DrumDub
2003-06-13, 16:39:08
kommt mir so vor, als sei die karte bei dem preis von 130$ ziemlich unsinnig, ähnlich wie die 9500 np:
Conclusions
Inno3D's Tornado GeForce FX 5200 Ultra isn't yet available online, but GeForce FX 5200 Ultra cards from other manufacturers are going for as low as $132 on Pricewatch—a good $11 cheaper than the least expensive GeForce FX 5600 and $30 cheaper than ATI's Radeon 9600 Pro. If Inno3D is to be competitive among other GeForce FX 5200 Ultra manufacturers, its card will have to come in at around $130.
Honestly, though, I'm a little confused as to where the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is going to fit into the market. At $130, it's really leaning towards the high end of the middle ground between sub-$70 vanilla GeForce FX 5200s and our reigning mid-range graphics champion, the Radeon 9600 Pro, at over $160. For anyone who's serious about gaming, the Radeon 9600 Pro is definitely worth the extra scratch, especially since it should be better-equipped for next-generation applications.
For bargain hunters less concerned with gaming performance, the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra looks like it could be a pretty good deal, in part because it's often a better performer, without antialiasing enabled, than the GeForce FX 5600. Antialiasing fans would be far better off with a GeForce FX 5600. And at least the GeForce FX 5600 can render 3DMark03's "Mother Nature" water correctly; I have a sneaking suspicion that NVIDIA may never enable higher precision floating point pixel shaders in the budget GeForce FX 5200, if it even can.
However, it's hard to ignore the price/performance ratio of the vanilla GeForce FX 5200, which costs almost half as much as the Ultra. Casual gamers will probably be satiated by the performance of GeForce FX 5200, and I just don't see enough value behind the Ultra's $65 higher price tag. The Tornado GeForce FX 5200 Ultra isn't yet on the market, but if Inno3D expects it to compete with its own $67 (on Pricewatch) Tornado GeForce FX 5200, the Ultra's price is going to have to drop.
In the end, the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra doesn't have the image quality, antialiasing prowess, or overall performance to challenge the more expensive Radeon 9600 Pro for serious gamers. Nor does it have a low enough price to challenge the GeForce FX 5200 for casual gamers on a budget. It's impressive to see the Ultra competitive with the GeForce FX 5600 in many instances, and DirectX 9 capabilities are nice to have. Still, I think consumers are going to be better off spending more on a Radeon 9600 Pro or much less on a vanilla GeForce FX 5200.
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/geforcefx-5200ultra/index.x?pg=1
Conclusions
Inno3D's Tornado GeForce FX 5200 Ultra isn't yet available online, but GeForce FX 5200 Ultra cards from other manufacturers are going for as low as $132 on Pricewatch—a good $11 cheaper than the least expensive GeForce FX 5600 and $30 cheaper than ATI's Radeon 9600 Pro. If Inno3D is to be competitive among other GeForce FX 5200 Ultra manufacturers, its card will have to come in at around $130.
Honestly, though, I'm a little confused as to where the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is going to fit into the market. At $130, it's really leaning towards the high end of the middle ground between sub-$70 vanilla GeForce FX 5200s and our reigning mid-range graphics champion, the Radeon 9600 Pro, at over $160. For anyone who's serious about gaming, the Radeon 9600 Pro is definitely worth the extra scratch, especially since it should be better-equipped for next-generation applications.
For bargain hunters less concerned with gaming performance, the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra looks like it could be a pretty good deal, in part because it's often a better performer, without antialiasing enabled, than the GeForce FX 5600. Antialiasing fans would be far better off with a GeForce FX 5600. And at least the GeForce FX 5600 can render 3DMark03's "Mother Nature" water correctly; I have a sneaking suspicion that NVIDIA may never enable higher precision floating point pixel shaders in the budget GeForce FX 5200, if it even can.
However, it's hard to ignore the price/performance ratio of the vanilla GeForce FX 5200, which costs almost half as much as the Ultra. Casual gamers will probably be satiated by the performance of GeForce FX 5200, and I just don't see enough value behind the Ultra's $65 higher price tag. The Tornado GeForce FX 5200 Ultra isn't yet on the market, but if Inno3D expects it to compete with its own $67 (on Pricewatch) Tornado GeForce FX 5200, the Ultra's price is going to have to drop.
In the end, the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra doesn't have the image quality, antialiasing prowess, or overall performance to challenge the more expensive Radeon 9600 Pro for serious gamers. Nor does it have a low enough price to challenge the GeForce FX 5200 for casual gamers on a budget. It's impressive to see the Ultra competitive with the GeForce FX 5600 in many instances, and DirectX 9 capabilities are nice to have. Still, I think consumers are going to be better off spending more on a Radeon 9600 Pro or much less on a vanilla GeForce FX 5200.
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/geforcefx-5200ultra/index.x?pg=1