momaka wrote on 2024-05-06, 19:13:

I don't know about that.
In my own tests with my 9200 SE (64-bit) and a 64-bit FX5200, both are pretty terrible cards for any games past 2001 time frame, especially at resolutions above 800x600. The 128-bit FX5200 is only slightly better, but not by much, since nVidia didn't include the memory bandwidth features that are present in the FX5600 (and yes, I also have a 128-b FX5200 and a FX5600. 😉 )
For late 90's games, though, I find the 9200 SE and FX5200 to be just fine... well, at least if you don't mind gaming at 1024x768 max. Seems like both of these cards choke really badly with any higher resolutions. Perfect for a "high-end" Pentium II / low-end Pentium 3 build, IMO. 😀

That's a fair assessment. Both are only really usable up to the year 2000-2001, and even then only if the user isn't too picky and doesn't expect high resolutions or graphics settings. And you're probably right on the comparison between the 64bit 5200 vs the 9200SE. Now that I double check myself I am finding lots of mixed results between the two. I think it's possible the 5200 is stronger in some titles because it has more"raw" throughput in both pixel\texel rate and bandwidth... but of course it really depends on whether a given card has been even further gimped by reduced clocks or slower memory. So yeah, staying away from both is the safest bet unless you have particular needs.

Here is one test that seems pretty informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Rme6JZqY8EE

I just mentioned the 128bit model because it greatly reduces one of the biggest bottlenecks of cards from that time period. Still, results will vary from card to card and from game to game, and probably even with CPU and driver version variations. Loading up a title that tries to make use of pixel shaders is pretty much never a good idea on any of these though, so that's a good general rule... 😮

momaka wrote on 2024-05-06, 19:13:

FX5500 is essentially the same thing as the FX5200.

Yes, they are, but most of the time they are 128bit and have slightly higher clocks than the standard 5200... but still, it isn't guaranteed. There are 64bit models that are probably 5200s with a different name in the BIOS... 🤣

Of course, the bottom line is that all of the budget cards from that time period are a mess so buyers need to be very sure of what they're getting and what they need. Even the 5600 is a lot worse than it seems like it should be and is often outperformed by the 5200 Ultra depending on the situation. I was given a 5600 256MB to replace my dead EVGA Ti 4400 when I had to RMA it back in the day and it was a huge downgrade. I ended up replacing it with a Tyan 9600 Pro 128MB and it was a massive upgrade.

The passively cooled OEM 9600 cards (as long as they aren't SE models!!) are really a bargain because of this, but even then... confusion about SE vs non-SE makes it hard to know what you're getting.