Why is GeForce FX so cheap?

There are GeForce FX 5200 cards w/ 128 Mb on pricewatch.com for under $80, but the cheapest GeForce 4 is still $105. Why is the newest and supposedly best card from nVidia so cheap? Is this just a price war with ATI? Or is it that nobody wants one of these because it has a noisy cooling system (I’ve heard) and it takes up two slots on the motherboard? Can anyone who has one of these tell me if they are really that annoying?

You are talking about a FX-5200 this POS is even SLOWER then a GF4.

Dont mix it up with the FX-5600 Ultra.

Slower than the GF4? First the GF4 MX (aka the slightly faster GF2), and now this! If this is true, I must say I’m really disappointed (and confused) by nVidia’s marketing decisions.

Anyone interested in a FX5200 may want to read this review first:

Do you really need a review to see how crap the FX 5200 is? Just read the specs on the nvidia site! And on PREVIEW sites.
Before i read all the specs on each model, I would have thought that the non-ultra versions were the old “mx”'s and the ultras were the “Ti”'s…
not so…
5200 = mx (ultra or not!)
5600 = ti
5800 = whoa =D

btw, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER buy an nvidia MX card… they are not “a little less performance for less money…”
they are: “a piece of crap with no performance for a rip off price”

If you can, only buy the absolute top card, or at most 2 steps down from it.
(eg. GeForce 4 Ti 4200 - 4600, no MXs, no 5200’s)
Because it is really not worth the price that you save.

eg. The only gfFX’s worth buying are really the FX 5600 ultra, 5800 and 5800 ultra.

And considering the 5800 uses DDR 2, and in some aspects, its twice as fast as the 5600 (eg. vertices per second:
5600: 88 million
5800: 200 million!!!)
I would not even buy the 5600 ultra; really just the 5800 or the 5800 ultra.

nVidia is a good make… But I find their card model distribution methods repugnant!