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
FX Graphic Card
-
- Posts: 1510
- Joined: 07.09.2002
- Age: 59
- With us: 22 years 2 months
- Location: Albany, Oregon
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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 26.07.2002
- Age: 38
- With us: 22 years 4 months
- Location: New York, USA
-
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 11.10.2005
- With us: 19 years 1 month
- Location: a supernova, inside my palace, surrounded by my sentinals
UPDATE: I can't upgrade the computer, not worth it.
Last edited by PrinceScamp on 27.10.2005, 05:33, edited 1 time in total.
Death among stars
-
- Posts: 1510
- Joined: 07.09.2002
- Age: 59
- With us: 22 years 2 months
- Location: Albany, Oregon
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.
Don.
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.
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.
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.
- t00fri
- Developer
- Posts: 8772
- Joined: 29.03.2002
- Age: 22
- With us: 22 years 8 months
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
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.
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
-
- Posts: 187
- Joined: 04.11.2003
- With us: 21 years
- Location: Northern NJ/USA
Quality Screens
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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
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
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
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.....
~Diane.
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.....
~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
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