Definitely the GeForce 6200, it supports pixel shader 3.0 whereas the 5500 don't.

Which is better 256MB DDR1 128-bit or 512MB DDR2 64 bit? I am confused about memory bus width can affect performance.

Is not GeForce 6 Series has lack of 8-bit paletized texture support? I want go to FX 5500 because it doesn't support them.

No response right there?

FX5500 128bit gets my vote.

Are these cards you already own or will you be shopping for one? If you will be shopping for one, I'd find a FX5200 Ultra/FX5600 over an FX5500. The FX5500 is just barely faster than a vanilla FX5200, the others are a much more noticeable improvement. Shader 3.0 support aside, the FX5200 Ultra/FX5600 might also be a bit faster than the 6200.

I can't find the FX 5600 because the computer store never sell them. They only selling FX 5200, FX 5500, 6200, 6600, and other 7 series.

Shader 3.0 support aside, the FX5200 Ultra/FX5600 might also be a bit faster than the 6200.

They're a bit faster in games up to DX8, though I believe they do fall behind in DX9 stuff. OTOH, I don't really think DX9 performance or SM3.0 support is really an issue in this case anyway, since an old sub-1ghz PIII isn't going to run those sorts of games worth a shit no matter what video card is in it.

And yeah, the FX5600 can be a bit difficult to find, since they weren't that popular when they were new. FX5200s and 5500s are pretty common, though a lot of 'em are the gimped 64-bit versions which you should absolutely avoid.

Also, is there some particular reason it has to be an Nvidia card? Because the Radeon 9600 is pretty easy to find and would be a good alternative to the FX-series.

Radeon cards won't do some D3D5 features unfortunately. Namely 8-bit palette textures and table fox. GeForce 6 also lacks palette texture support. The loss of table fog just makes some games ugly, but palette textures are needed to run a few games.

There is a way to tweak some old Radeon cards/drivers to do table fog but it's a pain in the ass and not worth the effort IMO. The drivers did have some unofficial, disabled-by-default support for awhile. ATI basically didn't care about it.

However, Radeons also have the problem of any non-Quake OpenGL game being essentially designed for NVIDIA cards. Some of those games use NVIDIA proprietary extensions.

I'm pretty sure the FX5200 Ultra replaced the vanilla FX5600 after a while since the specs are virtually identical, which may be why the FX5600 is difficult to find. I'm trying to find one now in PCI and that is even harder to find than the AGP version. An FX5600 Ultra/FX5700 is even faster, but I'm not sure the power supply in this machine can handle it.

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

FX5200s and 5500s are pretty common, though a lot of 'em are the gimped 64-bit versions which you should absolutely avoid.

Is not FX5500 has 128-bit bus?

Not necessarily. The FX5500 is, in practical terms, pretty much the same as an FX5200 non-Ultra. It can be AGP or PCI, 64 or 128 bit, with anywhere from 64-256MB RAM.

The FX5500 is supposed to have a later revision NV34b core clocked a little faster than an FX5200, but there are a lot of slightly overclocked FX5200s and a lot of underclocked FX5500s, and there are some later FX5200 cards that use the NV34b core too, so the line between the two models is pretty blurry. But since they're primarily aimed at the bottom end market (remember, they were made for quite a long time, and it's possible there are still some in production even now), the vast majority of both models you find 'in the wild' are the incredibly shitty 64-bit versions, since those cost less to produce than proper 128 bit cards.

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

Not necessarily. The FX5500 is, in practical terms, pretty much the same as an FX5200 non-Ultra. It can be AGP or PCI, 64 or 128 bit, with anywhere from 64-256MB RAM.

The FX5500 is supposed to have a later revision NV34b core clocked a little faster than an FX5200, but there are a lot of slightly overclocked FX5200s and a lot of underclocked FX5500s, and there are some later FX5200 cards that use the NV34b core too, so the line between the two models is pretty blurry. But since they're primarily aimed at the bottom end market (remember, they were made for quite a long time, and it's possible there are still some in production even now), the vast majority of both models you find 'in the wild' are the incredibly shitty 64-bit versions, since those cost less to produce than proper 128 bit cards.

What he said. The reference FX5500 is just about 8% faster on the core and equal on the memory compared to a reference FX5200, and you're not really going to notice that tiny bump, particularly in DX9 games where both cards will be bogged down too much to be playable.

The reference FX5200 Ultra and FX5600 cards, on the other hand, bench about 30% faster than the FX5200 in pixel/vertex operations and in texture fill and have about 3x the memory bandwith with the FX5200 Ultra having a slight edge over the FX5600 in that regard. It's a significant difference over the vanilla FX5200 and FX5500.

I don't playing DX9 games on my Vectra VL600, I only playing old games with glide wrapper. And maybe I use them for HTPC.

Another way to look at it is a 5200 Ultra is about as fast as a GeForce 3.

Resurrecting this thread, I want to buy Forsa GeForce FX 5600 for VL600. But someone said if packaging was incorrect, so if someone buy this they will get FX5600XT instead FX5600 standard (saw on AnandTech forums).

Is FX 5600XT worth than 6200 if I fooled? If not, I can get FX 5600 standard.