FX 5200 vs R9200 - Overclocking and Becnchmarks

(Page 3 of 5 )

 

---

 

nVidia GeForce FX 5200 vs. ATI Radeon 9200

 

 vs

 

 

Overclocking

The Radeon 9200 remains locked at this time, as I haven't seen any hacked bioses for it on the net. Here's a blurb from my FIC R9200 review:

"I was unable to overclock the FIC Radeon 9200. No matter what program I tried, the clock settings were always reset to default whenever a 3D app was run once. I tried RadClocker 1.6, Rage3D Tweaker 3.8C, Rivatuner 2.0, and Powerstrip 3.4, all which came to the same conclusion. All three programs, however, were able to detect the stock core and memory speed. I also tried Radeonater 2.0 which was not even close to working. It looks like a modified bios is necessary before any overclocking of the 9200 can be performed."

The FX5200 on the other hand, is still as easy to overclock as any nVidia card has been before, and perhaps even easier. The FX5200 shares the added option to keep 2D and 3D overclocking separate, like its older brothers in the FX series. Since every FX5200 comes in different shapes and sizes, and this is strictly a FX5200 vs R9200 article, there's not much point in detailing the overclock I was able to achieve. Being able to overclock the FX5200 however, already puts it one step above the R9200. Lets bench, bench, bench it up!

 

System Setup

• Intel Pentium IV 2.4B @ 2.91GHz (18 x 162fsb)

• ABIT IS7-E Springdale Motherboard (bios 14)

• 512MB Geil PC3200 "value" @ DDR405 (162fsb, 5/4 multiplier) 2.5-6-3-3

• 2x Western Digital ATA100 40GB 7200rpm

• MSI GeForce FX 5200 128MB AGP8X @ 250/400 stock

• FIC Radeon 9200 64MB AGP8X @ 250/400 stock

• Windows XP Professional with service packs

• DirectX 9.0a

Drivers & Settings

• ATI Catalyst 3.6 Driver Suite, texture preference and mipmap detail level both at High Quality.

• nVidia Detonator FX 44.03, image settings at Quality.

Benchmarks

• 3DMark01SE Build 330

• Comanche 4

• AquaMark v2.3

• Code Creatures

• GLExcess

• SPECview Perf 7

• UT2k3 (featuring [H]ardOCP UT2k3 Benchmark)

---

3DMark01SE Build 330

 

 

In 3DMark 2001 at default 1028x768 32bit, with all AA and AF off, the FX 5200 beats the R9200 by a good 600 points. Perhaps some of this difference can be attributed to the mismatch in onboard memory between the two cards I tested, but in all honesty I don't think it makes much of a difference. Is this a trend we are going to see in the rest of the benchmarks? Before we continue, lets look at how AA and AF affects the performance of these cards.

 

 

The FX5200 absolutely whips the R9200 when AA and AF are turned on. The point difference between the two cards at 2x AA increases from 600 to 1400! Since the 9200 utilizes a slightly upgraded, but aging 8500 core, and the 5200 uses a severely crippled, but new FX core, this isn't so surprising. Performance at 4x AA for both cards is pretty poor, and for that reason I didn't bother to benchmark 4x AA for the remainder of the tests.

Next: More Benchmarking >>
 

More Video Cards Articles
More By KaoMAN

Comments On: FX 5200 vs R9200

>>> Be the FIRST to comment on this article!