. Anyone remember?

Also, should I expect any overclocking on this Ti4600? I'm guessing it won't go too far, and wouldn't provide much benefit, but I just don't feel right not overclocking it.

 

[Soulkeeper]

i owned both (well a ti4200)
as i remember the only benefit at the time was the fx5200 supported later DX versions, i could run the latest 3dmark stuff at 4FPS
also it was really cheap under 60 bucks in some cases ....

 

[AstroManLuca]

I just remembered that the FX5200 was basically a GeForce 4MX with DirectX 9 support added. And the 4MX was total crap compared to the 4 Ti. Hell, it sucked compared to the GeForce 2 Titanium.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
I just remembered that the FX5200 was basically a GeForce 4MX with DirectX 9 support added. And the 4MX was total crap compared to the 4 Ti. Hell, it sucked compared to the GeForce 2 Titanium.

The 4MX is pretty much just a 2MX.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Yet literally millions of these were sold to the unsuspecting consumers.

*shudders*