Glad to be of use and to find out that GF6 does work ok with the game.

swaaye wrote:

The 6200s with a AGP connector keyed to work in a AGP 2x slot may not actually be capable of it. I've read that this possibly is an error on the part of the manufacturer and that the chip doesn't support 3.3v signaling.

I've been running a 6200 AGP in my 2X AGP system (dual PIII-850 Slot1 440BX) for several months without any issue. The system is on 24/7 and is my everyday web browsing machine. According to GPU-Z, I have the 64-bit, DDR2, 512 MB version.

swaaye wrote:

You guys are suffering from an incurable disease that I've discovered all retro-fans suffer from. It's called "endless incremental upgrade fever".

But the card was only $10 shipped! It came with bulging caps, but I replaced those. My reasoning is that if you don't buy it now for a damn good price, you'll just buy it later for more money. I'm not sure what the cure for this sickness, but I can tell you that having children is not the cure.

I have a similar 6200 card in another system, and it seems to work fine with Windows98 and a VIA C3-1200. I was going for the best passively cooled graphics card for the buck, and the 6200 fit the bill. At higher resolutions (1280+) and double monitors, I found that many of those 32 MB-era graphic cards just couldn't cut it for office, CAD, browsing, video tasks, etc. While I'm not much of a gamer, the $10 sticker for the 6200 was well worth it for my needs.

feipoa you're quoting posts I wrote over 3 years ago. 😀

$10 is a certainly a nice price. As you say, there were continual improvements to GUI acceleration. But I think it becomes hard to see differences once you are using any Radeon, Geforce or a Parhelia. Aside from some Geforce and Radeon cards with poor analog signal quality (or troublesome DVI).

There is a simple GUI benchmark app for XP and later Windows called Tom2D. Tom's Hardware developed it and used it to expose how some modern Radeon cards were underperforming. I used it to bench VIA vs. NVIDIA AGP performance and found that VIA considerably slows GUI acceleration even with their K8T800 chipset.

swaaye wrote:

feipoa you're quoting posts I wrote over 3 years ago. :)

The threads contained herein are timeless!

The 6200 works like a charm in my Slot-1 440BX AGP 2X mobo, both in W98 and XP.

I was looking for something better than the previous TNT2 M64, and a friend of mine had this MSI 6200 ostracized in a corner of his garage, under tons of dust and spider webs, so I just rescued it from oblivion.

As I'm paranoid about cooling I've put a small 50mm fan on its passive heatsink, and now it runs even cooler than the Coppermine (43 ºC / 110 ºF max under torture, at 31 ºC / 88 ºF ambient).

swaaye wrote:

There is a simple GUI benchmark app for XP and later Windows called Tom2D.

Do you know if there is a database of graphics cards tested with Tom2D on a Tualatin Pentium III-S 1.4 GHz? It would make for an interesting benchmark comparison.

On my dual PIII-850 Slot 1 440BX machine and a 6200 AGP card, I get:
754 D3D
305 DIB Buff.

On my dual Tualatin 1.4 GHz machine and a 6200 PCI card, I get:
1115 D3D
524 DIB Buff.

Unfortunately, I have on idea how good or bad these scores are.

feipoa wrote:

Do you know if there is a database of graphics cards tested with Tom2D on a Tualatin Pentium III-S 1.4 GHz? It would make for an interesting benchmark comparison.

It's a fairly new benchmark, I think from 2010 or so. I haven't seen results beyond those Tom's Hardware produced for their articles.

Feipoa, if this helps, I've just managed to get a Tually 1400-S running in my 440BX board with GF 6200, and this is what it scores at Tom2D:

Yes, that helps. It looks like the scores with a PIII-S 1.4 with the AGP version of the 6200 are marginally higher than with the PCI version. Which 440BX board are you using? Do you have the Powerleap Tualatin adapters?

The board is a Tekram P6BX-An.

No powerleap, I've adapted the Tualatin with a MSI-6905 v2.3 slocket and pin-modding the processor as per this scheme:

Ok, I see you used some other slocket and did the Tualatin adaption yourself.

I assume the green line is a conducting wire (a short), but what is the state of the two other yellow highlighted pins (DYN_OE, and RESET2)?

feipoa wrote:

... I assume the green line is a conducting wire (a short) ...

Right.

http://foros.combustionem.net/viewtopic.php?p … aec7bb7aeceb79c

feipoa wrote:

... but what is the state of the two other yellow pins (DYN_OE, and RESET2)?

They must be isolated from the socket. Some people just amputate these three pins (AN3, AJ3 and AK4); as that's a little too drastic I used thin telephone wire cover to isolate the pin tips.

http://foros.combustionem.net/viewtopic.php?p … aec7bb7aeceb79c

This is old know-how, the pioneers paved the way a decade ago, just google 'Tualatin 440BX' for tons of info.

Thanks for that clarification. I've never had to do this modification before.

Does anyone here have a Matrox P690 PCI or Matrox P750 AGP? I'd be very curious to see how these 2D cards perform with Tom2D. Matrox cards are supposed to be very 2D focused. From the current price of these cards on eBay ($150 for the P690), I wonder if they are any better than a $10 GeForce 6200 at 2D?

feipoa wrote:

Thanks for that clarification. I've never had to do this modification before.

Does anyone here have a Matrox P690 PCI or Matrox P750 AGP? I'd be very curious to see how these 2D cards perform with Tom2D. Matrox cards are supposed to be very 2D focused. From the current price of these cards on eBay ($150 for the P690), I wonder if they are any better than a $10 GeForce 6200 at 2D?

Matrox has been recycling and refreshing their old tech for a long time. Most of it can be traced back to G450 or Parhelia and GeForce 6 is 2 or 3 generations newer so they've probably caught up or nearly caught up by that time in both GUI acceleration and 2D image quality. I sure wouldn't spend $150 to find out.

CPU speed and memory bandwidth also noticeably influence GUI performance, partly because the applications themselves are affected by a slow CPU.

Matrox claimed back with G400 that they had achieved essentially infinite GUI performance. That could have been contemporary CPUs being the bottleneck. Coppermine and Slot Athlon.

Can someone please tell me what the DOS compatibility is like with their GeForce 6200 AGP or GeForce 6200 PCI on their Pentium III and 440BX?

If you would could you please test 2D scroller games [such as Commander Keen IV, Jazz Jackrabbit, etc] does it have "jerky" motion or super smooth? Also especially VESA mode speeds in games such as DOS mode Quake? Thanks. 😁

As a reference my P3 700 + Voodoo 3 3500TV in Quake @ VESA mode 640x480 gets 63FPS.

Thanks in advance! 😁

Argh, most of the linked Images are gone 🙁

I put my GF6200 Gainward 256MB AGP in my P4 (1,6Ghz) I845 Mainboard and the card works fine. The output is a bit blurry at low Resolutions.
I mainly use this card with Win2k at the moment, but I will also use it for Dos and WinME.

Within Dos the card works perfect with quickview1.3, that means up to 16Mio-Colors 😀
Win3.11 should be possible with patched Drivers for up to 256colors but no return from a Doswindow.

I tested mine against my Gf3.ti200 and the 6200 is the better card. It can run the ATI-Techdemos from 8500 up to 9800 (some a bit slow)
and the Matrox-Reef-Demo also works with 3D-Analyzer.

There are lots of different 6200 cards out there. But I did not find any AGP-Version that is passive-cooled and has 128Bit memory-interface.

I think I use an older driver then the 163.xx mentioned above. Mine ist 94.xx.

Doc

None of the Win9X drivers newer than 53.04 work correctly 😐

ohh the FX 5200 64bit is not that bad, there is a worse card, the MX4000 32bit
regarding to the 6200, i had a XFX geforce 6200 (NV44) which had the universal agp keying and worked just fine on everything from i440BX up to i865 in every mode possible (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x)
what i did notice was that it was crap because of the 64bit bus and the thermal solution from XFX had something off 'cause that thing was really hot

weldum wrote:

ohh the FX 5200 64bit is not that bad, there is a worse card, the MX4000 32bit
regarding to the 6200, i had a XFX geforce 6200 (NV44) which had the universal agp keying and worked just fine on everything from i440BX up to i865 in every mode possible (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x)
what i did notice was that it was crap because of the 64bit bus and the thermal solution from XFX had something off 'cause that thing was really hot

I might have one of those worse cards. It was strange thing. I had bought something from a ebay seller 2 months earlier and then this one arrived in mail from same seller for free and without any explanation why he sent it to me. I have not even tested it if it works, but I read that mx4000 cards are really bad.

Behold gainward MX4000 agp 8x 128Mb that I do not know what to do with...