i have them. which?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big Fat Turkey
  • Start date Start date
B

Big Fat Turkey

i have two cards sitting in front of me. don't ask me why. long story. ;)

radeon 9600se vs. nvidia fx5200.

i'm not a big-time gamer, but i enjoy playing a batch of older games that
can be mildly demanding. more important to me is 2d performance with a
sharp desktop containing crisp fonts and graphics.

which way do i go? hell is not an option. i'm already there. :)
 
Radeon for sure, needing the 2d quality seals it. 2d quality of Nvidia is
similar to a muddy window.
 
Radeon is the only choice there...especially if the 5200 is one of the 64bit
mem bus ones...


Kris
 
thanks for the feedback, guys. radeon it is. i hope it does as well in the
2d department as the matrox g550 it is replacing. :)
 
i have two cards sitting in front of me. don't ask me why. long story. ;)

radeon 9600se vs. nvidia fx5200.

i'm not a big-time gamer, but i enjoy playing a batch of older games that
can be mildly demanding. more important to me is 2d performance with a
sharp desktop containing crisp fonts and graphics.

which way do i go? hell is not an option. i'm already there. :)
Click to expand...

Both suck... fx5200 - especially if its 128bit version.

Posting to both groups... not exectly great idea... you may have ATI
says KEEP, and Nvidia say KEEP.... I have both - but for these 2, the
9600se is slower... but it should incude the CD-KEY for HL2... which
should work on either card.
 
thanks for the feedback, guys. radeon it is. i hope it does as well in the
2d department as the matrox g550 it is replacing. :)
Click to expand...

Either is easily faster than the g550... unless you're in a P3-600Mhz
or something like it...

Try both out... see which one you like. ATI is still a bit weak on
the OpenGL.
 
thanks for the feedback, guys. radeon it is. i hope it does as well in the
2d department as the matrox g550 it is replacing. :)
Click to expand...

OOPS.. forgot about this one... I've USED both on other computers...
I'd take the 5200 over the 9600se.

Here is a review that has them both head to head.. but with a super
fast 64bit system. So the performance will be LOWER on your computer.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1933

crap, forgot to ask... do you have 5200 or 5200Ultra?
 
Pug Fugley said:
Radeon for sure, needing the 2d quality seals it. 2d quality of Nvidia is
similar to a muddy window.
Click to expand...

LMFAO

ATI is no better than nVidia in 2D and both are blown away by Matrox.
 
PB said:
LMFAO

ATI is no better than nVidia in 2D and both are blown away by Matrox.
Click to expand...

Well put. I just got an 8500. Where's all this improved image quality? I
am not seeing it. Don't get me wrong, I like the card.
 
LMFAO

ATI is no better than nVidia in 2D and both are blown away by Matrox.
Click to expand...

If by "blown away" you mean that there is perhaps a tiny difference that
an expert working with instruments might be able to measure if he tries
real hard then perhaps they are both "blown away". But if you mean by
that that there is a huge, stunning difference that immediately awes
and amazes the most casual observer, then you are sadly mistaken.
 
Well put. I just got an 8500. Where's all this improved image quality? I
am not seeing it. Don't get me wrong, I like the card.
Click to expand...

In the TNT and especially GF`~GF2 era, while Nvidia HAD the 3D
performance crown, their 2D Desktop wasn't as crisp as it should be...
card manufactures tended to be a bit chip on filters which caused
lower quality output... you wouldn't start to see then until you hit
over 1024x768... when you NEED it sharp.

Currently, my desktop on my 19" Samsung = 1792 x 1344x32 @ 75hz.

I guess I could knock it down to 1600x1200 ;) Or raise to 2048x1530
- MAN THATS TINY!
 
Back
Top