VOGONS


Using an FX 5200 for old games

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 47, by Pidalin_CZ

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Old topic, but I just have some fun with old GPUs, so I can tell you that FX5200 is one of the worst GPUs ever, if you really want it, take at least 128bit version, 64bit is really really bad. The worst thing is that there is FX5200 LE, but they don't put LE on sticker, so you don't know if it's LE or not before you test it. And most of poor FX5200 are LE version which is 64bit/128MB with very low memory clock. Even poor MX440 has more power and old Ti 4200 is much more powerfull than FX5200.
FX5200 can't run playable neither 2001 games like RTCW, you have to set everything to low, it's really weak GPU.
I had FX5200 Tornado when I was kid, I didn't know it's so weak back in the day, I was happy that I can at least start the game, but when I test it today....no way, it's not usefull if you don't like FPS around 15. 😀 Difference between FX5200 and Ti 4200 is really massive, it's like 15 FPS compared to 80 and it's not really problem for such old games that Ti 4200 is mostly only 64MB, it's enough. If you want something more powerfull from FX series, find 5900 or 5900XT, these are good GPUs, when you put forceware 56.64 on it, you have great compatibility with old Win 98 games with known compatibility issues like AvP1999 and NFS5.

Reply 21 of 47, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Pidalin_CZ wrote on 2022-02-13, 18:48:

Old topic, but I just have some fun with old GPUs, so I can tell you that FX5200 is one of the worst GPUs ever, if you really want it, take at least 128bit version, 64bit is really really bad. The worst thing is that there is FX5200 LE, but they don't put LE on sticker, so you don't know if it's LE or not before you test it. And most of poor FX5200 are LE version which is 64bit/128MB with very low memory clock. Even poor MX440 has more power and old Ti 4200 is much more powerfull than FX5200.
FX5200 can't run playable neither 2001 games like RTCW, you have to set everything to low, it's really weak GPU.
I had FX5200 Tornado when I was kid, I didn't know it's so weak back in the day, I was happy that I can at least start the game, but when I test it today....no way, it's not usefull if you don't like FPS around 15. 😀 Difference between FX5200 and Ti 4200 is really massive, it's like 15 FPS compared to 80 and it's not really problem for such old games that Ti 4200 is mostly only 64MB, it's enough. If you want something more powerfull from FX series, find 5900 or 5900XT, these are good GPUs, when you put forceware 56.64 on it, you have great compatibility with old Win 98 games with known compatibility issues like AvP1999 and NFS5.

Huh. I have an FX5200 128 bit and it's about the same speed as a GF3 Ti200. IMO that's a very good speed for year 2000-2001 retro PC. But I do agree with you on the 64 bit variety.

edit: actually I'm looking at some old benchmarks of mine and the 64 bit FX5200 is very similar to the 128 bit version in low resolutions and color depths. It only starts really lagging behind at 800x600x32bpp and 1024x768x16bpp and 32bpp. 640x480x16bpp and 32bpp, and 800x600x16bpp performance is only a little bit slower than the Ti200 and 128 bit FX5200.

edit: here's how several card compare on a P3-933. This is a sum of a bunch of 3D marks (99, 2000, 2001) and Quake 2 benchmarks in all resolutions from 640x480 to 1024x768, 16bpp and 32bpp, then the sum is converted to percentage of top score.
Geforce3 Ti200 AGP 128MB 100%
Geforce FX5200 128-bit AGP 256MB 98.8%
Geforce FX5200 64-bit AGP 128MB 88.9%
Radeon 7200 AGP 32MB 70.5%
Geforce2 MX/MX400 AGP 64MB 69.7%
Geforce4 MX4000 AGP 65.9%
Geforce2 MX/MX400 AGP 32MB 64.8%

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 22 of 47, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

How about checking out true 128bit FX5600 vs true 128bit FX5200?

I'm curious about the FX5600's performance difference for same situation using older games as stated?

Cheers,

Last edited by pentiumspeed on 2022-02-13, 21:32. Edited 1 time in total.

Great Northern aka Canada.

Reply 23 of 47, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

What I don't like about the FX 5200 PCI card I've got is that it looks like quite power demanding also considering the heatsink heat generally. I still have to test it on a time correct Win 9x/ME or XP installation but the good thing is that last drivers can even work on Win 8.1 with some slow GUI but still 3D acceleration compatibility with that old driver.
Generally anyway even for the AGP version, it looks like consuming much power more than it actually would be expected from the performances. It was a low end card of course, not many expectations beside the compatibility. My card anyway requires a 2.2 PCI slot and I didn't test it on a 2.1 version.

Reply 24 of 47, by Kordanor

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

If I see it correctly you are all mostly complaining about the performance of newer games. Well "old" compared to 2023, but new in terms of...well, this forum maybe. ^^
Anyone of you using the 5200 for DOS games (running with DOS 6.22) and maybe early windows one? I don't expect to play Quake 3 on it. I got a AMD K6 350, so there is no point in going that far.
But from what I can see the 5200 is actually a pretty good and cheap card for old DOS Machines, isn't it? I am looking for a PCI Card with both VGA (for 240x200 games) and DVI as backup option. Stumbled over this game, but all the flack it received here seems to be for "newer" games of 2000+

Reply 25 of 47, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-11, 21:58:
If I see it correctly you are all mostly complaining about the performance of newer games. Well "old" compared to 2023, but new […]
Show full quote

If I see it correctly you are all mostly complaining about the performance of newer games. Well "old" compared to 2023, but new in terms of...well, this forum maybe. ^^
Anyone of you using the 5200 for DOS games (running with DOS 6.22) and maybe early windows one? I don't expect to play Quake 3 on it. I got a AMD K6 350, so there is no point in going that far.
But from what I can see the 5200 is actually a pretty good and cheap card for old DOS Machines, isn't it? I am looking for a PCI Card with both VGA (for 240x200 games) and DVI as backup option.
Stumbled over this game, but all the flack it received here seems to be for "newer" games of 2000+

The problem is drivers, I think. While the graphics chip itself might be quite okay for DirectX 7/8, the driver's aren't. They're way too new and meant for DirectX 9/10.0 titles.
That's the main problem, I think. A Geforce 2/3/4, or even Geforce 256 still has proper drivers for pre-DirectX 9 titles due to its age.

Anyway, I'm not going to say that an S3 ViRGE 325 is better suited for early DirectX games than the FX 5200, but.. I'd consider the later ViRGEs or the S3 Savage 4/2000/XP. Maybe. 😉

Edit: I'd recommend making a list of games that the person in question wants to play on a GF 5200..
Then users here can maybe help and do a quick test for him/her/they of the game(s) (original, demo version etc) on a real FX 5200.

Last edited by Jo22 on 2023-03-11, 23:05. Edited 1 time in total.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 27 of 47, by Zeerex

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I’m using a 64-bit FX-5200 as we speak on my rig. As far as I’m concerned it’s great for 2000 and under. I’ve had zero compatibility issues in DOS and it performs decently in Windows especially at 640x480 which is what I generally use for gaming on my CRT. Duke3D is silky smooth with VGA on it. No scrolling issues on Jazz or Keen. Driver used is 45.23 which has a good consensus record among here for compatibility and performance.

I’m running it on a Celeron Mendocino at 550MHz.
Quake 3 demo 1 at “normal” settings 41.8 fps
3Dmark99: 2980
3dmark2000: 2197

Seems to compare within the range of benchmarks in some 0f the posts of this thread which use a Voodoo 3 and a TNT2 Ultra: K6-III+ build I’m pretty happy with it

Last edited by Zeerex on 2023-03-11, 23:36. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 28 of 47, by SScorpio

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-11, 21:58:

If I see it correctly you are all mostly complaining about the performance of newer games. Well "old" compared to 2023, but new in terms of...well, this forum maybe. ^^
Anyone of you using the 5200 for DOS games (running with DOS 6.22) and maybe early windows one? I don't expect to play Quake 3 on it. I got a AMD K6 350, so there is no point in going that far.
But from what I can see the 5200 is actually a pretty good and cheap card for old DOS Machines, isn't it? I am looking for a PCI Card with both VGA (for 240x200 games) and DVI as backup option. Stumbled over this game, but all the flack it received here seems to be for "newer" games of 2000+

The GeForce FX series failed hard compared to the contemporary ATI cards at Direct3D 9. But if you are looking for something that is more compatible the FX cards are great cards. Nvidia was pretty good about DOS compatibility. Check the list that was posted, it can run most things, but there are edge cases that cause issues.

My biggest concern would be the K6 350 might be a little slow for it. That really low end Pentium 2 territory, if you want something cheap and compatible a Riva 128 offers slightly better DOS support, and the 3D performance is close to a Voodoo 1 which is far better than the previously recommended S3 Virge.

This list doesn't have everything, but it will let you see if any Direct3D 2 or 3 games are things you might want to shop around for a worse card for.
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Direct3D_2-7_games

Reply 29 of 47, by Kordanor

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
SScorpio wrote on 2023-03-11, 23:35:
The GeForce FX series failed hard compared to the contemporary ATI cards at Direct3D 9. But if you are looking for something tha […]
Show full quote
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-11, 21:58:

If I see it correctly you are all mostly complaining about the performance of newer games. Well "old" compared to 2023, but new in terms of...well, this forum maybe. ^^
Anyone of you using the 5200 for DOS games (running with DOS 6.22) and maybe early windows one? I don't expect to play Quake 3 on it. I got a AMD K6 350, so there is no point in going that far.
But from what I can see the 5200 is actually a pretty good and cheap card for old DOS Machines, isn't it? I am looking for a PCI Card with both VGA (for 240x200 games) and DVI as backup option. Stumbled over this game, but all the flack it received here seems to be for "newer" games of 2000+

The GeForce FX series failed hard compared to the contemporary ATI cards at Direct3D 9. But if you are looking for something that is more compatible the FX cards are great cards. Nvidia was pretty good about DOS compatibility. Check the list that was posted, it can run most things, but there are edge cases that cause issues.

My biggest concern would be the K6 350 might be a little slow for it. That really low end Pentium 2 territory, if you want something cheap and compatible a Riva 128 offers slightly better DOS support, and the 3D performance is close to a Voodoo 1 which is far better than the previously recommended S3 Virge.

This list doesn't have everything, but it will let you see if any Direct3D 2 or 3 games are things you might want to shop around for a worse card for.
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Direct3D_2-7_games

Ah, so you are saying that The FX 5200 cant run Direct3D 2 or 3 games?
The Riva 128 doesnt have Cards with DVI from what I can see. Which is one of the main Criteria I have.
I would use 320x200 via VGA most likely, and possibly 640x480 on "newer" games (which also includes duke nukem 3D) and Up on DVI. The card would need to be PCI itself.

Reply 30 of 47, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

All of the Geforce FX series. Was hyped for directx 9 and gullible buyers went for that, horrible at low end because Nvidia gimped this too low and FX5200 left off MVertices/s too low, at around 62, while 4200ti is 125 MVertices/s and FX 5200 should exceed or equal it but did not, where FX 5600 should be low end. Also, at high end FX 5800/5900, not enough performance and too hot. In truth they are great directx 8 and earlier and great for mid end and early games.

Cheers,

Great Northern aka Canada.

Reply 31 of 47, by SScorpio

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-12, 00:30:

Ah, so you are saying that The FX 5200 cant run Direct3D 2 or 3 games?
The Riva 128 doesnt have Cards with DVI from what I can see. Which is one of the main Criteria I have.
I would use 320x200 via VGA most likely, and possibly 640x480 on "newer" games (which also includes duke nukem 3D) and Up on DVI. The card would need to be PCI itself.

They would be where you might run into issues versus an older card. But some of the games might run just fine. A lot of those games did also have a software rendering you could fall back to. There's no perfect buy this and everything will work without issue. But the FX cards might be your best shot at running old games but has DVI.

Reply 32 of 47, by Kordanor

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Just a quick update here:
I also stumbled over Phils video on that topic. He actually recommends the FX 5200 for his "time machine" project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUTZLNizNg
He talks about issues with scrolling though, which is not listed here: https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/
But I don't know which side is wrong.
He is using the card on a Socket 7 Board.

So I have bought a Zotac FX 5200 card as PCI Version for my super socket 7 Board, but unfortunately once plugged in, the Computer wont start anymore.
But I guess this is an issue related to PCI.

A whole while back the same issue had been reported on this board:

elianda wrote on 2015-11-26, 12:34:

I have a Zotac FX5200 PCI that does not work on older systems such as Pentium Boards. However on P2 it worked. My guess is that there is a problem with the graphics cards BIOS not supporting old CPUs.
Photo: http://mail.lipsia.de/~enigma/neu/pics/graphi … 0_pci_front.jpg

Maybe there is a fix for that, but probably not.

Reply 33 of 47, by Disruptor

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-15, 13:39:
So I have bought a Zotac FX 5200 card as PCI Version for my super socket 7 Board, but unfortunately once plugged in, the Compute […]
Show full quote

So I have bought a Zotac FX 5200 card as PCI Version for my super socket 7 Board, but unfortunately once plugged in, the Computer wont start anymore.
But I guess this is an issue related to PCI.

A whole while back the same issue had been reported on this board:

elianda wrote on 2015-11-26, 12:34:

I have a Zotac FX5200 PCI that does not work on older systems such as Pentium Boards. However on P2 it worked. My guess is that there is a problem with the graphics cards BIOS not supporting old CPUs.
Photo: http://mail.lipsia.de/~enigma/neu/pics/graphi … 0_pci_front.jpg

Maybe there is a fix for that, but probably not.

Do you use an AT or a full ATX board?
The Zotac FX5200 PCI needs a 3.3 V supply.

Reply 34 of 47, by Kordanor

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

My board supports both (I think Most Super Socket 7 boards do), but I am using an AT Power supply due to the AT case I got.
Would that be an issue? How can you see whether a Card actually needs an ATX Power supply?
Here is a screenshot of my HWMonitor in the Bios:

HWMonitor.png
Filename
HWMonitor.png
File size
167.7 KiB
Views
2236 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 35 of 47, by Disruptor

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-15, 14:06:
My board supports both (I think Most Super Socket 7 boards do), but I am using an AT Power supply due to the AT case I got. Woul […]
Show full quote

My board supports both (I think Most Super Socket 7 boards do), but I am using an AT Power supply due to the AT case I got.
Would that be an issue? How can you see whether a Card actually needs an ATX Power supply?
Here is a screenshot of my HWMonitor in the Bios:
HWMonitor.png

I guess that's the problem.
As far as I know, AT boards with both connectors do not provide 3.3 V supply on the PCI slots. They just support 3.3 V for the CPU socket only. But I may be wrong. Take a multimeter...
Well, you have to take a multimeter and trace the wires. Since mkarcher and me tried to run a Zotac GeForce 5200 PCI in a 486, we know that this card needs 3.3 V supply.

Last edited by Disruptor on 2023-03-15, 14:45. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 36 of 47, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

AT boards get no 3.3V from the PSU and may supply none at all to the PCI or have a regulator and have a "token" amount of power available, like 1A that's enough for a modem or something but not enough for a GPU. (A rare few modems might actually improve the situation by having their own onboard 3.3V which if connected to 3.3V PCI pins lets another half amp or so backfeed)

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 37 of 47, by Kordanor

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Do you, by any chance know how to spot whether or not a PCI Graphics card needs that 3.3V? Does that apply whenever there is an AGP Version of it?

Edit: And I guess that's never an issue for AGP Graphics?

Reply 38 of 47, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-15, 14:47:

Do you, by any chance know how to spot whether or not a PCI Graphics card needs that 3.3V? Does that apply whenever there is an AGP Version of it?

Edit: And I guess that's never an issue for AGP Graphics?

AGP 1.x can be a trouble maker, too.
If modern AGP cards are accidentally installed in an AGP 1.x slot (without blocking taps), they may fry.

Edit: Speaking under correction. I'm no expert aboard AGP, I've skipped it pretty much.
In this old thread is more information about the matter: AGP Universal - Actual compatability list

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 39 of 47, by Kordanor

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Jo22 wrote on 2023-03-15, 18:51:
AGP 1.x can be a trouble maker, too. If modern AGP cards are accidentally installed in an AGP 1.x slot (without blocking taps), […]
Show full quote
Kordanor wrote on 2023-03-15, 14:47:

Do you, by any chance know how to spot whether or not a PCI Graphics card needs that 3.3V? Does that apply whenever there is an AGP Version of it?

Edit: And I guess that's never an issue for AGP Graphics?

AGP 1.x can be a trouble maker, too.
If modern AGP cards are accidentally installed in an AGP 1.x slot (without blocking taps), they may fry.

Edit: Speaking under correction. I'm no expert aboard AGP, I've skipped it pretty much.
In this old thread is more information about the matter: AGP Universal - Actual compatability list

Thanks, I will continue the AGP discussion over there.