Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

im_noahselby · 06:12 AM

Just wondering how the NVIDIA GeForce FX in the new 12" stacks up against the competition...

Thanks

Scotttheking · Sep 16, 2003, 06:19 AM

It beats the rage 128 that's in my B&W G3...

Define good. It's fine for 2D and light 3D work. But it's not getting any awards. Then, when was the last time someone bought a subnotebook for performance?

im_noahselby · Sep 16, 2003, 10:29 AM

Anyone have any links of some benchmarks and/or comparison charts. I'd like to see how this card stacks up against others.

Noah

dar77777 · Sep 16, 2003, 04:28 PM

It's actually slower than the GeForce4 MX/Go and Radeon 9000. It also consumes more power than the Radeon 9600 because it's 0.15m while 9600 is 0.13m and has better power saving features. It consumes more than twice Radeon 9000's power consumption

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/...orcefx/001.htm

- Major OEM has it running using 12W, more than twice M10's power consumption
- At full speed it will be running at 200/200 due to massive thermal issues -- and STILL using up 12W of power
- Scores around 2000 in 3DM03, but scores drop enormously when AA is turned on:

Scores below:
NV31M with 2XAA P4 2.8G
3D2003 =>1125
NV31M with 4XAA P4 2.8G
3D2003 =>550

-When clocks are raised to 250/250 during testing on a notebook motherboard, thermals rise to unacceptable levels, and power increases to 16W!!

-At 250/250, 4XAA scores rise only to 695 in 3DM03...

AssassyN · Sep 16, 2003, 04:33 PM

The FX 5200 was like nVidia's lame attempt at a low-end card that supported DirectX 9. It's really crippled as far as speed and performance goes, however, it's not terrible, and can play most current OS X games at at least 800x600 resolution.

schk · Sep 16, 2003, 04:40 PM

The only data on the Geforce 5200 Go I could find was the one posted above, but remember that those benchmarks were right when the cards came out. I would hope there have been some revisions made to it. Plus it doesn't mention specifically which OEM version of the card it was. If the power consumption is still that much higher than the other cards, I'm not too sure why they would even pick that card. But the fact that the 15/17 both have ATI top of the line mobile card, it seems that the 12 unfortunately got stuck with an Nvidia card, probably just to appease Nvidia and not completely abandon them after ditching ATI for the Rev A units. Oh well, I don't play any games, so the video card isn't much of an issue for me.

Eug · Sep 16, 2003, 05:21 PM

I'm quite disappointed with the choice of the GeForce FX 5200 Go. It's a lame performer, esp. if you consider that it supposedly eats power compared to the competition.

eScrib · Sep 16, 2003, 05:23 PM

Would you stay away from buying a 12" because of this?

AssassyN · Sep 16, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by eScrib:
Would you stay away from buying a 12" because of this?

HECK NO! I've got a Rev. A 12" PB w/ a measly GeForce 4 420 Go chip and I love this machine to death. You'll hardly ever want to use a 12" PB as a gaming machine in the first place, thus it's sheer gaming performance really doesn't matter. The new 12" PBs are an insane value, escp. w/ now having 256MB RAM built-in and the ability to drive a DVI/ADC Display.

Eug · Sep 16, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by eScrib:
Would you stay away from buying a 12" because of this?

Well, maybe yes maybe no. I'm not much of a gamer, so gaming performance is not a big issue. However, I do worry about Quartz Extreme esp. with dual screen setups, and the power utilization. I'd have to check it out in the store first, hooked up to a 17" DVI display with dual screen going or something.

Mind you for this market, it SHOULDN'T be a big issue, since the thing is supposed to be an ultra-portable. Plus it's moot for me, since my next purchase will be a 15".

Athens · Sep 17, 2003, 09:15 PM

For Macs there is no advantage to use the FX cards since there designed around Direct X 9, something not on Macs. For the Windows World the FX series is a good upgrade for Macs I would stick with ATI since they actually design there cards with Mac users in mind, just have to get past there driver problems that usally take them a year to fix.

LfGrdMike · Sep 17, 2003, 09:34 PM

I have run warcraft III, JKII, SWGB, Starcraft, and more with out a problem on this 12. I didnt even have to lower my settings for warcraft. No its not choppy it runs great.

im_noahselby · Sep 18, 2003, 01:26 AM

How much of a performance gain will the average gamer notice going from a Powerbook using the GeForce 4 420 Go (rev a PB) to the new GO 5200 FX (rev b PB)?

0%, 5%, 10% ?

Noah

dennis88 · Sep 18, 2003, 01:35 AM

The new 5200 go is much better than the 420go which suck.
I will guess that the new 12" powerbook will get the same number in games as the previous Ti867mhz with the 32mb ati 9000.
Maybe a bit faster in some games because of the better prossessor in the 12"

dar77777 · Sep 18, 2003, 01:47 AM

Not true. The 5200 is slower than the GeForce4 MX.

im_noahselby · Sep 18, 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by dar77777:
Not true. The 5200 is slower than the GeForce4 MX.

Why would Apple downgrade like this?

Noah

Luca Rescigno · Sep 18, 2003, 01:59 AM

I don't even know why Apple stays with nVidia. They make really bad graphics cards and they're overpriced and they consume too much power. Seems like the FX5200 Go would be a worse choice than, say, a Radeon 7500 Mobility (at least from a non-gaming standpoint) because the ATI card consumes a lot less power.

x user · Sep 18, 2003, 02:02 AM

I've got a iBook 800, I think the 12" PB 1ghz with the 5200go will be a bit faster at least, the iBook has the ATI 7500 Mob chipset. Same VRAM (iBook not DDR?)

Simon · Sep 18, 2003, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by dar77777:
Not true. The 5200 is slower than the GeForce4 MX.

Do these numbers necessarily also hold for the mobile versions of the chip?

I mean, if a Radeon 9000 is better than a GF4MX does that mean the Mobility Radeon 9000 is also better than a GF Go420?

How does the Mobility FX 5200 compare with Mobility Radeons 7500, 9000 and 9600 or with the Go460?

Simon · Sep 18, 2003, 03:36 AM

Maybe at this stage of the thread I'd also like to ask you to help me put together a list of mobile GPUs according to their overall performance. Not as a scientific benchmark, but as a general rule of thumb. So far the mobile list looks like:

Notebook:
Radeon 7500 Mobility
GeForce 420 Go
GeForce 440 Go
Radeon 9000 Mobility
GeForce 460 Go
Radeon 9600 Mobility

Please add the Go5200 FX and others. Or correct the list. Thanks.

cc_foo · Sep 18, 2003, 06:35 AM

Just a note that the Nvidia 5200FX is also in the new Apple iMacs. Apple seems to think it's good (of course they would).

http://www.apple.com.au/imac/graphics.html

Spectacular 3D effects
The top-of-the-line 17-inch iMac ships combat-ready with advanced graphics processing capability, thanks to its NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. The NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra delivers over a billion textured pixels per second � the kind of performance you�d expect to see on high-end scientific and engineering workstations. That�s because the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra supports the latest in graphics technology, increased horsepower for faster and smoother gameplay, and advanced graphics programmability for stunning special effects. Kicking your games and 3D graphics into high gear with hardware transform and lighting (T&L), per-pixel shading and drop-dead gorgeous effects at high resolutions, the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra takes over the transform and lighting calculation functions from your computer�s graphics processor � and delivers standout gaming experience.

jojobe99 · Sep 18, 2003, 08:44 AM

The NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 is MUCH faster than the 256kb Cirrus Logic video chip found on the average Packard Bell dual-scan color 80486 based laptop.

cc_foo · Sep 18, 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by jojobe99:
The NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 is MUCH faster than the 256kb Cirrus Logic video chip found on the average Packard Bell dual-scan color 80486 based laptop.

You sure? You have the benchmarks to prove it?

Haven't been able to run XBench on it.

slow moe · Sep 18, 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by cc_foo:
Just a note that the Nvidia 5200FX is also in the new Apple iMacs. Apple seems to think it's good (of course they would).

http://www.apple.com.au/imac/graphics.html

Spectacular 3D effects
The top-of-the-line 17-inch iMac ships combat-ready with advanced graphics processing capability, thanks to its NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics processor with 64MB of DDR SDRAM. The NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra delivers over a billion textured pixels per second � the kind of performance you�d expect to see on high-end scientific and engineering workstations. That�s because the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra supports the latest in graphics technology, increased horsepower for faster and smoother gameplay, and advanced graphics programmability for stunning special effects. Kicking your games and 3D graphics into high gear with hardware transform and lighting (T&L), per-pixel shading and drop-dead gorgeous effects at high resolutions, the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra takes over the transform and lighting calculation functions from your computer�s graphics processor � and delivers standout gaming experience.

That's just for marketing hype. If you really want to know how well a graphics chip performs, or any piece of computer hardware for that matter, then wait for its review/comparision/benchmarks to show up on sites like Ars Technica, AnandTech, HardOCP, etc.