PCI 2.1 vs 2.2. compatibility is basically about whether the card assumes 3.3V to be present and needs it. or not. So it's determined by card design, not chipset. That's why it's possible that your newer 6200 does work where the 5500 doesn't. So looking for a specific chipset isn't going to help you here...

...or maybe it is. One of the limitations of PCI cards is power draw. PCI 2.2 allows for more power (7.6A over 3.3V line, on top of existing 5V and 12V power), so it makes sense that the more power-hungry 5500 needed that where the lighter 6200 didn't. Now, there are lots of cards out there with far lower power requirements that still require 3.3V (RTL8139D NICs come to mind), but inversely, you're not going to see the most power-hungry chips on PCI 2.1.

So, your best bet will probably be the highest performance per Watt that you can find. That's likely to be the very newest low-end card available on PCI. Quite possibly that might turn out to be the 6200 you already have there. Of course it's a low-end design with 64b memory, but the last cards with 128b memory bus on PCI that I recall were TNT2-era things. I'm pretty sure a 6200 would be much faster than that.

But...

It depends on OS, particularly on such an old system. Under DOS, it's just about getting pixels onto the screen, and the fastest card will be fastest regardless (i.e. probably that 6200), although it will probably be bottlenecked by PCI bus, so it's more specifically the fastest bus access. Tbh I haven't a clue how PCI cards stack up there, and given the ancient motherboard chipset here, it's entirely possible it will in all cases be the bottleneck so all PCI cards might perform identically in DOS on this system. As soon as you start running Windows, the picture changes. First off you need OS support in the first place, so that means running Windows98SE. Secondly, newer cards need newer drivers with much higher overhead. I haven't tested it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead is so bad on a system like this a card with slower hardware (Gf2MX or so) running older- much lighter - drivers might beat it.

Either way, this is purely theoretical musing on something I'm not aware anyone has ever actually tested (because indeed: there is no practical use in this pairing) so best thing to do is just go and bench the hell out of it 😀

dionb wrote on 2021-02-05, 14:33:

PCI 2.1 vs 2.2. compatibility is basically about whether the card assumes 3.3V to be present and needs it. or not. So it's deter […]
Show full quote

PCI 2.1 vs 2.2. compatibility is basically about whether the card assumes 3.3V to be present and needs it. or not. So it's determined by card design, not chipset. That's why it's possible that your newer 6200 does work where the 5500 doesn't. So looking for a specific chipset isn't going to help you here...

...or maybe it is. One of the limitations of PCI cards is power draw. PCI 2.2 allows for more power (7.6A over 3.3V line, on top of existing 5V and 12V power), so it makes sense that the more power-hungry 5500 needed that where the lighter 6200 didn't. Now, there are lots of cards out there with far lower power requirements that still require 3.3V (RTL8139D NICs come to mind), but inversely, you're not going to see the most power-hungry chips on PCI 2.1.

So, your best bet will probably be the highest performance per Watt that you can find. That's likely to be the very newest low-end card available on PCI. Quite possibly that might turn out to be the 6200 you already have there. Of course it's a low-end design with 64b memory, but the last cards with 128b memory bus on PCI that I recall were TNT2-era things. I'm pretty sure a 6200 would be much faster than that.

But...

It depends on OS, particularly on such an old system. Under DOS, it's just about getting pixels onto the screen, and the fastest card will be fastest regardless (i.e. probably that 6200), although it will probably be bottlenecked by PCI bus, so it's more specifically the fastest bus access. Tbh I haven't a clue how PCI cards stack up there, and given the ancient motherboard chipset here, it's entirely possible it will in all cases be the bottleneck so all PCI cards might perform identically in DOS on this system. As soon as you start running Windows, the picture changes. First off you need OS support in the first place, so that means running Windows98SE. Secondly, newer cards need newer drivers with much higher overhead. I haven't tested it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead is so bad on a system like this a card with slower hardware (Gf2MX or so) running older- much lighter - drivers might beat it.

Either way, this is purely theoretical musing on something I'm not aware anyone has ever actually tested (because indeed: there is no practical use in this pairing) so best thing to do is just go and bench the hell out of it 😀

what cards have you seen work on boards like mine? (higher end cards, not all 🤣)

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-05, 15:07:

[...]

what cards have you seen work on boards like mine? (higher end cards, not all 🤣)

As I said, not at all up to speed on this one. Probably nothing newer than TNT2-M64 or Gf2MX. Don't currently have anything faster than that, had a PCI FX5200 but gave/swapped that away. Have enough PCI 486 (and very early Pentium) boards though.

I have a socket 3 motherboard with an intel 420ex chipset (PCI 2.0)that has 3.3v power for the PCI slots.

PCI cards made before 2000 seem to work OK. When I use cards made after 2000, the computer functions, and I see the drives working, but the video cards won’t display a picture.

Seems like there is some sort of bios incompatability perhaps.

douglar wrote on 2021-02-06, 04:11:

I have a socket 3 motherboard with an intel 420ex chipset (PCI 2.0)that has 3.3v power for the PCI slots.

PCI cards made before 2000 seem to work OK. When I use cards made after 2000, the computer functions, and I see the drives working, but the video cards won’t display a picture.

Seems like there is some sort of bios incompatability perhaps.

Can i flash the bios on these cards I have to make them work?

Maybe, but I'd say probably not. Things just don't usually work that way. The OEM almost certainly knew about the issue at the time the card was released but didn't care. The compatibility with 6 year old motherboard that could not run a modern operating system was likely much much lower priority than performance on contemporary hardware. Anand & Tom were not testing many PCI cards those days and when they did, they were not testing on 486's.

If anything, maybe look for a BIOS down grade? Seems more likely that an older VGA bios might work better with older motherboards.

I got a slew of older cards recently like really old ciris logic trident rage 128 etc and to my surprise only one of those worked on my tyan s1564 which makes two out of all my cards and sometimes it doesn't sometimes it fails to initialize and I have to reset it a few times there has got to be a pattern here or a setting I can set to make these cards work ordering all the cards on ebay is a really bad solution

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-10, 07:51:

I got a slew of older cards recently like really old ciris logic trident rage 128 etc and to my surprise only one of those worked on my tyan s1564 which makes two out of all my cards and sometimes it doesn't sometimes it fails to initialize and I have to reset it a few times there has got to be a pattern here or a setting I can set to make these cards work ordering all the cards on ebay is a really bad solution

Iv'e got 8 or so pre-2000 video cards. When I have one that works intermittently, the issue usually comes down to one of these things:

1. Dirty contacts on the card
2. Dirty contacts in the motherboard slots
3. Bus is running too fast or too slow

Sometimes a card is just picky and I don't know why. I have a Cirrus GD5428 ISA card that was not quite stable and was all around a pain to work with. Found a 486-25 motherboard in the trash from 1993. This card loves that board. Stable as a rock. Maybe that chipset just makes better shaped signals? Maybe the bus just runs a bit slower on that computer. The Bios & jumper info are very limited, but if I had to guess, it's probably running the ISA at "/4".

In cases of "pump the reset button to get a board to boot", do you have an ISA/PCI diagnostic card? That might give you some insight into where the boot process is stopping. For me, 3 times it turned out that issue was I had a 486 P24D class CPU that wasn't fully supported by the Bios. Downgrading the CPU or upgrading the bios fixed the issues.

That said, when dealing with intermittent issues on computer parts old enough to legally drink, your issues could always be failing capacitors or power supply.

The 6200 is probably the best that you will find. Anything newer is unlikely to have support/drivers for anything as early as a Pentium.

douglar wrote on 2021-02-10, 14:33:

Iv'e got 8 or so pre-2000 video cards. When I have one that works intermittently, the issue usually comes down to one of these […]
Show full quote

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-10, 07:51:

I got a slew of older cards recently like really old ciris logic trident rage 128 etc and to my surprise only one of those worked on my tyan s1564 which makes two out of all my cards and sometimes it doesn't sometimes it fails to initialize and I have to reset it a few times there has got to be a pattern here or a setting I can set to make these cards work ordering all the cards on ebay is a really bad solution

Iv'e got 8 or so pre-2000 video cards. When I have one that works intermittently, the issue usually comes down to one of these things:

1. Dirty contacts on the card
2. Dirty contacts in the motherboard slots
3. Bus is running too fast or too slow

Sometimes a card is just picky and I don't know why. I have a Cirrus GD5428 ISA card that was not quite stable and was all around a pain to work with. Found a 486-25 motherboard in the trash from 1993. This card loves that board. Stable as a rock. Maybe that chipset just makes better shaped signals? Maybe the bus just runs a bit slower on that computer. The Bios & jumper info are very limited, but if I had to guess, it's probably running the ISA at "/4".

In cases of "pump the reset button to get a board to boot", do you have an ISA/PCI diagnostic card? That might give you some insight into where the boot process is stopping. For me, 3 times it turned out that issue was I had a 486 P24D class CPU that wasn't fully supported by the Bios. Downgrading the CPU or upgrading the bios fixed the issues.

That said, when dealing with intermittent issues on computer parts old enough to legally drink, your issues could always be failing capacitors or power supply.

good tips. I'm working on something else atm but yes I do have a diag card that I didn't even think to use. I will try these next time I'm messing with it

I also have a x1300 coming. I think I remember that it worked on my p55xb2 16 years ago if so then it will go there and the 6200 will go in the tyan and problem will be solved

dionb wrote on 2021-02-05, 14:33:

PCI 2.1 vs 2.2. compatibility is basically about whether the card assumes 3.3V to be present and needs it. or not. So it's determined by card design, not chipset.

Errr... Yes, and no.
MSI style interrupts, while optional in this version of the specification, can make difference in supporting certain cards or not. This is important for USB2 cards, specially VIA ones, and the reason with them don't work on 440BX. MSI interrupts are mandatory in v2.3 of the specification, so you will find some PCI v2.2 chipsets implementing them, while others don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_Signaled_Interrupts

PCI v2.2 also doesn't support PCI memory region caching anymore... Dunno what used that, but seems people used to do tricks with that in Win9x and DOS (games maybe?). Dunno if lack of that would affect something.

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-10, 16:42:

douglar wrote on 2021-02-10, 14:33:

Iv'e got 8 or so pre-2000 video cards. When I have one that works intermittently, the issue usually comes down to one of these […]
Show full quote

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-10, 07:51:

I got a slew of older cards recently like really old ciris logic trident rage 128 etc and to my surprise only one of those worked on my tyan s1564 which makes two out of all my cards and sometimes it doesn't sometimes it fails to initialize and I have to reset it a few times there has got to be a pattern here or a setting I can set to make these cards work ordering all the cards on ebay is a really bad solution

Iv'e got 8 or so pre-2000 video cards. When I have one that works intermittently, the issue usually comes down to one of these things:

1. Dirty contacts on the card
2. Dirty contacts in the motherboard slots
3. Bus is running too fast or too slow

Sometimes a card is just picky and I don't know why. I have a Cirrus GD5428 ISA card that was not quite stable and was all around a pain to work with. Found a 486-25 motherboard in the trash from 1993. This card loves that board. Stable as a rock. Maybe that chipset just makes better shaped signals? Maybe the bus just runs a bit slower on that computer. The Bios & jumper info are very limited, but if I had to guess, it's probably running the ISA at "/4".

In cases of "pump the reset button to get a board to boot", do you have an ISA/PCI diagnostic card? That might give you some insight into where the boot process is stopping. For me, 3 times it turned out that issue was I had a 486 P24D class CPU that wasn't fully supported by the Bios. Downgrading the CPU or upgrading the bios fixed the issues.

That said, when dealing with intermittent issues on computer parts old enough to legally drink, your issues could always be failing capacitors or power supply.

good tips. I'm working on something else atm but yes I do have a diag card that I didn't even think to use. I will try these next time I'm messing with it

I also have a x1300 coming. I think I remember that it worked on my p55xb2 16 years ago if so then it will go there and the 6200 will go in the tyan and problem will be solved

There are no Windows 9x drivers for the X1300 . Windows 98 SE and Windows ME driver support stops at the x800/x850 series with Catalyst release 6.2 for Windows ME (which also support Windows 98 SE) .

darry wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:41:

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-10, 16:42:

douglar wrote on 2021-02-10, 14:33:

Iv'e got 8 or so pre-2000 video cards. When I have one that works intermittently, the issue usually comes down to one of these […]
Show full quote

Iv'e got 8 or so pre-2000 video cards. When I have one that works intermittently, the issue usually comes down to one of these things:

1. Dirty contacts on the card
2. Dirty contacts in the motherboard slots
3. Bus is running too fast or too slow

Sometimes a card is just picky and I don't know why. I have a Cirrus GD5428 ISA card that was not quite stable and was all around a pain to work with. Found a 486-25 motherboard in the trash from 1993. This card loves that board. Stable as a rock. Maybe that chipset just makes better shaped signals? Maybe the bus just runs a bit slower on that computer. The Bios & jumper info are very limited, but if I had to guess, it's probably running the ISA at "/4".

In cases of "pump the reset button to get a board to boot", do you have an ISA/PCI diagnostic card? That might give you some insight into where the boot process is stopping. For me, 3 times it turned out that issue was I had a 486 P24D class CPU that wasn't fully supported by the Bios. Downgrading the CPU or upgrading the bios fixed the issues.

That said, when dealing with intermittent issues on computer parts old enough to legally drink, your issues could always be failing capacitors or power supply.

good tips. I'm working on something else atm but yes I do have a diag card that I didn't even think to use. I will try these next time I'm messing with it

I also have a x1300 coming. I think I remember that it worked on my p55xb2 16 years ago if so then it will go there and the 6200 will go in the tyan and problem will be solved

There are no Windows 9x drivers for the X1300 . Windows 98 SE and Windows ME driver support stops at the x800/x850 series with Catalyst release 6.2 for Windows ME (which also support Windows 98 SE) .

Any unofficial drivers?

Is the x1300 based on a previous gen chip? Can I flash it to a last gen card?

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:44:

darry wrote on 2021-02-10, 20:41:

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-10, 16:42:

good tips. I'm working on something else atm but yes I do have a diag card that I didn't even think to use. I will try these next time I'm messing with it

I also have a x1300 coming. I think I remember that it worked on my p55xb2 16 years ago if so then it will go there and the 6200 will go in the tyan and problem will be solved

There are no Windows 9x drivers for the X1300 . Windows 98 SE and Windows ME driver support stops at the x800/x850 series with Catalyst release 6.2 for Windows ME (which also support Windows 98 SE) .

Any unofficial drivers?

Is the x1300 based on a previous gen chip? Can I flash it to a last gen card?

AFAIK, the answer to all of these is, unfortunately, no .

X1300 confirmed working on 430tx motherboard. Also there appears to have at one point in time been a ME driver that is supposed to work in 98 for catalyst control center 6.5 that supports x1300 but I have yet to find it.

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-19, 20:30:

X1300 confirmed working on 430tx motherboard. Also there appears to have at one point in time been a ME driver that is supposed to work in 98 for catalyst control center 6.5 that supports x1300 but I have yet to find it.

That seems quite unlikely as the last Catalyst release with Windows 98SE/ME support was 6.2 and it supported up to the x800/x850 series (and lower specced members of the same family).

Could you please share the source for that information ?

darry wrote on 2021-02-19, 22:42:

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-19, 20:30:

X1300 confirmed working on 430tx motherboard. Also there appears to have at one point in time been a ME driver that is supposed to work in 98 for catalyst control center 6.5 that supports x1300 but I have yet to find it.

That seems quite unlikely as the last Catalyst release with Windows 98SE/ME support was 6.2 and it supported up to the x800/x850 series (and lower specced members of the same family).

Could you please share the source for that information ?

I am having unbelievable problems with my internet nothing will load nothing will download can you help me out here I've been looking all day and by that I mean trying to get things to load. I can't find the link I had earlier that mentioned a unsigned release for x series for ME that works with 98 also the original link to ati was broken in the page

I found another link to omega drivers which also seems to be broken... ugh!!!
https://www.techrepublic.com/forums/discussio … for-windows-me/

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/radeon-o … rs-4-8-442.html
was wanting to check these but links won't work on my end they say xp/2k though but wanted to check to make sure

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/at ... (x86).html
again can't get to download

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-19, 23:14:

I am having unbelievable problems with my internet nothing will load nothing will download can you help me out here I've been lo […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-02-19, 22:42:

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-19, 20:30:

X1300 confirmed working on 430tx motherboard. Also there appears to have at one point in time been a ME driver that is supposed to work in 98 for catalyst control center 6.5 that supports x1300 but I have yet to find it.

That seems quite unlikely as the last Catalyst release with Windows 98SE/ME support was 6.2 and it supported up to the x800/x850 series (and lower specced members of the same family).

Could you please share the source for that information ?

I am having unbelievable problems with my internet nothing will load nothing will download can you help me out here I've been looking all day and by that I mean trying to get things to load. I can't find the link I had earlier that mentioned a unsigned release for x series for ME that works with 98 also the original link to ati was broken in the page

I found another link to omega drivers which also seems to be broken... ugh!!!
https://www.techrepublic.com/forums/discussio … for-windows-me/

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/radeon-o … rs-4-8-442.html
was wanting to check these but links won't work on my end they say xp/2k though but wanted to check to make sure

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/at ... (x86).html
again can't get to download

Here are the release notes for Catalyst 6.5 . Only Windows 2000 and XP are supported . The note about ME drivers being usable on Windows 98 and 98 SE is a holdover ftom the time ME was supported . The note is no longer pertinent with ME support having been dropped and was likely left there by accident .

https://drivers.amd.com/relnotes/catalyst_65_ … ease_notes.html

darry wrote on 2021-02-19, 23:55:

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-19, 23:14:

I am having unbelievable problems with my internet nothing will load nothing will download can you help me out here I've been lo […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2021-02-19, 22:42:

That seems quite unlikely as the last Catalyst release with Windows 98SE/ME support was 6.2 and it supported up to the x800/x850 series (and lower specced members of the same family).

Could you please share the source for that information ?

I am having unbelievable problems with my internet nothing will load nothing will download can you help me out here I've been looking all day and by that I mean trying to get things to load. I can't find the link I had earlier that mentioned a unsigned release for x series for ME that works with 98 also the original link to ati was broken in the page

I found another link to omega drivers which also seems to be broken... ugh!!!
https://www.techrepublic.com/forums/discussio … for-windows-me/

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/radeon-o … rs-4-8-442.html
was wanting to check these but links won't work on my end they say xp/2k though but wanted to check to make sure

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/at ... (x86).html
again can't get to download

Here are the release notes for Catalyst 6.5 . Only Windows 2000 and XP are supported . The note about ME drivers being usable on Windows 98 and 98 SE is a holdover ftom the time ME was supported . The note is no longer pertinent with ME support having been dropped and was likely left there by accident .

https://drivers.amd.com/relnotes/catalyst_65_ … ease_notes.html

is the link broken for you also?

yes that's the reference I found also that other link where some people seemed to think they solved it that I linked above but none of those links are working for me

that seems odd for the notes to have a error like that...?

well if all else fails I can try forcing a x300 driver?