9800 wipes the floor with the 5200.

fx5950 Ultra is Nvidia's competitor to the 9800.

Don't know about the 6800LE, but what about the 6600GT AGP?

FX 5200 at best competes with the 9000 (which had half the pipelines/memory bandwidth or even less),

6800LE should beat the 9800PRO easily, I think it's NV4x with 8 pipelines.
but I wouldn't say "light years better", well, maybe you could say that comparing it to the FX 5200 in DX9 games.

There are also the X800 ATI AGP cards!

5200 is a budget office card.

The 6800LE is slower than a 6600GT by default. Thing is, you can unlock the pipelines (this is just a binned 6800GT) with a high success rate and also overclock it quite a bit. Doing so, will get the card to almost 6800GT levels of performance. Only thing driving it down is the DDR1 memory instead of GDDR3 and the inclusion of half the VRAM, 128MB instead of 256MB.

At this point if you're looking at a Radeon 9800 then you might as well step up to x800/x850. There was a tremendous leap in performance between the generations. The Radeons also do AA/AF with less lag than the GF 6800.

sliderider wrote:

At this point if you're looking at a Radeon 9800 then you might as well step up to x800/x850. There was a tremendous leap in performance between the generations. The Radeons also do AA/AF with less lag than the GF 6800.

But the 6800s support pixel shader 3.0, x800 only supports PS 2.0b max.

tgod wrote:

But the 6800s support pixel shader 3.0, x800 only supports PS 2.0b max.

Yes but then you might as well go for a PCIe system and a Core 2 Duo 😀

Because PS 3.0 games will struggle on a 6800 with max details and high resilution.

Unknown_K wrote:

5200 is a budget office card.

Eh the somewhat uncommon 5200 Ultra is not entirely useless.

tgod wrote:

But the 6800s support pixel shader 3.0, x800 only supports PS 2.0b max.

NV4x has very poor shader model 3 performance. G7x is a little better but still weak. SM3 wasn't heavily used until these cards were obsolete anyway.

NV3x actually has more shader model 2 flexibility than R4x0. Compare PS2.0a to PS2.0b. But of course NV3x is far too slow to do anything fancy in practice.

i've got a dead 6800LE so i guess that out, a 9600 ati and 9800 ati (both 128mb) an FX5200 and an FX5500. (5500 if it can be made working again is 256mb)

also considering all that i think i'm just gonna get me agp 2600xt / Pentium M machine out and just trump them all. thought i think that Pentium m might be slower than the Pentium 4. (holding back the gpu)

When it comes to performance, i'd hold the entire FX series with complete disregard (especially against R300, even the 9500 PRO toasts the series let alone a freaking 9800). Their faster cards aren't known for being relatively quiet either. I only use FX5200s as makeshift Geforce2s.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

tgod wrote:

But the 6800s support pixel shader 3.0, x800 only supports PS 2.0b max.

Yes but then you might as well go for a PCIe system and a Core 2 Duo 😀

Because PS 3.0 games will struggle on a 6800 with max details and high resilution.

Precisely. The GeForce 6 takes a bigger performance hit at higher resolutions and with high levels of AA/AF turned on than x800/x850 and who wants to play games with all settings on low on a small screen?

swaaye wrote:

Unknown_K wrote:

5200 is a budget office card.

Eh the somewhat uncommon 5200 Ultra is not entirely useless.

Want to see an entirely useless GF FX? Try the 5700 VE. It has around double the memory bandwith of a 5200, but fillrates are lower. There's also the 5700 LE that only just equals the performance of the 5200. The performance on those two maxes out long before you come close to pushing enough pixels to saturate the memory bandwith. This is what you get when you use binned parts to make cheap cards.

cdoublejj wrote:

FX5200 vs 9800? also what about the 6800 LE or is that light years better than both?

The FX5200 is probably one of the worst Nvidia cards ever made.

The GeForce 6600GT & 6800GT were good cards for their price range, another lesser known card was the 6800XT which was a bit faster than the 6600GT.

dirkmirk wrote:

... the 6800XT which was a bit faster than the 6600GT.

other way around

m1919 wrote:

The FX5200 is probably one of the worst Nvidia cards ever made.

Depends on what videocard u had before it,i remember going from a geforce 2 mx 400 to a fx 5200 and the difference was huge,both in performance but even more in image quality,a lot of games looked better on the fx.

For DOS gaming on a Socket 7 machine the FX5200 has one awesome feature: It clones the image on VGA and DVI which allows me to capture DVI while the monitor is connected to VGA.

Works extremely well!

DVI usually only allows for 60 Hz, so if you're fine with every 7th frame being skipped in 320x200 games...