obobskivich wrote:

The extra connector (towards the left) is for ADC, and if I remember right some of the pins on the AGP slot aren't directly compatible with PC hardware (basically, I wouldn't try plugging that card into your AGP Pro-equipped Windows machine without doing some homework first).

This board doesn't actually have an ADC output, just two dual-link DVI. From what I can tell, they just make use of that connector's power so they don't need the extra molex connectors that the 6800 Ultra normally has.

I suspect you're right though. I know that AGP Pro is "just" about extra power and doesn't offer any performance benefit, but everything else on the system is proprietary, why not the AGP slot. 😜

obobskivich wrote:

It probably also has firmware differences to the PC variant.

I think that's to be expected, just like the old Mac Voodoo and Matrox cards.

obobskivich wrote:

Still, a very nice card in its own right - especially if you have the Apple machine to go with it. 😀

The system it's in is a Dual 2.7GHz G5, the only thing better would be a quad G5 I guess? I might deck it out with some more RAM and a bigger HDD though.

SquallStrife wrote:

This board doesn't actually have an ADC output, just two dual-link DVI. From what I can tell, they just make use of that connector's power so they don't need the extra molex connectors that the 6800 Ultra normally has.

I suspect you're right though. I know that AGP Pro is "just" about extra power and doesn't offer any performance benefit, but everything else on the system is proprietary, why not the AGP slot. 😜

Odd. I've seen and heard about the Apple 6800's with ADC and the augmented connector for it, but never one without. Either way - the dual-link DVI is the real "gotcha" for that card. 😀

The system it's in is a Dual 2.7GHz G5, the only thing better would be a quad G5 I guess? I might deck it out with some more RAM and a bigger HDD though.

IIRC the Dual has the highest clockrate (at 2.7GHz), and the Quads dropped you down to 2.5GHz (checked Wikipedia to confirm this - it appears to be right). I would assume that the 2.7GHz model will thus have advantages for applications that don't take advantage of SMP, or that don't take much advantage of the quad vs the dual-core configuration.

Agp Pro specification.
The only difference between Agp Pro 110 and Agp Pro 50 - a 3-slots-wide bracket versus 2-slots-wide.

Callahan wrote:

I can think of only two operating systems: both NT; 3.51 & 4

Nice machine, could you try BeOS 5 on it?
You can get the Personal Edition at https://web.archive.org/web/20000815094738/ht … eOS_stuff/beos/
or http://pulkomandy.tk/~beosarchive/unsorted/ft … u/beos/install/
and the updates at http://pulkomandy.tk/~beosarchive/unsorted/ft … rsonal_edition/
The 430NX chipset was never listed in the official hardware compatibility list, so I'm curious to see if it works.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010203200300/ht … list_intel.html
You'll have to make a boot floppy or install the BeOS bootloader as the 2nd processor won't be active if you boot using the Windows 9x shortcut iirc.

Gamecollector wrote:

Agp Pro specification.
The only difference between Agp Pro 110 and Agp Pro 50 - a 3-slots-wide bracket versus 2-slots-wide.

AGP Pro 110 also specifies higher power consumption (up to 110W, vs 50W for Pro 50). I can't think of a single Pro 110 card that is triple-slot in "compliance" with that document either - there are Pro cards that have PCI daughter-boards and the entire package is triple-slot, but most Pro cards are dual-slot including their cooling solutions. There are also "Pro 50" cards which lack one of the edge connectors (they have a retainer clip on the back, instead of a second power contact finger), like the 3DLabs Wildcat II.

EDIT - Something else I just noticed on the Apple 6800: it has a retainer clip, and the rear shoe does not appear to have the same pinout as an AGP Pro card.

Got a ASUS CUV4X and a SB16 CT2910 for 5€ each one. Not bad, right?

Great! 😀

12Mb STB Voodoo 2 - $5:

I called around town today looking for an AGP card for my Northwood build, found this guy for $15:

A 7300GT with 512MB of ram. It's no 6800 Ultra, but hey the price was just fine with me 🤣

SquallStrife wrote:

Success! […]
Show full quote

Success!

And yes, that's an AGP Pro GF 6800 Ultra.

Awesome. I was thinking of a G5 quad core for a while, but Mac Pro 1,1-3,1 and some models of 4,1 are all so cheap right now. It's hard for me to justify buying a G5 any more but at $5 each it would definitely be worth it for me to upgrade from my dual 533 G4.

joe6pack: how does that 7300 perform? I've been curious about the "lesser" GeForce 7 cards for AGP, but usually the ones I find are GS or LE or whatnot, not GTs.

obobskivich wrote:

joe6pack: how does that 7300 perform? I've been curious about the "lesser" GeForce 7 cards for AGP, but usually the ones I find are GS or LE or whatnot, not GTs.

It performs nearly (very, very) identical to a 6600GT and slightly worse than a 7600GS. A 6600GT is originally what I was after, so I came about as close as possible but with the added bonus of 512MB of ram.

The chart here has some numbers on the GT/GS/LE/SE difference:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_7300.html

I think that they are equal
Maybe 6600GT could be better with 3D engine like f.e.a.r call of juarez 1
All 3D engine that uses a lot of shader effects
7300 has 4 pixel shader unit vs 8 pixel shader unit

The 7600GS is actually slower than a 6600GT. So is a 7300GT. I don't even want to mention how slow the GS and LE variants are 🙄 .

I remember owning a Gainward 7600GS Golden Sample which had GDDR3 memory, much like the 7600GT. I pushed that card almost up to 7600GT specs and I saved myself about a 100 Euros that way 😊 .

Meh, they're probably more powerful than the woeful GeForce 8300GS I used to have, a card that remains, to this day, the worst one I've ever owned; so underpowered compared to the rest of the system (Athlon64 X2 3800+ @ 2 GHz) that it was a joke. It was more of a handicap to that system than my Vaio PCG FX-601's ATI Rage Mobility M1 chip is...

Got these, in a lot. Adlib Gold, Orchid Nusound and Sounwave32. (soon to ebay ) 🙁

F2bnp wrote:

The 7600GS is actually slower than a 6600GT. So is a 7300GT. I don't even want to mention how slow the GS and LE variants are 🙄 .

I remember owning a Gainward 7600GS Golden Sample which had GDDR3 memory, much like the 7600GT. I pushed that card almost up to 7600GT specs and I saved myself about a 100 Euros that way 😊 .

I know benchmark numbers aren't everything, but:

1http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1199&cmp[]=9&cmp[]=1233

(The syntax of that link breaks the url tag).

Although, I owned the 6600GT back when it came out, and it played every game I threw at it at the time. Twas my first 'real' graphics card.

A nice little Compaq Armada 4130T with the CD-Rom expansion base. It was sold as fully functional, but in reality the floppy drive wasn't working (broken rubber belt), so I had to look around for a replacement and found an external one for sale.

It has the infamous Opti Viper chipset, but I don't really care. It works just fine 😀

Specs:

- Pentium 133MHz
- 16MB RAM
- 1MB Cirrus Logic CL-GD7548 video card
- 1GB HDD
- 8X CD-ROM on the CD Expansion base
- Game port on the CD Expansion base (nice!)
- 11.8" 800x600 TFT screen

It has a handle to carry it and everything. Actually, the handle is where the battery was supposed to be had it came with it.

Without the base and the handle it's pretty small for a laptop of this age. You can see it next to a 10" netbook for comparison.

Very decent little system there! Shame the video card is only 1MB, since a lot of games that would run just fine on it otherwise ask for 2MB. Interesting to see how the specs compare to my Toshiba Satellite 200CDT of around the same time (100 MHz Pentium, 40MB RAM [upgraded from 8MB], 2MB C&T 65550 video card, 770 MB HDD, 11.3" 800x600 TFT screen, 6x CD-ROM)

Lukeno94 wrote:

Very decent little system there! Shame the video card is only 1MB, since a lot of games that would run just fine on it otherwise ask for 2MB.

I don't think it makes any difference since 1MB is enough for 800x600x16bit. Do you know any games that require 24bit color and that would run well on a Pentium 133MHz at 800x600? I tried Tomb Raider 2 at 320x240 and it's a bit on the slow side. It's playable, but the framerate does stutter a bit from time to time.

Lukeno94 wrote:

Interesting to see how the specs compare to my Toshiba Satellite 200CDT of around the same time (100 MHz Pentium, 40MB RAM [upgraded from 8MB], 2MB C&T 65550 video card, 770 MB HDD, 11.3" 800x600 TFT screen, 6x CD-ROM)

I think we would be on equal footing if we were to do some LAN gaming on these 😁 Since mine has the terrible Opti Viper it should perform about the same as your Pentium 100 considering yours isn't also running on some crappy chipset. I would love to get a memory upgrade though, but FPM SODIMMs aren't the most common thing for sale. Do you have any benchmarks for that C&T video card?