GeForce FX 5500?

Hi guys

I currently have this card installed on my system - it is 128 mb version.

I just ordered laptop with X1600 256mb

Can you tell me game performance comparison between these two cards or show me a link when I can find that

Thank you,
vasylko

 

the X1600 will smash the FX5500 by a big ammount! lets just say that the FX5500 is a 4 cylinder engine, while the X1600 is a 20 cylinder engine....that should give you an idea

 

HOLY S**T

That is crazy. Thanks for the post.

Anyone else got any opinions

Thanks,
Vasylko

 

oh..... and not to mention that the nvidia GeForce FX series just plain SUCK! even the geforce 4 Ti series were better.

oh and the X1600 is in challange with the GeForce go 7600..... so that is very powerful (not top of the line, mind you) but still pretty powerful....even more powerful than my Go6600....and that is powerful too......

 

oh and the FX5500 scores about 900 in 3dmark05, while the X1600 scores about 4500~5000!!!

 

Yeah, my previous system had an FX 5600 in it; an underclocked one at that. It ran dx7 games all right, but throw in anything newer, and boy was that thing a stinker.

The geniuses at Toshiba also mounted it right under the optical drive, with minimal cooling. There's a reason I inspected the KN1's cooling system extensively before buying one.

 

yeah... the KN1 has a very good cooling system! my GpU temp hardly goes higher than 56

 

lol, Ah, the old Fx 5500. I had one of them back in the day....it currently resides in my file server and its rarely ever touched. Every modern video card (1600 included) makes it look like total trash. You're much better off.

 

yep... the FX5500 is NOT a good card. even a Go6200 will beat it!

 

It still works. I suppose I wasnt being entirely fair in calling it trash. I can play StarWars Battlefront 2 and Republic commando, Halo, and Fable on it at medium settings and get very nice framerates.

 

yea...but anything newer like BF2 or FEAR....it will suck. i had a FX5500 for my desktop before i upgraded to GeForce 6200.... and the FX5500 sucked....tooo many performance dips..and lag...and other stuff... and not to mention that it burned out after about 6 months... the 6200 has lasted for more than 12 months and its still going good!

 

Mines an older BFG Tech model. Its lasted me for quite a while. Nice gaming card for back in the day (Although my Radeon PC was better).

And the 5500 plays FEAR at low settings and resolution perfectly fine. Just make sure you have the RAM to back it up.

 

Wow. Thanks guys

It looks like I am for a real treat with my laptop powers. My system currenty has Pentium 4 - 2.6 Ghrtz, 516 MB memory, 48 MB 4000 RPM FX5500 graphics card.

Now, my new laptop will have 2.0 Core Duo, 2GB memory, 100MB 7200 RPM, 256 X1600. - Asus S96J!!

WOW - I can not wait to see how this is going to compare in performance and gaming. I do not think this will even compare. My new lappy will blow it out of the water

I am so exited.

Finally I can play games at decent frames.

 

i hope youll be happy with your lappie! thats a very powerful card we're talking about...........may i introduce you........... THE RADEON X1600m!!!

 

Hey guys,

I was using the 5500 until Wednesday when I got my brand spankin' new w3j. I could tell you a bit about performance. The 5500 will not run the Oblivion. It will run the counter strike source at 8x6 res. It will play the COD2 at about 8x6 with aa x 2 on. All of this overclocked mind you.

The x1600 will play Oblivion fine. It runs CS:S maxed out everything at full res on my w3j and hovers around 30 fps. COD2 maxed out will play around 30 fps with 4xaa on. No overclocking but using the latest omega drivers.

 

How does the FX5500 compare with the Ti4200 64mb??
I have a Ti4200 on my PC and its done me very well over the last 4 yrs! Excellent card and maybe a little ahead of its time..
But one thing i noticed is that even though it will run the likes of Far Cry very very smothly..it jst doesnt support the eye candy!...
Now what i mean by that is if i turned up to high detail settings the game will run very well but the card just doesnt 'SHOW' the graphical eye candy! It jst doesnt support it!
When i played Far Cry on my x200M, it didnt play the game as smootly but MY GOD it showed me details iv never seen before!
This applies to all games post 2003-2005...
In fact (and i expect some of u not to believe this) but the x200M on Med settings looks ALOT better than the Ti4200 at Max settings..
So im guessing that its simply that its coz the card is an older generation card but its amazing that it will have the horsepower to play the games pretty much perfectly but jst not show the level detail..

 

This is why i believe that the benchmarks dont tell the whole story as i beleive that u could say the x200M is inferior to the likes of the older generation Ti4200's,4600s. But the games on med settings will look alot better on the likes of the x200M/ 6200 than on the older 'more powerful cards'..

 

Just BTW, I had a FX 5200 and I could play Star Wars: Battlefront II with NO lag at all. Course the I had to turn down the eye candy but hey, it still works!

 

It all depends on how you want to play the game. A GeForce FX can theoretically run any of the newer games that have it under the supported list, but at what settings . . depends on the game. Can't imagine FEAR on an FX series.

Check the Mobile graphics cart stickied up to to get an idea of where it places performance-wise. Hint hint, these guys ^^ are right, the X1600 is worlds ahead of the FX in performance.