NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra

The NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra is a graphics card from the GeForce FX generation, built on the NV34 chip and Rankine architecture. Fabricated on a 150 nm process at TSMC, it contains 45 million transistors on a 124 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 362.9K per square millimeter. Released on March 5, 2003, it carried a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The card is now end-of-life, positioned between the GeForce 4 Ti and GeForce 6 AGP generations. Its specifications include a 128 MB DDR memory pool, a 128-bit bus, and a memory clock of 325 MHz (650 Mbps effective), producing a bandwidth of 10.40 GB/s. The card features 4 TMUs and 4 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 1.300 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1.300 GTexel/s. It supports DirectX 9.0a and OpenGL 1.5 (full) with partial OpenGL 2.0, and connects via AGP 8x. Display outputs include one DVI, one VGA, and one S-Video.

Power and Cooling — TDP, PSU recommendation, connector requirements

The FX 5200 Ultra is a single-slot card with a length of 171 mm (6.7 inches). Its power delivery relies on a single Molex connector, and the suggested power supply is 200 W. No thermal design power figure is listed in the available data, but the modest connector and PSU recommendation point to a low-power component. The single-slot form factor implies a compact cooling solution, though the exact cooler design is not specified. The card's power requirements are minimal by modern standards, making it compatible with older systems that have a 200 W PSU. The AGP 8x interface also draws power from the slot, but the primary external connection is the Molex plug. For users building a period-appropriate system, the power envelope is not a concern. The lack of a TDP rating in the database is notable, but the suggested PSU and connector type give a clear picture of its electrical needs. The card's modest dimensions further suggest that it does not demand extensive cooling or airflow.

How It Compares — position vs each nearest rival, one short paragraph per rival

No nearest rival data is provided in the fact pack, so direct comparisons to specific GPUs are not possible. However, the card's percentile among all GPUs is 50, placing it exactly at the median of the database. Its average benchmark score is zero, indicating that no performance samples have been recorded. This absence of data means that quantitative comparisons cannot be made. In the product hierarchy, the FX 5200 Ultra succeeds the GeForce 4 Ti and is succeeded by the GeForce 6 AGP. This positioning suggests it belongs to a transitional generation, bridging the earlier DirectX 8 era and the later DirectX 9.0b/9.0c hardware. The lack of benchmark results is itself a data point: the card is not commonly tested, likely due to its age and limited performance. Without rival scores, the percentile of 50 is the only ranking information available, and it is based on a database where this card has no measured performance. Thus, the median standing is more a placeholder than a reflection of actual capability.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set — RT/tensor cores, API support from facts

The FX 5200 Ultra does not list any ray tracing or tensor cores, reflecting its 2003-era architecture. Its API support includes DirectX 9.0a and OpenGL 1.5 with full support, and OpenGL 2.0 with partial support. This means the card can run early DirectX 9 titles, but it lacks the hardware features of later generations. The absence of dedicated RT and tensor cores is typical for this period, as ray tracing and AI acceleration were not yet integrated into consumer GPUs. The partial OpenGL 2.0 support suggests that some advanced features may be missing or emulated. For the time, DirectX 9.0a was a significant step forward, enabling shader model 2.0 effects, but the FX 5200 Ultra's implementation was entry-level within that generation. The feature set is therefore limited to what was standard in 2003: no hardware ray tracing, no tensor operations, and only partial compliance with the OpenGL 2.0 specification. This places the card firmly in the early DirectX 9 era, with capabilities that are now considered obsolete.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs

Q: What memory configuration does the FX 5200 Ultra use?

A: It comes with 128 MB of DDR memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 10.40 GB/s.

Q: What display outputs are available?

A: The card offers one DVI, one VGA, and one S-Video output.

Q: What is the card's interface?

A: It uses an AGP 8x bus interface.

Q: What power connector does it require?

A: It requires a single Molex connector, with a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: What is the pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The pixel rate is 1.300 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 1.300 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the release date?

A: It was released on March 5, 2003.

Who Should Consider It — resolution/settings-based recommendations grounded in the scores

Given the lack of benchmark scores, the card's suitability must be inferred from its fill rates and memory bandwidth. The 1.300 GPixel/s pixel rate and 1.300 GTexel/s texture rate are modest figures. The 10.40 GB/s memory bandwidth is also limited. These specifications suggest the card is suited for lower resolutions and older titles. For modern games or high detail settings, the card would likely struggle. The 128 MB VRAM further constrains texture-heavy scenes, as many contemporary games require more memory. The card's performance is best aligned with 1024×768 or lower resolutions, and even then, detail settings would need to be reduced. For users interested in retro gaming or basic 2D acceleration, the FX 5200 Ultra can serve as a functional component. However, it is not a viable option for any modern 3D workload. The absence of benchmark data means these recommendations are qualitative, but the underlying specifications point to a very low-performance envelope.

Memory Subsystem — VRAM size/type, bus width, bandwidth and what it means for high resolutions

The card is equipped with 128 MB of DDR memory, a 128-bit bus, and a memory clock of 325 MHz (650 Mbps effective). This yields a bandwidth of 10.40 GB/s. For its era, this was a mid-range configuration. At high resolutions, the limited VRAM and bandwidth become bottlenecks, especially with texture-intensive applications. The 128-bit bus is a balance between cost and performance, but the effective bandwidth is modest by today's standards. In practice, the card would be limited to resolutions where the framebuffer and texture data fit within 128 MB. At 1600×1200 or higher, the memory capacity would be insufficient for many games, and the bandwidth would cause stuttering or reduced frame rates. The 10.40 GB/s figure is roughly one-tenth of what modern entry-level cards offer, underscoring the card's age. The memory subsystem is a clear limiting factor, and any analysis of the card's capabilities must account for this constraint.

Benchmark Performance — analyze scores vs rivals with exact % deltas

No benchmark scores are available for the FX 5200 Ultra; the average benchmark score is zero. The percentile of 50 indicates that if it were ranked, it would sit at the median of all GPUs in the database. Without rival scores, exact percentage deltas cannot be computed. The lack of data is itself informative: it suggests the card is not commonly benchmarked, likely due to its age and low performance. The architecture's fill rates and memory bandwidth provide the only quantitative performance indicators. A comparison with any specific rival is impossible because the nearestRivals list is empty. The percentile of 50 is a database-wide ranking, but it is based on a dataset where this card has no recorded scores, so it carries little weight. The zero average score further emphasizes that no meaningful performance data exists. Therefore, any discussion of benchmark performance must rely on the card's theoretical specifications rather than measured results. The 1.300 GPixel/s and 1.300 GTexel/s rates are the only numbers that can be used to estimate its throughput, and they place it at a level that is far below any modern GPU. In the absence of rival data, the card's performance remains an open question, but the available figures suggest a very limited capability.