Which is better for G5 nVidia FX5200 or GeForce4 Ti ?

Discussion in 'Games' started by signal, Dec 26, 2004.

  1. signal macrumors newbie

    Dec 26, 2004
    Royal Palm Beach, Fl
    I have a PowerMac G5 DP1.8. It has a nvidia FX5200 (64MB) Card in it which came from apple. I also have an nVidia GeForce4 Ti (128MB) card (came from Apple). Which card is the better card? Does anyone know specific differences? Tiger "Core" Compatibility?

  2. vraxtus macrumors 65816


    Aug 4, 2004
    San Francisco, CA
    5200 sucks balls.

    Ti is way better than the 5200 but it's only 4X AGP.
  3. Devie macrumors 6502a

    Aug 30, 2004
    Adelaide, Australia
    I dont think the Ti supports Core Vid?
    Anyway, I'd say the 5200 is better as its got newer firmware/hardware over the Ti... you wont see much of a performance difference from both anyway.
  4. Chaszmyr macrumors 601


    Aug 9, 2002
    The GeForce 4 Ti is faster, but it does not support newer technologies (including the pixel-level programming required for Core Image support).
  5. caveman_uk Guest


    Feb 17, 2003
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    I'm not entirely sure the Ti will work as it wasn't an AGP 8x card. Also the ADC power connector on the G5 logic board is in a different place than it was for the G4 machines the Ti was designed for. Therefore any ADC port will be unpowered. You have to check there's nothing on the g5 board that get's in the way of the older connector. These problems occur when using vid cards from the G5s in the G4's. You can get a Radeon 9600 from a G5 to work in a G4 MDD but it involves physical modification of the contacts on the AGP port. I don't know if it can be done the other way. To be honest I'd sell the Ti and get a better G5 compatible video card to start with.

    As others have said the GF4 card doesn't support core image. All the current shipping G5 cards do.
  6. applekid macrumors 68020

    Jul 3, 2003
    Technically the GeForce4Ti does support CoreImage, but the card alone won't do all of the processing. Your CPU will have to pickup some of the work. Check Apple's website, it does say CoreImage will scale as needed even if your card isn't completely compatible. And from reading the few posts in the Tiger forum here, people are reporting even a G4 iMac it's GeForce4MX is handling it well. So I think a G5 and a GeForce4Ti will be quite alright.

    So, I'd recommend the GeForce4Ti over the GeForceFX 5200 for gaming, if that's what you're asking about, and for CoreImage. However, why not pay an extra $100 an get the decent 9600 Pro here? A card intended for the G5.
  7. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Nov 4, 2003
    ...or last year's mid-level bargain PC.


    I tell you, every month that goes by makes me wish that OS X would run on x86...It'd be so cool to be able to go out and buy modern upgrades at reasonable prices when they are still the latest and greatest...or something close, at least.
  8. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601


    Feb 10, 2004
    I used to think that way too, but I have ben using a 9500pro 128mb in my PC for about 2 years now, and it hasn't had trouble with anything I've thrown at it yet... Of course, I have become less of a casual gamer, and more of a bargain bin gamer... I play games often, more than a casual gamer might, but I don't like to pay $50 for my games =p

    So, when the GOOD games hit the bargain shelves at $25 or so, I grab them up! Since they tend to be last years games, last years video card plays them rather well still :) So I get to save money on two fronts, that way! And I get a game that has had all the bugs patched and features tacked onto it for added value!

    Thats one of the reasons that the state of Mac gaming doesn't bother me to much... We get the games that sold really well for PCs a year or so later, and I find they hit bargain prices sooner after release than PC games do...

    Anyways, as far the 5200fx vs the GeForce4 question, it's tough to say... the GF4 is probably better in terms of raw power, but the 5200 supports the most recent GPU features. I would say that you should try both in the same machine running the games that YOU like, and see which one looks better to you... (higher fps vs. more detail features turned on, etc) and then decide...

    sorry I can't give a better answer than that.
  9. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Nov 4, 2003
    the main problem with the 5200 is that, with the features that the Ti doesn't support turned on, it is even more of a dog than it is otherwise. If you turn off the 'dx9' features like pixel and vertex shaders, then it looks exactly like the ti does...except that it is slower. If you think the Ti is "only" AGP 4x, then consider that the 5200, best case, is only going to use 30% of the AGP 8x bus bandwidth...it won't even come close to meeting the potential of the interface. The 64mb of VRAM also helps to cripple the 5200 on the G5. If you have a cost-effective option of getting a 4x00 Ti, then by all means, do that. It will be faster than the "more modern" card, and will look the same at any settings where the 5200 is playable. Basically, to get decent performance on the 5200, you have to turn down all of the "more modern" features that it has as advantages over the 4x00 Ti...It's a card with lots of nifty sounding features and very little muscle to back them up. dx9-level effects need 128mb of VRAM, and they usually need 4 or more pixel pipelines (or two VERY fast ones, in a pinch)

    If I had a 5200 Ultra 128mb and a 4-series Ti 128 mb sitting on a table, and someone told me I could take either one and put it in my G5, I would take the Ti every time. And notice I said 128mb 5200 U...not the 64mb one that we got.

    So that should tell you something.

    a valid comparison would be to look at a last-generation 9600 Pro 128 and a current generation X300 SE 64...the 9600 will destroy the X300 in every way...

    The X300 has PCI Express bandwidth capabilites literally 2x that of the 9600...but it uses probably less than 10% of that capability.

Share This Page