[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: doom3 slowness

The FX5200 may just not be up for it. Afaik, FX5200 is basically a GF4MX440 upgraded to support DX9 features. A good GF3 card could quite possibly outperform your FX5200.

No it is truly a GeForce FX chip, but a very minimal one.  Same basic
design as the 5600/5700 supposedly (4 pipelines) but much slower core
and memory clocks,  The 5800 had 8 pipelines and the 5900 doubles the
memory bus to 256bit (helping the meomry starved pipeines).  The 6800
(GT and better) have 16 pipelines while the base 6800 has 12.  Memory
bandwitdh matters a lot to these high end cards.  The 5200 with 250MHZ
core and memory (128bit) just won't match a 5900 at 400Mhz Core 425MHZ
memory (256bit) and 4x2 pipelines or a 6800 ultra with 400Mhz core and
550MHz memory (256bit) and 16 pipelines.  The FX5200 has all the
features, but only a few pipelines and very slow clockrates and narrow
memory bus.  It's not a high end gaming card.  It will do all the nifty
FX effects, at low resolution and slower frame rate.  An MX card won't
even do the effects, never mind the speed.
Well I have an FX5200 in this machine (Barton XP 2800+, 1GB ram, nForce2
dual channel, 120G WD SATA), and I am trying doom3 in linux and at
640x480, medium quality (I have 128M ram on the card) I get about 8 or
9fps with the default advanced settings (most things on, except anti
aliasing) and about 11 to 13 with all advanced settings off.  If I go
view a mostly dark empty wall in the game I might get 25 to 35fps.  So I
think you are seeing excactly what the performance of an FX5200 is
supposed to be in a high polygon game like doom3.

I'm getting 30-60 fps at 640x480 medium with my fx5600, opteron240s, and 1G ram. Is fx5200 that much worse than fx5600?

Reply to: