FX Graphic Card

General discussion about Celestia that doesn't fit into other forums.
Topic author
maxim
Posts: 1036
Joined: 13.11.2003
With us: 21 years
Location: N?rnberg, Germany

FX Graphic Card

Post #1by maxim » 15.10.2005, 21:46

I'm really tired of my MX card. So I'd like to upgrade my old system to a cheap (~80.- EUR) FX card. But there are a lot of variations. The classic 5200 of course, but also 5500 5600 and 5700. What are those 5500 and 5600? They are never mentioned in magazines (I have). There are offers of a 5200 for 40.- EUR and of a 5700LE for 80.- EUR. Others are inbetween. So what?

Some suggestions?

maxim

Malenfant
Posts: 1412
Joined: 24.08.2005
With us: 19 years 3 months

Post #2by Malenfant » 15.10.2005, 23:31

I just got an FX 5500 and it works fine. It's better than the 5700LE apparently, might be cheaper too.

Don. Edwards
Posts: 1510
Joined: 07.09.2002
Age: 59
With us: 22 years 2 months
Location: Albany, Oregon

Post #3by Don. Edwards » 16.10.2005, 01:43

maxim,
The FX 5500 is the newest version of the cards believe it or not. My brother has one and it works very well. It may not have quite the power of teh 59xx class cards but is more than enough for Celestia.

Don.
I am officially a retired member.
I might answer a PM or a post if its relevant to something.

Ah, never say never!!
Past texture releases, Hmm let me think about it

Thanks for your understanding.

jgrillo2002
Posts: 132
Joined: 26.07.2002
Age: 38
With us: 22 years 4 months
Location: New York, USA

Post #4by jgrillo2002 » 16.10.2005, 03:12

Thats what I have also and it also runs well for most of my games

PrinceScamp
Posts: 13
Joined: 11.10.2005
With us: 19 years 1 month
Location: a supernova, inside my palace, surrounded by my sentinals

Post #5by PrinceScamp » 16.10.2005, 19:44

UPDATE: I can't upgrade the computer, not worth it. :evil:
Last edited by PrinceScamp on 27.10.2005, 05:33, edited 1 time in total.
Death among stars

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #6by t00fri » 16.10.2005, 19:47

Malenfant wrote:I just got an FX 5500 and it works fine. It's better than the 5700LE apparently, might be cheaper too.


Can somebody tell me where my FX5900 Ultra/256MB fits in? It's probably not produced anymore, since it used to be very expensive. It's still pretty fast, though.

Bye Fridger

Topic author
maxim
Posts: 1036
Joined: 13.11.2003
With us: 21 years
Location: N?rnberg, Germany

Post #7by maxim » 16.10.2005, 20:26

t00fri wrote:Can somebody tell me where my FX5900 Ultra/256MB fits in?


Somewhere above my 80.- EUR limit ( still ;) ).

Thank you all for your hints. Obviously I can get a FX5500 with 256MB ram for about 55.- EUR here in Germany.

maxim

Don. Edwards
Posts: 1510
Joined: 07.09.2002
Age: 59
With us: 22 years 2 months
Location: Albany, Oregon

Post #8by Don. Edwards » 16.10.2005, 22:12

Fridger,
All you need to know is that your card is better than my 5900xt/se with 128MB of VRAM. But than again our cards are officialy 2 generations behind now. I am looking at a getting a new card but it has to go along with a totally new system as well. 8O

Don.
I am officially a retired member.
I might answer a PM or a post if its relevant to something.

Ah, never say never!!
Past texture releases, Hmm let me think about it

Thanks for your understanding.

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #9by t00fri » 16.10.2005, 22:23

Don. Edwards wrote:Fridger,
All you need to know is that your card is better than my 5900xt/se with 128MB of VRAM. But than again our cards are officialy 2 generations behind now. I am looking at a getting a new card but it has to go along with a totally new system as well. 8O

Don.


Thanks Don,

I actually know the precise specifications of my card and I am still very content with it. BTW, it has also an excellent, crisp 2D performance! (I measured the signal shapes with a very high-quality, fast oszilloscope at my lab.)

So knowing almost all about my card, I was mainly interested whether it still is in the market and how it relates to those much cheaper and apparently popular FX5500 cards. My FX5900Ultra cost about 500$ several years ago...Last not least, I almost can't hear my card in operation, which I value very much!

Bye Fridger

Tech Sgt. Chen
Posts: 187
Joined: 04.11.2003
With us: 21 years
Location: Northern NJ/USA

Quality Screens

Post #10by Tech Sgt. Chen » 24.10.2005, 18:09

Another Johnny-Come-Lately post:
You all have me beat with my FX5200 w/256MB DDR! Still, I don't experience any significant problems with it. One more important thing to consider is a quality screen/display! I have, unfortunately, an older screen that cannot keep up with the refresh rates that my graphics card demands. A compatable screen goes hand-in-hand with a better graphics card. :wink:
Hi guys. Listen, they're telling me the uh,
generators won't take it, the ship is breaking apart and all that. Just, FYI.
(Athlon X2 6000+ Dual Core 3Ghz, 8GB DDR2-800, 500GB SATA 7200RPM HD, 580W,
GeForce 9600GT-512, 64Bit, Vista Home Premium)

medusa
Posts: 32
Joined: 19.10.2005
With us: 19 years 1 month
Location: Wuppertal / Germany

Post #11by medusa » 25.10.2005, 09:18

Maxim,

I had the same problem some time ago and read a lot about those FX cards. Here's a summary:

- The GeForce FX 5200, 5500-5700 have 4 pixel pipelines and 1 or 2 vertex procs. Most computer magazines tests state that 256MB is a waste for such cards for they can't handle large data sets fast enough through their small number of pipes. Moreover, some manufacturers save money by using 256MB of SLOWER mem chips so a 128MB card would be faster.

-The GeForce FX 59xx have 8 pixel pipes as far as I know so the above would be not a problem. Quite hard to get one today.

-BE CAREFUL about cheap FX 5500 cards. Manufacturers state them to be 128-bit (what always is true for the graphics CORE itself), but I reverse engineered mine and found it has only 64 bit mem attached to the chip. So its slower than it could be.

-The best card for you depends on how you like to run Celestia. As a thumb rule, if you like it fast, chose a card with high core freq. If you like a lot of AA & AF you better have a broad mem bandwith (256 bit if you can pay for a 6800) for the necessary interpolations need a lot of texture data transfer.

Prices for GeForce 6x00's come down at present. If I were you, I would wait a little bit more and see if there's somewhere a 6600 in the EUR 80 range you desired. You get 8 pix pipes and 3 vertex procs for the money. Maybe it's overkill today but Celestia will continue to grow so it's an investment into future.
I put my hands on a 6800 now, preliminary tests show glxgears 10598. With all pipes unlocked to 16/6 pix/vertex, at 16x AA & 16x AF Celestia runs still 90 fps with all the nice stuff like clouds, shadows, galaxies switched on. YEAH THAT ROCKS......

~Diane.
Current Config:
P4 3.0Ghz - i865PE chipset - 2GB DDR RAM - Geforce 6800 @ 12/6 - 128MB DDR VRAM - 2x 17" CRT
Debian GNU / Linux 3.1 Sarge - Kernel 2.6.8 SMP - NV-driver 8762 - XFree86 4.3.0 (glxgears: 10680)
Celestia 1.4.1 (GTK) compiled from tar.gz

Topic author
maxim
Posts: 1036
Joined: 13.11.2003
With us: 21 years
Location: N?rnberg, Germany

Post #12by maxim » 26.10.2005, 09:21

Thanks for the hints Diane.

Yes, I'm aware of the possible slow 256MB problem for 5200/5500 cards.

But in this case it is a quite old system I'm upgrading - the AGP bus is 4x max - so a cheap 5500 is definitely the upper limit of what makes sense.

As for the 4x AGP limit, I think it also wouldn't make any difference if the graphic card memory is slower than normal. Other than statements in most magazines that are testing game performance, Celestia - as I unterstand it - needs as much card memory as possible because of the numerous an huge textures it uses. Unlike games, Celestia doesn't unload textures once it had copied it to graphmem. So even slow card memory should have some benefit in this special case.

If I'd have a new system I wouldn't be too happy with a 6xxx series card, I guess. They seem to have too much weaknesses as several reports state. The 7xxx series are still expensive and the X1000 too. The X800 are getting cheaper now, and have generally a good reputation exept that they lack of the v3.0 shader possibilities. And, after all, the newer ATI cards show all the eye candy that Celestia has.

maxim

medusa
Posts: 32
Joined: 19.10.2005
With us: 19 years 1 month
Location: Wuppertal / Germany

Post #13by medusa » 26.10.2005, 10:09

Maxim,

as I see you live in Germany like me - would you like to buy my old FX 5500 ? I no longer need it, and it's just a few months old. I still have the originial package and the warranty papers (bought it at Media Markt in Wuppertal).
Maybe it's the cheapest method for you. If it's an option, send me a private email, if not, no matter.

Und selbstredend kannst Du in Deutsch schreiben..... :lol:

~Diane.
Current Config:

P4 3.0Ghz - i865PE chipset - 2GB DDR RAM - Geforce 6800 @ 12/6 - 128MB DDR VRAM - 2x 17" CRT

Debian GNU / Linux 3.1 Sarge - Kernel 2.6.8 SMP - NV-driver 8762 - XFree86 4.3.0 (glxgears: 10680)

Celestia 1.4.1 (GTK) compiled from tar.gz


Return to “Celestia Users”