gandhig wrote:

Seeing the length of the posts in the first page itself, I think the forum's administrator should consider redesigning it with a 'recent posts - first' approach. just kidding.
the pain while scrolling down to the bottom of this post in my mobile phone everytime when there is an update!!!

Sorry about that.. we'll be on page two soon enough I'm sure. And I suppose we'll try and keep it short from now on 🤣

EDIT: Oh look, page 2. Now updates will be a lot shorter. 😀

Tetrium wrote:

Don't even the current Nvidia cards work fine with DX9? I'm not so sure about the AMD ones though (and the problem is that I recently bought one and afterwards I read it's driver support is somewhat terrible atm).

I think the point is to build a system around a video card that supports a maximum of DX9. A modern card would be overkill in DX9 because you'd be getting 200fps in every game. For DX9, you'll be looking at something like a x1950XTX from AMD or a 7950GX2 from nVidia if you were using a PCIe motherboard. For AGP, I think you're limited to a x1950 Pro or 7950GT. DX9 PCI cards aren't even worth discussing. x1550 from ATi, I think,and GeForce 6200.

sliderider wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Don't even the current Nvidia cards work fine with DX9? I'm not so sure about the AMD ones though (and the problem is that I recently bought one and afterwards I read it's driver support is somewhat terrible atm).

I think the point is to build a system around a video card that supports a maximum of DX9. A modern card would be overkill in DX9 because you'd be getting 200fps in every game. For DX9, you'll be looking at something like a x1950XTX from AMD or a 7950GX2 from nVidia if you were using a PCIe motherboard. For AGP, I think you're limited to a x1950 Pro or 7950GT. DX9 PCI cards aren't even worth discussing. x1550 from ATi, I think,and GeForce 6200.

Actually, the reason for this build is a lot of the newer nvidia cards -can't- run a wide range of DX9 games. Around a certain point nvidia some how determined that dx9 was no longer important and removed something important from their gpu cores to focus on DX10 and DX11 games. And I've chatted with folks that own GTX 700's, 600's, and my own 500's, SLI configurations and single cards. All of em have major problems with most DX9 games. Ranging from 'red screen of death' to full on hard lockups, games crashing at start and not even starting at all in the first place, etc, etc. I'm not imagining this, multiple different peple with different computer configurations all with newer nvidia cards have all got back to me and reported these same issues. Both AMD systems and intel systems, i7's and quad cores.

I'm building this because I want to continue to upgrade to newer and newer nvidia cards in my big 6 core i7, for newer and better DirectX-10 & DirectX-11 games, but I don't want to lose the ability to play my old favorites I've enjoyed for years. But this is not possible with nvidia, sadly. So I'm building a second nvidia "beast" to play all my old favorites at high settings, when I get the urge to play said games, and then keep my big machine for DX10 & DX11 stuff.

gandhig wrote:

Seeing the length of the posts in the first page itself, I think the forum's administrator should consider redesigning it with a 'recent posts - first' approach. just kidding.
the pain while scrolling down to the bottom of this post in my mobile phone everytime when there is an update!!!

You can always go straight to the first unread post by clicking that little yellow "page" button which appears on the beginning of the threads that have unread posts. 😉

I feel that a pure DX9 card is too slow for some games. A 7900GTX is very powerful, but games like Doom 3, Farcry with HDR and FEAR will dip under 60 fps at 1600 x 1200 with some AA.

I believe the 8800GTX (and 8800GT + rebrands) are just as compatible with this games but offer much higher performance and are easier to source.

For OS Windows XP is a must IMO together with a PCIe X-Fi Titanium for EAX sound.

For CPU a Core 2 or Phenom II will do the trick. But don't rule out Athlon II and early i5 machines.

I'm thinking most folks didn't read our huge posts in page1. But ultimately (with the help of obobskivich on the forums here), I've settled in to deciding the video at least.

It's going to end up with a trio of 3-way nvidia GTX-285's. Probably the best option for a straight-dx9 setup.

As to system I'm not sure, I already have a 6mb Core2Duo @ 4.5 ghz, but when I get closer towards the video cards I'm leaning more towards either a 12MB LGA775 wolfdale quad core, or an entry level x58 I7-950. I'll end up running either one around 4 - 4.5 Ghz too.

And work on a big custom water cooled loop to loop-in all 3 video cards and the CPU, two radiators, and two pumps.

So the only thing left to decide is 775 or x58. And I might turn this thread in to a "build log" if it's okay to post updates once every 4-5 months.

kithylin wrote:

I'm thinking most folks didn't read our huge posts in page1. But ultimately (with the help of obobskivich on the forums here), […]
Show full quote

I'm thinking most folks didn't read our huge posts in page1. But ultimately (with the help of obobskivich on the forums here), I've settled in to deciding the video at least.

It's going to end up with a trio of 3-way nvidia GTX-285's. Probably the best option for a straight-dx9 setup.

As to system I'm not sure, I already have a 6mb Core2Duo @ 4.5 ghz, but when I get closer towards the video cards I'm leaning more towards either a 12MB LGA775 wolfdale quad core, or an entry level x58 I7-950. I'll end up running either one around 4 - 4.5 Ghz too.

And work on a big custom water cooled loop to loop-in all 3 video cards and the CPU, two radiators, and two pumps.

So the only thing left to decide is 775 or x58. And I might turn this thread in to a "build log" if it's okay to post updates once every 4-5 months.

Are 3 285's faster than 2 295's? A pair of 295's has 4 GPU's versus 3 for the three way SLi 285's and would only require a motherboard with 2 PCI x16 slots versus 3 slots with the 285's which might save a little money.

sliderider wrote:

Are 3 285's faster than 2 295's? A pair of 295's has 4 GPU's versus 3 for the three way SLi 285's and would only require a motherboard with 2 PCI x16 slots versus 3 slots with the 285's which might save a little money.

The 295's may be -slightly- faster, in games that support multi-gpu. But the problem with that option is when I get some games that won't support multi-gpu, a single gpu on the 295 is slower than a single 285, is what I was thinking.

And in some games out there, depends on the game, but some of the games, the 3-way 285's are faster. Plus the price... people on ebay are charging almost $200 each for GTX 295's today, and the 285's I found are $84.95 each.

Plus I was looking at the other side, it's kind of difficult to get my paws on a full-cover water block for the 295's today, at least it's hard to find someone that will sell more than one, instead of a one-off one at a time. And finding any video cards that match isn't that easy either. But I found a guy selling "more than 10 available" for the GTX 285's, so at least I can get 3 that match from them. So that's also what swayed my decision there. And I've already found a full-cover water block for the 285's on the performance PCS website, and emailed them and they have "quite a few" in stock and I was told they don't sell very fast today. And with nvidia multi-GPU setups, if at all possible it's generally much better to go with an option that will result in 100% matched cards. And Identical water blocks for each card.

Again.. I don't really have a whole lot of income and this project is going to be done in stages, so.. I'm more in the planning stage right now. Part of the other nice part about a project that takes several months per stage: I can plan ahead and get all the little aspects settled before it comes time to buy. I'm in the middle of buying a house with my mother (we live together) and then we'll be moving, so my income is stunted for a little while to help fund the house. But that's okay, it's for a good reason and we both need a house (we've been renting for nearly 15 years) and a dedicated space to set up to work on my projects with it's own power and a/c will be nice too.

So.. I'm looking at 1-2 months after new house for another $125 in water stuff, then probably 4-5 months after that to get the power supply, depending on sales and which one I find at the time, which will probably be another $275 - $300. Then I need to spend another $100 - $125 on a better chassis, then the base system (motherboard + CPU), probably another 4-5 months there, then the video cards, then look in to expanding the water system to loop-in the video cards. I haven't even explored what that's going to cost yet but a rough estimate would probably be another $400.

I know.. it's a lot to spend on older hardware. But it's something I want, and I decided a long while ago now in spring 2013 that it's a big project I wanted to embark on, and I knew what it would cost up front so I researched the water aspect through most of 2013. I can take all of my water parts forwards in to the new build progress so it wasn't a waste. And I get to play with (and enjoy) a custom water looped system for my first time ever as I wait to save up for more parts/stages.

EDIT: Also I've been considering documenting a build log online somewhere, but almost all other tech-type forum places everyone would insult me and think I was silly for spending this kind of money on older hardware. But some how I think such a notion isn't really out of place on vogons.. so I decided to try starting it here.

A tri gtx 285 sli rig would be very nice for dx9 when games take advantage and even modern titles when set right will run rather decently. Personally I don't need the very best of everything and often make do with a lot less. Good old Dell Inpiron 9300 that is maxed out for the picky titles that don't play well on the newer systems.

SLI, wow 😀

What DX9 game needs so much power? Would have thought a single 285 would do the trick for most games.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

SLI, wow 😀

What DX9 game needs so much power? Would have thought a single 285 would do the trick for most games.

It's probably not that anything "needs" that kind of power really, two 285's would be enough for most things. The third one is just to enable higher anti-aliasing modes without a FPS penalty and to reduce micro-stuttering, and in general balance out the fame rates.

Also since this thread will be dormant for a few months between updates, only update I have for right now is some cleaning I did on the radiator yesterday.

After every 7 weeks my radiator in the back ends up like this:

This is mid-cleaning, the top half is clean.. bottom half is well... stuff my dog tracks in to the house. I'm planning to of course buy fan filters next with the new water block, that should extend clean times, I hope.

And what about newer cards like the 480/580/680/780? Are there game-breaking DX9 bugs in the driver?

I checked and my GTX660 still has drivers for Windows XP. It's quite a powerful card, on the level of a 580 and just needs a single PCIe power plug. Together with a basic S1154 or 1155 Pentium CPU and you could be set.

And regarding XP and SP, what SP version is recommended? SP3 is quite demanding on older systems.

Is SP1 sufficient if one installs a dedicated firewall? Basically just enough to have Steam going.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

And what about newer cards like the 480/580/680/780? Are there game-breaking DX9 bugs in the driver?

I checked and my GTX660 still has drivers for Windows XP. It's quite a powerful card, on the level of a 580 and just needs a single PCIe power plug. Together with a basic S1154 or 1155 Pentium CPU and you could be set.

it could be the new drivers... but there is the problem, if you go back to older drivers, the newer cards then aren't supported by the driver a little further back, and you end up having to use older video cards then anyway.

Besides the crashes, even if games do run right, newer video cards are in general slower at DX9 than older cards were. There's a "BAR" where the video cards being released started being "optimized" to be faster for DX-10 & 11, yet slower at DX8 stuff. I've seen this and tested it myself, I had a pair of HD 7770's at one point, and in games like crysis, oblivion, borderlands 2, and Race Driver GRID, my HD4890's were roughly +40% faster in all games and situations, so I ended up selling em and going back to my old cards, even though the newer ones were much faster at DirectX-10 stuff.

So, I wouldn't want any of the newer cards for a DX9 build for any reason what so ever, older cards will be much faster at what I'm wanting this build for. And use older drivers, which is even better.

I've decided what I want to use for this project, I just have to wait and save up and get em later when the time comes.

That's really interesting and I wonder if any hardware site has done an investigation into this. It makes sense to optimize for the new games of course.

Personally a single 285 would be all I need. Although a GTS250 1GB will likely be easier to source and might even be more compatible.

I've never noticed my 690 having any problems with Direct X 9 games. Can you list a few that have problems so I can try them out on my machine?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

That's really interesting and I wonder if any hardware site has done an investigation into this. It makes sense to optimize for the new games of course.

Personally a single 285 would be all I need. Although a GTS250 1GB will likely be easier to source and might even be more compatible.

At one point a few years ago I actually owned 3 x GTS250's in my 4ghz i7 machine (it was just a quad core at that time.. not the big 6 core it uses now) and a single HD4890 was about +20% faster than all 3 of em together in most games so.. I didn't use them very long. Most of this is kind of why I held on my my 4890's for so long, they're strong cards and it's kinda difficult to find anything faster that was remotely affordable.

I finally replaced them both with a nvidia GTX-560-ti, in my big (now 6 core) i7 machine mainly for DX10 & 11 games (Bioshock Infinite and Crysis 2 are fun!)

My 560ti is the 448 cores 'limited edition' version of the 560ti, and sold by EVGA, as their "FTW Edition", which comes factory overclocked, and then I have it up a little higher manually. And it runs about +50% faster in dx10 games than both of my 4890's combined.. and I managed to score it for $95 off amazon in november 2013, so.. I'm loving it in that machine, It just has problems with a lot of games, and only DX9 games, all DX10+ games run flawless on it.

One example is Skyrim. A modernish DX9 game.. If I just open skyrim at max settings and play, at random play times the screen will come up with "red screen of death", that is, both connected monitors turn in to a light pinkish reddish tint and no image is displayed on the screen, gpu fan jumps to 100% and the system hangs and requires a hard reboot. The only way I can get my new nvidia card to run skyrim without crashing is to down-clock it below EVGA's factory overclock, and then down a little below nvidia's default clocks. It usually works by then but it ends up slower than my pair of 4890's like that so.. not a whole lot of point in having the new card for older games at that point. Sometimes it happens after 4-5 hours of gameplay, sometimes 5 minutes.

Other games that do this are crysis (original), in DX9 mode.. red screen of death, in DX10 mode, works flawless for hours. In this game, downclocking won't even solve it and it won't run at all in dx9 mode. Another one is "Race Driver: GRID" a DX9 game that I love a lot.. but it too gets red screen of death and downclocking won't solve it there either. I've tried newest drivers, older drivers, drivers don't seem to fix it.

I've asked a friend with a GTX 760 to play skyrim and he's seen red screen of death after a few hours. I asked someone else with a GTX 680 to try skyrim, fallout 3 & NV, and GRID, and they saw it too in all of em, and they're using an AMD system, so it's not related to intel either.

Another games I have issues with are Fallout new vegas, and fallout 3. red screen of death there too, but these I got solved by down-clocking.

So.. I'm not sure exactly what it is but the bottom line is I can't play some of my favorite old games any more with newer nvidia cards. So I want to build a system that's very fast at my favorite old games, so I can continue to update my big i7 on newer and faster cards in the future, but not lose the ability to enjoy old games, I'll just play em on a different computer.

Interesting. I have a GTX660 and could try those games. I have the Steam version of these games. It would be under W8.1 64 however as I don't have a XP machine currently.

Loved Grid and playing Grid 2 on the PS3. Great game.

The 4890 was a beast back in the day that's for sure. I only had the 4850 and it was a nice upgrade.

Thing is it's easier to find Nvidia cards. I guess they sold a lot more of them.

Now the question to me is: What are the best DX9 graphics cards ever made? So far my Radeon 6670 hasn't had any issues with DX9 games and neither has my friend's Radeon 6850

Looking around online it seems like the red screens are caused by GPU monitoring/tweaking utilities. From what I read uninstalling any of those fixes the problems. I don't run anything like that and I've never seen this but maybe I've just been lucky. However since there is evidence on the web I would try uninstalling any GPU monitoring/Tweaking tools that you have which actively run.

Shagittarius wrote:

Looking around online it seems like the red screens are caused by GPU monitoring/tweaking utilities. From what I read uninstalling any of those fixes the problems. I don't run anything like that and I've never seen this but maybe I've just been lucky. However since there is evidence on the web I would try uninstalling any GPU monitoring/Tweaking tools that you have which actively run.

Actually my 560ti-448 card was doing all of this when I first bought it -without- any monitoring programs what so ever, and it does it without running any programs either. So.. I appreciate your effort in searching, but I've tried that too. The bottom line is ultimately I just want two computers to solve this. One for DX9 games, and one for DX10 & DX11 games.

Another point to note in this thread, is at some point I (and all of us PC gamers) will be forced to use microsoft windows 8 if we want to continue playing PC games. Microsoft has already stated somewhere (I can't find it at the moment but it's out there) Direct X 11.5 will only be supported on Windows 8. Just like DX-10 is only supported on vista and win7.

And a lot of older DX9 games don't run well in Win8 either so.. I'm sort of planning for the future by building a dedicated DX9 gaming machine. nvidia problems aside, it'll be necessary at some point so I may as well start now.