I have recently installed this FX5200-TD128LF video card and have not been
that impressed with it. I used the EVEREST programme and it told me that the
card was Memory bandwidth 3.24, but it says in the documentation that came
with the card that it can do 10.4GB/sec! I only have AGP4x motherboard and
this is an 8x card, but I thought the speed difference between the two was
not that much difference. Everest says memory buswidth 64 bit, but I had
thought that it was 128 bit. My old card was 128 bit and 2.7GB/sec, so there
is not much difference at all! Is this card really just a 3.4GB/sec card?
Have I been conned into buying a useless card?

the FX5200 is a low end card, designed to replace the MX440, which was a
low end card also. Conned? Dunno, misled about how great it is compared
to what is the question. Depending on what you spent and whether you
feel it was worth it, you can take it back.

confused wrote:

> I have recently installed this FX5200-TD128LF video card and have not been
> that impressed with it. I used the EVEREST programme and it told me that the
> card was Memory bandwidth 3.24, but it says in the documentation that came
> with the card that it can do 10.4GB/sec! I only have AGP4x motherboard and
> this is an 8x card, but I thought the speed difference between the two was
> not that much difference. Everest says memory buswidth 64 bit, but I had
> thought that it was 128 bit. My old card was 128 bit and 2.7GB/sec, so there
> is not much difference at all! Is this card really just a 3.4GB/sec card?
> Have I been conned into buying a useless card?

the fx5200 is a fine entry level card. it will never burn thru a modern
3D game tho. especially running at AGP 4x. be happy with it, and when
you move up to a more modern motherboard you can also look for a better
video card. Hell, video cards gain a new generation every 6 months; blink
and that $400 card you just bought is eclipsed by the new $350 one that
just hit the shelves. Only if you're a gamer does it matter at all...
[until Vista that is; but the fx5200 should run Vista ok too].

BTW, the drivers that came w/ your 5200 are probably just fine, even if
they are an older version (likely). the newer drivers mainly have added
support for newer cards, they don't often make a big difference w/ an
older or lesser model card. But you can always try 'em, just don't expect
miracles.

Yes, but the MX440 card is supposed to be running at 6.4GB/sec, this one is
running at only half this speed. It says in the documentation in the box (and
the website), that this card will run at 10.4GB/sec, so why is it running at
3.2GB/sec? Is this because my motherboard is only 4X? My old card was a
Geforce2 MX400 64MB 128bit card running at 2.7GB/sec, because it is 128 bit,
does this mean that it is actually better than the FX5200? I ask this because
it almost seems to me that my old card performed better.

"Bob I" wrote:

> the FX5200 is a low end card, designed to replace the MX440, which was a
> low end card also. Conned? Dunno, misled about how great it is compared
> to what is the question. Depending on what you spent and whether you
> feel it was worth it, you can take it back.
>
> confused wrote:
>
> > I have recently installed this FX5200-TD128LF video card and have not been
> > that impressed with it. I used the EVEREST programme and it told me that the
> > card was Memory bandwidth 3.24, but it says in the documentation that came
> > with the card that it can do 10.4GB/sec! I only have AGP4x motherboard and
> > this is an 8x card, but I thought the speed difference between the two was
> > not that much difference. Everest says memory buswidth 64 bit, but I had
> > thought that it was 128 bit. My old card was 128 bit and 2.7GB/sec, so there
> > is not much difference at all! Is this card really just a 3.4GB/sec card?
> > Have I been conned into buying a useless card?
>
>