# Radeon 9250 vs GeForce 5200 FX



## dubplatepressure (Jun 15, 2006)

128 MB ddr RAM. 


I'm at a crossroads, and thought it would be interesting to poll all you opinionated ehmac'ers. 

Going on a P3 800MHZ. (oh yah baby)


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Neither? 

The Radeon 9250 is ever so slighty newer than the Geforce5200 though, the 5200 was around when the 8500 was out but the 9250 is just an 8500 with slightly bumped up speed, DirectX 9 optimization, etc. while the 5200 is a DirectX 8 card.


----------



## dubplatepressure (Jun 15, 2006)

and your verdict would be? 

 




dona83 said:


> Neither?
> 
> The Radeon 9250 is ever so slighty newer than the Geforce5200 though, the 5200 was around when the 8500 was out but the 9250 is just an 8500 with slightly bumped up speed, DirectX 9 optimization, etc. while the 5200 is a DirectX 8 card.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I hands down prefer ATI over NVIdia, it's quality (overall video quality) over quantity (frames per second), my ATI Radeon 8500DV 64MB card was pretty awesome and the 9250 should be a good card too. Are you planning to play games? The 9250 can handle Doom III quite ok (1024x768, low quality)... but your CPU is a bit slow. NHL 2006 should run fine on it.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Both suck - but the 5200 is the better and more modern card. It is infact a DirectX 9 card. 

The 5200 came out in 2003 at the bottom end of the GeForce FX family.

The Radeon 9200/9250 is a further retardation of the Radeon 9000, which is itself a lobotomized 8500, which is DirectX 8 and dates back to 2001. 

At one time ATI based their model numbers on their Direct X support.

The Radeon 7000, 7200 and 7500 were DirectX 7
The Radeon 8500 was DirectX 8
The Radeon 9500, 9600, 9700 and 9800 were DirectX 9.

Then they threw the Radeon 9000 and 9200 into the mix and broke that simple scheme.


----------



## dubplatepressure (Jun 15, 2006)

Its actually for my g/f's PC... no games, mostly just server shizzle.

I know they both suck, and the system does too, which is why I'm not dropping a better video card in it!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Trevor I believe the FX5200 came out in late 2002 because it was my candidate of video cards when I was buying a new PC at the time. I opted to go for a Radeon 8500DV All-In-Wonder instead for it's multimedia features... and unfortunately at the time my super gaming PC beat the similarily priced eMac. To this very day I regret not getting that eMac.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

dubplatepressure said:


> Its actually for my g/f's PC... no games, mostly just server shizzle.
> 
> I know they both suck, and the system does too, which is why I'm not dropping a better video card in it!


with PC m/b and CPUs being as cheap as they are these days you'd be doing you g/f a big favour by getting her a new CPU/m/b combo before dropping in a 128 MB video card especially if she is NOT using it for games, but as a server


----------



## sccoaire (Feb 11, 2005)

I've always had ATI's cards. I bought a GeForce 5200 FX for my 400MHz Intel box, which then went to a 700MHz, which is now an AMD 1400+. I was trying out MythTV on linux and most of the ATI card had compatibility issues, especially for the RCA video out. Now I have WinXP running on the box and the video is great, can't complain... but do make sure you get the NVIDIA released drivers instead of the Microsoft one. I paid about $50 for mine a couple of months ago.


----------

