64 bit and 128 bit video card

[tucker 0]

I have recently purchased a MSI FX5200 TD128LF video card that I thought was 128 bit, but it appears now that it is only 64bit.The Everest programme says that it is 3.2 GB/second, and 64bit bus width. It says in the documentation that it can do 10.4GB/sec. It is an 8X card and my motherboard is only 4XAGP, but I thought it would be faster than this. My old card is a MSI Pro Geforce 2 MX400 64MB 128 band width card that everest said was 2.7 GB/second. This should mean that the FX5200 card would be about 20% faster, but if anything I think that the MX400 card is faster. Because the MX400 card is 128 bit, does this mean that it is faster than the FX5200 card that I have bought?

[Sampson 0]

You might want to look at this article: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132

The amount of bits that a card processes is one of the components of figuring the quickness of a card. It is not the only one. Both the core clock and the memory clock probably have a larger impact on a card's speed - then there is also the transfer rate. The FX5200 does come in a 128bit version. However, if you'll look at the chart it is really not a game card. The 5700, and 5900 cards are pretty good cards for their price all things considered. The higher 6200 and 6600 are quite a bit steeper in price.

 

What you will have to consider in finding the proper card is not only the speed of the card, but the speed of your computer. While many card relieve the processor of tasks, many games are still processor intensive. Putting a 6600 in a PII machine wouldn't be worth the cost of the card. The processor will be taxed by a game such that it will still appear to run as fast as a much slower card.

[Relic 0]

My ti4200 128bit outperformed my FX5200 128bit, and a BFG FX5500 OC, 64bit.

 

I snagged an eVGA 6600GT AGP it and kicks butt, on a PIII.

 

64bit cards are not meant for gaming.

[tucker 0]

Yes, it appears that I have got it wrong(totally ripped off more like it), this card that I have is just a 64bit card. If the clocks are the same, the FX5200 will only be half the speed of the 128 bit MX400. This card is an 8X card in a 4X motherboard, so maybe it is not even operating at 3.2GB/sec.

[Sampson 0]

Well, from what I've read, the difference between 8X and 4X is nothing to write home about. The FX5200 is a rcck solid card for basically Office Applications. They are not renowned for being able to be overclocked. So, you do have a good card. It will play games, but not at great framerates. It should have been pretty cheap. Everyone at one time or another has had lapses of judgment.

[tucker 0]

Originally posted by Sampson:

Quote:

Well, from what I've read, the difference between 8X and 4X is nothing to write home about. The FX5200 is a rcck solid card for basically Office Applications. They are not renowned for being able to be overclocked. So, you do have a good card. It will play games, but not at great framerates. It should have been pretty cheap. Everyone at one time or another has had lapses of judgment.

Yes, and by looking at what it says on the MSI website about this card one could easily think that it was operating at 10.4GB/second.Relic warned me to be carefull about making this mistake, and I still made the mistake anyway. This is a case of learning the hard way. The card cost $111 NZ, so this is the price of the lesson.

[Relic 0]

Originally posted by tucker:

Quote:

Originally posted by Sampson:

Quote:

Well, from what I've read, the difference between 8X and 4X is nothing to write home about. The FX5200 is a rcck solid card for basically Office Applications. They are not renowned for being able to be overclocked. So, you do have a good card. It will play games, but not at great framerates. It should have been pretty cheap. Everyone at one time or another has had lapses of judgment.

Yes, and by looking at what it says on the MSI website about this card one could easily think that it was operating at 10.4GB/second.Relic warned me to be carefull about making this mistake, and I still made the mistake anyway. This is a case of learning the hard way. The card cost $111 NZ, so this is the price of the lesson.

 

That does suck, that's $90 Canadian, not exactly chump-change when you still have to get another vidcard. Can you not return it? I returned my BFG 5500 OC when I realized it was only 64bit, no problems at all after explaining the problem, I got my money back immediately.

 

If you want to play games, and stick with nVidia, you'll have to go past the FX series of cards, you need a 6XXX card. Otherwise, you can go to an older series, the ti's, ti4200/4400/4800, they will also kick that 5200's butt when it comes to gaming, but they don't have DX9 support.

 

Then again, a wee bit less eye-candy with a card that works, as compared to a lot of eye-candy in a card that doesn't, the choice is simple.

 

ATI has some cards in the $100 price range that will beat that 5200 I do believe(9600 series), don't know, I avoid ATI, too many driver issues for me, but I'm sure someone in here can suggest something in that price range.

 

Sadly enough, my old 5200 128bit struggles running this http://petz.ubi.com/About+Dogz+5.htm on my wife's system. My Voodoo 3000 AGP was faster, in, well, everything.

 

Better to save the $180 and get a 6600GT AGP, in the long run, you'll be much happier, I know I am.

[tucker 0]

Originally posted by Relic:

Quote:

Originally posted by tucker:

Quote:

Originally posted by Sampson:

Quote:

Well, from what I've read, the difference between 8X and 4X is nothing to write home about. The FX5200 is a rcck solid card for basically Office Applications. They are not renowned for being able to be overclocked. So, you do have a good card. It will play games, but not at great framerates. It should have been pretty cheap. Everyone at one time or another has had lapses of judgment.

Yes, and by looking at what it says on the MSI website about this card one could easily think that it was operating at 10.4GB/second.Relic warned me to be carefull about making this mistake, and I still made the mistake anyway. This is a case of learning the hard way. The card cost $111 NZ, so this is the price of the lesson.

 

That does suck, that's $90 Canadian, not exactly chump-change when you still have to get another vidcard. Can you not return it? I returned my BFG 5500 OC when I realized it was only 64bit, no problems at all after explaining the problem, I got my money back immediately.

 

If you want to play games, and stick with nVidia, you'll have to go past the FX series of cards, you need a 6XXX card. Otherwise, you can go to an older series, the ti's, ti4200/4400/4800, they will also kick that 5200's butt when it comes to gaming, but they don't have DX9 support.

 

Then again, a wee bit less eye-candy with a card that works, as compared to a lot of eye-candy in a card that doesn't, the choice is simple.

 

ATI has some cards in the $100 price range that will beat that 5200 I do believe(9600 series), don't know, I avoid ATI, too many driver issues for me, but I'm sure someone in here can suggest something in that price range.

 

Sadly enough, my old 5200 128bit struggles running this http://petz.ubi.com/About+Dogz+5.htm on my wife's system. My Voodoo 3000 AGP was faster, in, well, everything.

 

Better to save the $180 and get a 6600GT AGP, in the long run, you'll be much happier, I know I am.

I have been back to the computer shop where I purchased the card and they have told me that they will find out what that cards specifications really are. They have said that it might be that the Everest programme is only reporting half of the cards speed, because my motherboard is making the card only work at AGP4X speed instead of 8X speed. The Everest programme says these things about the card.... Real Clock 202MHZ Effective Clock 405MHZ, but on my MX400 card the Real Clock and the Effective Clock are exactly the same. Could it be that the Everest programme is only reporting half the speed, and half the Bits because the card is an 8X AGP in a 4X motherboard?

 

[Relic 0]

Originally posted by tucker:

Quote:

I have been back to the computer shop where I purchased the card and they have told me that they will find out what that cards specifications really are. They have said that it might be that the Everest programme is only reporting half of the cards speed, because my motherboard is making the card only work at AGP4X speed instead of 8X speed. The Everest programme says these things about the card.... Real Clock 202MHZ Effective Clock 405MHZ, but on my MX400 card the Real Clock and the Effective Clock are exactly the same. Could it be that the Everest programme is only reporting half the speed, and half the Bits because the card is an 8X AGP in a 4X motherboard?

 

Well, I don't really want to say they're incompetent, but anyone who knows their way around a computer knows that running a card at AGP 4X does not make the memory bus suddenly half what it is at 8X. That card is 64bit. If you drop it in an 8X AGP slot, the memory bus will still be 64bit. It cannot change.

 

In my opinion, these guys are either morons, or trying to pull a fast one on you so they don't have to refund your money. If they tell you it's a 128bit card, print this puppy up, and bring it in with you. http://www.msicomputer.com/product/images/comparison/VGA.pdf Or just tell them to go to the url themselves, it's right from MSI, and it states there is only one memory bus speed for the 5200, and that's 64bit. The Personal Cinema card is 128bit, but not yours.

 

If they tell you any different, I raise the flag to them.