FX5200 odd performance problem

J.Clarke · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 177

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:36:18 +0300
Mario Kadastik wrote:

> Hello
>
> Well, before you start screaming that I should have gotten a faster
> card I have to tell, that I read about the FX5200 and it seemed to
> satisfy all my requirements and I knew that it was a budget card, but
> hey MX440 was also a budget card so I didn't expect it to be worse
> than MX440 at some aspects.
>
> I think I might have something a bit wrong as my 3dmark03 score is 860
>
> without clocking and with some tuning I cat run at 940. At the same
> time I see people having with quite the same configuration scores from
> 800 - 1500. I can't quite get how the difference is so big? I saw that
> some of the high end scores were with AGP 8x so I guessed that this
> might be the issue, but I also found a score of 1300 with quite the
> same settings and conf I had except he had memory clock at 405MHz and
> I have at 333MHz (maximum by asus tweak utility is 360MHz so I can't
> quite understand how people get a lot more???)
>
> So I'm a bit disappointed in the performance compared to others. Might
>
> it be a problem with the card or is there a small thing I haven't
> noticed yet?
>
> I wouldn't be complaining if the card would be performing as it does
> for others as I know it's a budget card. But as it seems to be
> underperforming then I do tend to ask for help.
>
> And why I think the card is underperforming: read my previous posts
> regarding FX5200 and fog problems.
>
> Just for help here are my specs:
>
> OS: Win XP (without SP1)
> driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
> mobo: ASUS A7VK333
> mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
> video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
> my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
> default benchmark reso: default (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)
> if you want any more details, then just ask.

There has been much discussion of the FX5200 and performance. It is
fairly well established that FX5200 boards with 64-bit memory perform as
you describe yours performing. You have been told this before and chose
to dismiss the advice instead of acting on it.

> Mario

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from group: alt>comp>periphs>videocards>nvidia

Ron Merts · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 131

What's your CPU? The 5200s are pretty slow compared to the 5200 Ultras but
with the proper speed settings for core and memory you should see some
better scores. I'm also assuming that you have already installed DirectX9a.
You should look for the coolbits patch from guru3d.com. It will allow you
to tweak the CPU and memory clock speeds to double what their default values
are, or more. Remember, only change the 3D settings as the 2D settings
won't show you any performance increase.

Ron

"Mario Kadastik" wrote in message$1_1@news.estpak.ee...
> Hello
>
> Well, before you start screaming that I should have gotten a faster card
> I have to tell, that I read about the FX5200 and it seemed to satisfy
> all my requirements and I knew that it was a budget card, but hey MX440
> was also a budget card so I didn't expect it to be worse than MX440 at
> some aspects.
>
> I think I might have something a bit wrong as my 3dmark03 score is 860
> without clocking and with some tuning I cat run at 940. At the same time
> I see people having with quite the same configuration scores from 800 -
> 1500. I can't quite get how the difference is so big? I saw that some of
> the high end scores were with AGP 8x so I guessed that this might be the
> issue, but I also found a score of 1300 with quite the same settings and
> conf I had except he had memory clock at 405MHz and I have at 333MHz
> (maximum by asus tweak utility is 360MHz so I can't quite understand how
> people get a lot more???)
>
> So I'm a bit disappointed in the performance compared to others. Might
> it be a problem with the card or is there a small thing I haven't
> noticed yet?
>
> I wouldn't be complaining if the card would be performing as it does for
> others as I know it's a budget card. But as it seems to be
> underperforming then I do tend to ask for help.
>
> And why I think the card is underperforming: read my previous posts
> regarding FX5200 and fog problems.
>
> Just for help here are my specs:
>
> OS: Win XP (without SP1)
> driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
> mobo: ASUS A7VK333
> mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
> video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
> my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
> default benchmark reso: default (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)
> if you want any more details, then just ask.
>
> Mario
>

megashortsnospam · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

Running the 44.69 drivers on Win98SE I get scores in the mid 1200s with an
ASUS V9520 FX5200. Thats with an XP2000+, 512 PC133 on an ASROCK K7VT2.

The really wierd thing is that I got higher scores, 1300s, with a Duron 1.1
on an old Chaintech 7AIA with the same card %-)

My core is set a 250 and my memory is running at 405, the default settings.

I'm very happy with the card. I don't do much gaming but the ones I have run
great. The video capture quality is superb.

MegaShotZ

FX · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 11

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:01:30 GMT, megashortsnospam@yahoo.com wrote:

>Running the 44.69 drivers on Win98SE I get scores in the mid 1200s with an
>-ASUS V9520 FX5200. Thats with an XP2000+, 512 PC133 on an ASROCK K7VT2.
- I dont want to break your dream but it well know that the driver your
are using is specily tune to get higher score with 3dmark . this mean that
you are not into high performance but just belive so... try different
driver and play your game with a program that show your fps and see if you
really have some improuvement.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1188167,00.asp

>-The really wierd thing is that I got higher scores, 1300s, with a Duron 1.1
>-on an old Chaintech 7AIA with the same card %-)
-
>-My core is set a 250 and my memory is running at 405, the default settings.
-
>-I'm very happy with the card. I don't do much gaming but the ones I have run
>-great. The video capture quality is superb.
-
>-MegaShotZ

Mario Kadastik · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Hello

Well, before you start screaming that I should have gotten a faster card
I have to tell, that I read about the FX5200 and it seemed to satisfy
all my requirements and I knew that it was a budget card, but hey MX440
was also a budget card so I didn't expect it to be worse than MX440 at
some aspects.

I think I might have something a bit wrong as my 3dmark03 score is 860
without clocking and with some tuning I cat run at 940. At the same time
I see people having with quite the same configuration scores from 800 -
1500. I can't quite get how the difference is so big? I saw that some of
the high end scores were with AGP 8x so I guessed that this might be the
issue, but I also found a score of 1300 with quite the same settings and
conf I had except he had memory clock at 405MHz and I have at 333MHz
(maximum by asus tweak utility is 360MHz so I can't quite understand how
people get a lot more???)

So I'm a bit disappointed in the performance compared to others. Might
it be a problem with the card or is there a small thing I haven't
noticed yet?

I wouldn't be complaining if the card would be performing as it does for
others as I know it's a budget card. But as it seems to be
underperforming then I do tend to ask for help.

And why I think the card is underperforming: read my previous posts
regarding FX5200 and fog problems.

Just for help here are my specs:

OS: Win XP (without SP1)
driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
mobo: ASUS A7VK333
mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
default benchmark reso: default (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)
if you want any more details, then just ask.

Mario

Mario Kadastik · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Hello,

well it seems I really forgot the CPU this time Wink

It's Athlon XP 1700+.
I have DX9a. Did you mean clocking the GPU and memory speeds up as by
CPU there shouldn't be an option for 2D or 3D Wink

Mario

Ron Merts wrote:
> What's your CPU? The 5200s are pretty slow compared to the 5200 Ultras but
> with the proper speed settings for core and memory you should see some
> better scores. I'm also assuming that you have already installed DirectX9a.
> You should look for the coolbits patch from guru3d.com. It will allow you
> to tweak the CPU and memory clock speeds to double what their default values
> are, or more. Remember, only change the 3D settings as the 2D settings
> won't show you any performance increase.
>
> Ron
>
>

Mario Kadastik · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Hello,

it seems the Asus V9520 you are having is not Magic/T as it seems the
Magic/T is just 64 bit card as I have memory clock at 333 (default) and
you have default 405. And as far as I have seen the clock is the one
thing that seems to differ in conf from those that have 3dmark03 scores
of >1200.

Mario

megashortsnospam@yahoo.com wrote:
> Running the 44.69 drivers on Win98SE I get scores in the mid 1200s with an
> ASUS V9520 FX5200. Thats with an XP2000+, 512 PC133 on an ASROCK K7VT2.
>
> The really wierd thing is that I got higher scores, 1300s, with a Duron 1.1
> on an old Chaintech 7AIA with the same card %-)
>
> My core is set a 250 and my memory is running at 405, the default settings.
>
> I'm very happy with the card. I don't do much gaming but the ones I have run
> great. The video capture quality is superb.
>
> MegaShotZ
>

Mario Kadastik · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 98

Hey,

well I didn't choose to ignore it. I did check Asus website and found
some indication of 128 bit, but It seemed I was a bit hasty as now when
I rechecked the stuff was about 128 bit colour. Hence most likely
V9520/Magic is 64bit memory.

Well at least I know now that it's 64 bit and have to consider wether I
should upgrade or just stick with it for a while yet.

Mario

> There has been much discussion of the FX5200 and performance. It is
> fairly well established that FX5200 boards with 64-bit memory perform as
> you describe yours performing. You have been told this before and chose
> to dismiss the advice instead of acting on it.
>

megashortsnospam · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

I used the 330 patch which I thought cured the Nvidia "problem" before I ran
the benchmark. Initially I used the 44.03 and got the 1300+ on the old
board. Nothing I do will get me over 1300 on the new board with the 44.69s.

The benchmarks are a bit of fun that really don't reflect the real gaming
world.

The games I want to play run very well indeed. Il2 is positively creamy
smoooooth, Janes WW2 Fighters, Rallysport Challenge and Superbike 2001 are
excellent.

MegaShotz

Darthy · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 646

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:04:28 +0000, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

>> And why I think the card is underperforming: read my previous posts
>> regarding FX5200 and fog problems.
>>
>> Just for help here are my specs:
>>
>> OS: Win XP (without SP1)
>> driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
>> mobo: ASUS A7VK333
>> mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
>> video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
>> my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
>> default benchmark reso: default (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)
>> if you want any more details, then just ask.
>
>There has been much discussion of the FX5200 and performance. It is
>fairly well established that FX5200 boards with 64-bit memory perform as
>you describe yours performing. You have been told this before and chose
>to dismiss the advice instead of acting on it.
>
>> Mario

Check out these two ASUS 5200 NON ultra cards

http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=V9520%20Magic/T&langs=09

http://usa.asus.com/products/vga/v9520td/overview.htm

They are two completely different cards, with the Magic (first one)
being the one without the cooler fan...

Here is WHAT I don't get with many people...

The 5200 series is a mystery set in many ways (thank you Nvida...
could made the 5100 the 64bit version - duh) with the ole-
bait-and-switch in some degree.

...is that they DONT BUY THE TI4200 which is FASTER!! DUH!

Not even the 5200Ultra (Which typically goes for $120~150) is in the
SAME CLASS!! In UT2003 - 100fps vs 67fps (of course in REAL WORLD,
drop that by 20%)

The ONLY time the 5200Ultra *IS* FASTER than the TI4200 is with FSAA
turned on! Of course, at this time - the 5200U is unplayable with
under 30fps (real world - about 20fps), so what would be the point.

I dont think there is a SINGLE review that says the 5200 series is a
MODERN gaming card. its fine for 2001 and older games. For $100,
you get dual output and some gaming abilities is FINE... pay a few
bucks for real power or an older card.

Also note: the plan 5600 is also SLOWER than the Ti4200, but when all
the Ti4200s are GONE and the 5600-128 is selling for $100~110, it will
be a "fine" card.

--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Dustin · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Mario Kadastik wrote in message news:...
> Well as you wrote this post I wrote mine Wink

So you kind of answered my
> question regarding the TD point.
>
> Now regardin Ti4200 versus FX5200 I just went by the price as I didn't
> want any high performance anyway. Now I'm considering going for the TD
> as the price difference versus performance is quite good.
>
> Just for comparison: difference of V9520/Magic versus TD is $26. Now
> V9520/magic versus V9280TD is $115. I'd say that I'll go for the V9520TD.
>
> Mario
>
> PS! These are prices here where I live and have to cope with. Just for
> comparison the FX5800Ultra is $563 so I can't just go for any better
> card at the moment. (If the FX5900 would be for around $200-$250 like
> you say around here then I'd take it, but for $560??? would you?)
>
> Darthy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:04:28 +0000, "J.Clarke"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>And why I think the card is underperforming: read my previous posts
> >>>regarding FX5200 and fog problems.
> >>>
> >>>Just for help here are my specs:
> >>>
> >>>OS: Win XP (without SP1)
> >>>driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
> >>>mobo: ASUS A7VK333
> >>>mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
> >>>video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
> >>>my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
> >>>default benchmark reso: default (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)
> >>>if you want any more details, then just ask.
> >>
> >>There has been much discussion of the FX5200 and performance. It is
> >>fairly well established that FX5200 boards with 64-bit memory perform as
> >>you describe yours performing. You have been told this before and chose
> >>to dismiss the advice instead of acting on it.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mario
> >
> >
> > Check out these two ASUS 5200 NON ultra cards
> >
> > http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=V9520%20Magic/T&langs=09
> >
> > http://usa.asus.com/products/vga/v9520td/overview.htm
> >
> > They are two completely different cards, with the Magic (first one)
> > being the one without the cooler fan...
> >
> >
> > Here is WHAT I don't get with many people...
> >
> > The 5200 series is a mystery set in many ways (thank you Nvida...
> > could made the 5100 the 64bit version - duh) with the ole-
> > bait-and-switch in some degree.
> >
> > ...is that they DONT BUY THE TI4200 which is FASTER!! DUH!
> >
> > Not even the 5200Ultra (Which typically goes for $120~150) is in the
> > SAME CLASS!! In UT2003 - 100fps vs 67fps (of course in REAL WORLD,
> > drop that by 20%)
> >
> > The ONLY time the 5200Ultra *IS* FASTER than the TI4200 is with FSAA
> > turned on! Of course, at this time - the 5200U is unplayable with
> > under 30fps (real world - about 20fps), so what would be the point.
> >
> > I dont think there is a SINGLE review that says the 5200 series is a
> > MODERN gaming card. its fine for 2001 and older games. For $100,
> > you get dual output and some gaming abilities is FINE... pay a few
> > bucks for real power or an older card.
> >
> > Also note: the plan 5600 is also SLOWER than the Ti4200, but when all
> > the Ti4200s are GONE and the 5600-128 is selling for $100~110, it will
> > be a "fine" card.
> >
> >
> >

Hey! I read that someone was running a 7AIA m/b, a rare board. I am
running with it right now. Anyways, My 5200 has 64 bit memory, I am
NOT happy with it at all. It performs as well as my old GF2 MX400.

Do these clocks sound wrong???

Memory: 280
Core: 250

I ran a 3DMark2001SE and got a 3333, but I overclocked(?) it up to:

Memory: 343
Core: 263

I re-ran the same test and got 3850. I didn't raise the clock any
higher, I was afraid of damaging the only card I have.

any clues?
DLazz

Mario Kadastik · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 98

Well as you wrote this post I wrote mine Wink

So you kind of answered my
question regarding the TD point.

Now regardin Ti4200 versus FX5200 I just went by the price as I didn't
want any high performance anyway. Now I'm considering going for the TD
as the price difference versus performance is quite good.

Just for comparison: difference of V9520/Magic versus TD is $26. Now
V9520/magic versus V9280TD is $115. I'd say that I'll go for the V9520TD.

Mario

PS! These are prices here where I live and have to cope with. Just for
comparison the FX5800Ultra is $563 so I can't just go for any better
card at the moment. (If the FX5900 would be for around $200-$250 like
you say around here then I'd take it, but for $560??? would you?)

Darthy wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:04:28 +0000, "J.Clarke"
> wrote:
>
>
>>>And why I think the card is underperforming: read my previous posts
>>>regarding FX5200 and fog problems.
>>>
>>>Just for help here are my specs:
>>>
>>>OS: Win XP (without SP1)
>>>driver: have tried: 44.03, 44.67, 44.90 (current and with score 860)
>>>mobo: ASUS A7VK333
>>>mem: kingston PC2700 (768MB)
>>>video: ASUS V9520/Magic/T (FX5200 128MB)
>>>my default gaming reso: 1280x1024x32
>>>default benchmark reso: default (should be 1024x768x32 on 3dmark03)
>>>if you want any more details, then just ask.
>>
>>There has been much discussion of the FX5200 and performance. It is
>>fairly well established that FX5200 boards with 64-bit memory perform as
>>you describe yours performing. You have been told this before and chose
>>to dismiss the advice instead of acting on it.
>>
>>
>>>Mario
>
>
> Check out these two ASUS 5200 NON ultra cards
>
> http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=V9520%20Magic/T&langs=09
>
> http://usa.asus.com/products/vga/v9520td/overview.htm
>
> They are two completely different cards, with the Magic (first one)
> being the one without the cooler fan...
>
>
> Here is WHAT I don't get with many people...
>
> The 5200 series is a mystery set in many ways (thank you Nvida...
> could made the 5100 the 64bit version - duh) with the ole-
> bait-and-switch in some degree.
>
> ...is that they DONT BUY THE TI4200 which is FASTER!! DUH!
>
> Not even the 5200Ultra (Which typically goes for $120~150) is in the
> SAME CLASS!! In UT2003 - 100fps vs 67fps (of course in REAL WORLD,
> drop that by 20%)
>
> The ONLY time the 5200Ultra *IS* FASTER than the TI4200 is with FSAA
> turned on! Of course, at this time - the 5200U is unplayable with
> under 30fps (real world - about 20fps), so what would be the point.
>
> I dont think there is a SINGLE review that says the 5200 series is a
> MODERN gaming card. its fine for 2001 and older games. For $100,
> you get dual output and some gaming abilities is FINE... pay a few
> bucks for real power or an older card.
>
> Also note: the plan 5600 is also SLOWER than the Ti4200, but when all
> the Ti4200s are GONE and the 5600-128 is selling for $100~110, it will
> be a "fine" card.
>
>
>

Mario Kadastik · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 98

Hei,

Well the default clock for a 64 bit memory FX5200 seems to be core: 250,
memory: 333 so you didn't overclock it that much. Try 3dmark03 and you
should get around 840 marks. That's how the card performs. I have
already contacted my reseller to swap it with a 128 bit memory card.

Mario
>
> Hey! I read that someone was running a 7AIA m/b, a rare board. I am
> running with it right now. Anyways, My 5200 has 64 bit memory, I am
> NOT happy with it at all. It performs as well as my old GF2 MX400.
>
> Do these clocks sound wrong???
>
> Memory: 280
> Core: 250
>
> I ran a 3DMark2001SE and got a 3333, but I overclocked(?) it up to:
>
> Memory: 343
> Core: 263
>
> I re-ran the same test and got 3850. I didn't raise the clock any
> higher, I was afraid of damaging the only card I have.
>
> any clues?
> DLazz