Some data about sense to use faster (and much cheaper) video card ATI 9700 Pro (it's close to Nvidia 4600):
Quake 3, 640x480-16 - K6-3 450 - 50 fps
V5 with faster K6-3 550 - 42 fps
If to interpolate, the possible fps with K6-3 550 + ATI 9700 = 60 fps, what's more on 40% than with V5. With common Nvidia 4200 the difference is expected +15-20%, what most will prefer, not taking into account mad V5 prices. How is in other games needs researching, what you may do.

Well shoot I don't remember being disapointed back in the day by my K6-2 450, maybe its because I went from a Pentium 133 to a K6-2 450. But now seeing how slow a K6-3 is compared to Pentium II it makes me wonder how I enjoyed anything on the old K6-2 🤣

candle_86 wrote:

Well shoot I don't remember being disapointed back in the day by my K6-2 450, maybe its because I went from a Pentium 133 to a K6-2 450. But now seeing how slow a K6-3 is compared to Pentium II it makes me wonder how I enjoyed anything on the old K6-2 🤣

The redeeming value of the K6-series was the low price, not the performance (pretty much where AMD is again today).

Scali wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

Well shoot I don't remember being disapointed back in the day by my K6-2 450, maybe its because I went from a Pentium 133 to a K6-2 450. But now seeing how slow a K6-3 is compared to Pentium II it makes me wonder how I enjoyed anything on the old K6-2 🤣

The redeeming value of the K6-series was the low price, not the performance (pretty much where AMD is again today).

Well today when I get off work I'm going to power up my K6-3 and play my favorite game from back then. Sid Meier's Civilization II or maybe Tiberian Sun

Tertz wrote:

sense to use faster (and much cheaper) video card ATI 9700 Pro (it's close to Nvidia 4600): Quake 3, 640x480-16 - K6-3 450 - 50 […]
Show full quote

sense to use faster (and much cheaper) video card ATI 9700 Pro (it's close to Nvidia 4600):
Quake 3, 640x480-16 - K6-3 450 - 50 fps
V5 with faster K6-3 550 - 42 fps
If to interpolate, the possible fps with K6-3 550 + ATI 9700 = 60 fps,

Don't many SS7 boards have issues with AGP? And the Voodoos not using much, if any, AGP features makes them more reliable?

I personally don't like to play games at more than 30 fps - this way I never get spoiled by fast frame rates, because from what I understand, once you go beyond, you don't want to go back.

feipoa wrote:

Don't many SS7 boards have issues with AGP?

V5 used by F2bnp is AGP. Also here is candle_86 with Geforce 2 Ultra in K6 computer. I suppose games work for them ok.

If candle_86 will setup his K6-3 to 550 he may rejoice us by fps in some games tested by F2bnp with using of Geforce 2 Ultra.

I personally don't like to play games at more than 30 fps - this way I never get spoiled by fast frame rates, because from what I understand, once you go beyond, you don't want to go back.

There may to be adoption time to lower fps, if you previously played same game with much higher fps. With new for you games the adoption should be shorter.

Yes, 3Dfx cards are fine on AGP because they essentially use it like a 66MHz PCI Bus AFAIK. The issues begin when you try to use something else, especially later stuff like GeForce and Radeon cards. You can make them stable though, it just demands you spend time to tweak and write stuff down.

If you have games that take advantage of HW T&L, then these cards will be quite a bit faster as they will take the load off of the CPU. Otherwise, they will be slower due to higher overall driver overhead.

Tertz wrote:

V5 used by F2bnp is AGP. Also here is candle_86 with Geforce 2 Ultra in K6 computer. I suppose games work for them ok. […]
Show full quote

feipoa wrote:

Don't many SS7 boards have issues with AGP?

V5 used by F2bnp is AGP. Also here is candle_86 with Geforce 2 Ultra in K6 computer. I suppose games work for them ok.

If candle_86 will setup his K6-3 to 550 he may rejoice us by fps in some games tested by F2bnp with using of Geforce 2 Ultra.

I personally don't like to play games at more than 30 fps - this way I never get spoiled by fast frame rates, because from what I understand, once you go beyond, you don't want to go back.

There may to be adoption time to lower fps, if you previously played same game with much higher fps. With new for you games the adoption should be shorter.

Its setup and running, why not tonight i run a few tests.

One thing that I am curious about is how do the K6-2 keeps up. The K6-3+ 500MHz+ chips are pretty rare/pricy, but K6-2 CPUs at such speeds are more readily available. How does K6-2 fare with K6-3+ clock for clock?

Well I went from a K6-2 450 to a K6-3 400 before I got my +. I will say my K6-2 450 was laggy feeling even running just windows, and in games it really hurt, I felt lag in even older more basic games like The Original Red Alert. The III made it work wonderfully

What about K6-2+ 500 vs K6-III-400(non plus).

Killer for me is a PII or Celeron with Voodoo3 and WickedGL.
Stunning Performance with a PII-333 in later Games like SOF.

candle_86 wrote:

Its setup and running, why not tonight i run a few tests.

Candidates for fps measuring:

Half-Life, OpenGL mode. let's hope minigl did not cut something out to rise fps
Incoming
Expendable
Shogo: Mobile Armor Division
The versions of the games are said in 1st message. If it's hard to find a game, I may help with the searching.

Don't know how many 1999-2000 year games support hardware T&L.

candle_86 wrote:

Well I went from a K6-2 450 to a K6-3 400 before I got my +. I will say my K6-2 450 was laggy feeling even running just windows, and in games it really hurt, I felt lag in even older more basic games like The Original Red Alert. The III made it work wonderfully

Maybe I should hunt for a top of the line K6-III+ after all. 😎

The K6-III+ is NOT a good Retro-CPU because it's way too fast with Dos (even with 2x66)
and it's way too slow for retro3d-gaming because of the poor FPU performance for 3dfx.

dr.zeissler wrote:

The K6-III+ is NOT a good Retro-CPU because it's way too fast with Dos (even with 2x66)

I assume that for DOS it will not be much different than a K6-2 at the same clock. I have a K6-2 500MHz and it is fine for DOS games I play (I don't play most of the really old stuff). A few other things work well after Slowdown.com. Only a handful have unsolvable issues.

dr.zeissler wrote:

The K6-III+ is NOT a good Retro-CPU because it's way too fast with Dos (even with 2x66)
and it's way too slow for retro3d-gaming because of the poor FPU performance for 3dfx.

That's plain wrong. K6-2+/III+ are very versatile with the unlocked multipliers and caches. Show me the DOS games that are too fast.

I would also not call it "way too slow" when it comes to 3D. Most people want to play 1997-1999 and you're basically getting ~PII 350-400 with a K6-III+ 600, which is fine for these years. I personally don't use it for playing demanding games from those years as I have much faster systems and really enjoy Super Sampling those games and still get 60+ fps, but I'm a little spoiled 😀.

dr.zeissler wrote:

The K6-III+ is NOT a good Retro-CPU because it's way too fast with Dos (even with 2x66)
and it's way too slow for retro3d-gaming because of the poor FPU performance for 3dfx.

disable L1, Disable L2, Disable L3, set bus to 66 or lower if board supports it, and use power now to lower multi now you have a 386

you where saying?

Also for windows games, I've found quite a few titles that work wonderfully that are 3d

Star Wars X-Wing Collectors Edition
Star Wars X-Wing vs Tie Fighter Collectors Edition
Star Wars Shadows of the Empire
Monster Truck Madness II
Midtown Madness II
SimCopter
Starfleet Academy
Starfleet Command Gold
Rouge Squadron
Combat Flight Simulator
Flight Simulator 98

F2bnp wrote:

dr.zeissler wrote:

The K6-III+ is NOT a good Retro-CPU because it's way too fast with Dos (even with 2x66)
and it's way too slow for retro3d-gaming because of the poor FPU performance for 3dfx.

That's plain wrong. K6-2+/III+ are very versatile with the unlocked multipliers and caches. Show me the DOS games that are too fast.

I would also not call it "way too slow" when it comes to 3D. Most people want to play 1997-1999 and you're basically getting ~PII 350-400 with a K6-III+ 600, which is fine for these years. I personally don't use it for playing demanding games from those years as I have much faster systems and really enjoy Super Sampling those games and still get 60+ fps, but I'm a little spoiled 😀.

usable means:

- setting 6x66 though board jumpers
- using k6plus/setk6 or whatever to slow down while booting dos to 2x66
- everything that does not run means starting with a batch that disables one of the cpu-caches (cpucache off) afterwords per batch cpucache on.

THAT! is usable, but does not work very good. some games show the tp-bug even with 133mhz!
If i disable the cache these games start but are WAY to slow.

you are right if I am changing the bios before starting the machine for each different game it will work quite good, but this is not usable
and therefore a no-go for me.

F2bnp wrote:

I would also not call it "way too slow" when it comes to 3D. Most people want to play 1997-1999

Most people want DOS machine and/or Win9x machine. As Win9x-only games could be released up to XP, so the end year is 2001 at least, not 1999. While K6-3 is good to 1999 or 2000, what is unclear still.

dr.zeissler wrote:

THAT! is usable, but does not work very good. some games show the tp-bug even with 133mhz!
If i disable the cache these games start but are WAY to slow.

What models of K6 CPU and MB you have? What DOS games you can't get to work good?