[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

Unfortunately, most recent FX5200 have a 64-bit wide memoryband limiting
them even more.

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

In short, yes. See
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040809/doom3-06.html for a
comparison under Windows (performance should be about the same for Linux
for the nVidia models). Do note that the FX5200 mentioned there is an
ultra model which is reportedly 50% faster than the non-ultra FX5200s.

Unless the TS has one of those ultras I think he got about the performance
he could expect. Maybe it could be upped to about 17-18 fps, but at
640x480, 32-bit colour and med-quality I would not expect more from a
non-ultra FX5200, especially if it has a 64-bit wide memoryband.


Reply to: