ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 vs Nvidia Ge Fx Go5200

Discussion in 'Games' started by bluemoon, Aug 3, 2004.

  1. bluemoon macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #1
    how do each video card match against each other in terms of gaming experience? comtemplating on either an ibook with 32 VRam of Radeon vs a PB with Go5200 64 VRam. thanks for the advice in advance.
     
  2. ijimk macrumors 6502a

    ijimk

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    Here
    #2
    I would MOST definately go with the card with the most video ram if you want to play games. But i do think ATI 's card is better if you dont plan on doing a lot of heavy gaming. How much gaming you doing? What games?
     
  3. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #3
    Right now, the NVIDIA GeForceFX Go 5200 is what you want. Tiger's CoreImage does not fully support the 9200, but does support the GeForceFX Go 5200. Also, double the VRAM is a must for gaming today (64MB will be the norm soon).
     
  4. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #4
    To be fairly honest, neither an iBook or a 12" PowerBook is going to give you a great gaming experience with any kind of modern game. I have played Unreal Tournament 2004, Battlefield 1942 and Call of Duty on my 1.33GHz 12" PowerBook, and they really only play well if you turn the resolution down and have all the detail settings at low or minimum.

    That said, the extra 32MB of VRAM in the PowerBook will certainly help (especially if you want to hook up an external display), and as someone else has already mentioned, a GeForce 5200 FX is the minimum graphics chip that you'll need to take advantage of the new hardware accelerated CoreImage/CoreVideo APIs coming up in Tiger. A Radeon 9200 won't offer full hardware support.
     
  5. Ninja_Turtle macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Fullerton, California
    #5
    party

    LMAO haha i love this guys name... "oingoboingo" lol...i mean, lol eh, i named myself after an 80s icon too...i love the song "little girls" by oingo boingo....its awesome :D :p
     
  6. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #6
    Glad to known I'm bringing amusement to someone, somewhere...
     
  7. bluemoon thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #7
    well... at this point in time i am like playing only warcraft 3 and diablo 2.. not into those games like call of duty etc... hmm... still... i think i mite just get the PB for kicks sake.. hee.. cheers all!
     
  8. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #8
    The 12" PowerBook actually does a pretty good job of playing WarCraft 3, but it's not as graphically as demanding a game as the others I mentioned, and Blizzard does a good job of writing decent Mac game code.

    The PowerBook and its FX5200 is a better long-term bet because of its support for the upcoming OS X 10.4 CoreImage and CoreVideo features, even if you never use it to play games.
     
  9. friarbayliff macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    MN / IN
    #9
    yes, i agree - Warcraft III does run very well on my 12" powerbook. Thanks Blizzard!
     
  10. FriarCrazy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    Ames, IA/Eden Prairie, MN
    #10
    Of course it does. What you mean to say is Warcraft III runs very well on your 12" powerbook. Do I need to come upstairs and smack you? :D

    As to answering the question at hand, the 5200 is no doubt better than the 9200. Games like UT2k4 and COD will run decently, but the real thing you should consider is the Core Image support. Neither the 12" iBook or 12" PB is really ment for stellar gaming. If games are that important to you, I would recommend a 15" with a maxed out 9700 mobility or *gasp* a PC laptop designed for gaming.
     
  11. friarbayliff macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    MN / IN
    #11
    Thanks, I fixed it. See? Use your telepathic brain powers and know what I mean and not what I say. :D
     
  12. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #12
    in general, though, the 9200 is faster than the 5200...the lack of CoreImage support (if true) is the only reason not to pick the ATI card in this case. The VRAM limitations are not as debilitating as the lack of processing power on these cards. Neither one of them will really use all of their VRAM very often...the 32mb card will more often, yes, but in general, even with less RAM, the 9200 is faster than the 5200 for gaming.

    but they are both painfully slow, IMHO.

    unless all you play is WC3 or an older, non-3D game.
     
  13. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #13
    Absolutely. I'd say why bother comparing, but on my new PB the 'flurry' screensaver now runs smoothly on 2 monitors! At the same time! Bonus!
     

Share This Page