FX5200 Ultra vs. FX5500

[Noomatik]

Okay, with my buget in mind, I have narrowed down my choices. I know that the FX5200 Ultra is a bit older than the FX500, and is actually rather rare these days (I have come across ONE vendor online who claims to still have some cards with this chip in stock). My question is: in all respects, it seems the FX5200 U has the FX5500 at an advantage; it reportedly runs faster with both core and memory clocks, and all the so-called performance specs (texels/sec, vertices/sec, GB/sec, etc.) seem to indicate it would have better performance. On the other hand, the FX5500 is more readily available and comes in models with 256MB, whereas I have only found the FX5200 U with 128MB. As far as I can tell, they are both DX9 cards too. The bottom line is: I find myself strangely tempted to consider the FX5200 U despite it being older; am I interpreting the specs properly? (http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132)

Any insight? And please, I would prefer not to be distracted by suggestions regarding other chips at this point. I will consider those if/when the time is appropriate. At this point, I would just like some "professional" opinions regarding FX5200 Ultra vs. FX5500.

[Midknyte]

I would avoid those cards altogether and look for an ATI 9600 series card. Even a 9550 should be a better card.

[megaspazz]

Originally posted by Midknyte
I would avoid those cards altogether and look for an ATI 9600 series card. Even a 9550 should be a better card.

...seconded. way better value overall...

(bought two of the 128bit 9550 cards
for friends and they're more than happy)

[Damins]

I agree with the others and I know ya didnt want to hear it but those cards were a real low for nvidia. I still own a 5700 256 meg thats in my family rig and I regret ever buying the **** thing everyday. I wish I had gone with ati 9000 series.