wrote:We don't "have to remember" revised history because it surely makes sense they'd release a DX7 card before even DX6.1 came out.
While you are correct in this instance, I do want to point out that there have been instances where the videocard was released before the API it supports.
Examples include the Radeon 9700 vs DX9, GeForce 8800 vs Windows Vista/DX10 and the Geforce 980 vs Windows 10/DX12.
In those cases it's more realistic within the time window of a few weeks and they still didn't release before 8.1, 9.0c, etc. on a near-year's worth of pre-api time.
wrote:In those cases it's more realistic within the time window of a few weeks and they still didn't release before 8.1, 9.0c, etc. on a near-year's worth of pre-api time.
Well... in the case of the GeForce 980... Introduced in september 2014, DirectX 12 in july 2015.
Just snagged a GeForce 256 v6600/32 for 50 bucks on eBay for my Athalon 700
wrote:wrote:wrote:You have to remember that NV10 was released in very early 1999 as Quadro. Even Pentium 3 Katmai wasn't released at that time.
investigating this "early geforce is quadro its before katmai" bullshit it seems sourced from TechPowerup which assumes the default release date of any video card to be January 1 if it's not specified for its artificially generated articles. Even worse, Wikipedia cites Techpowerup's error as fact and that's okay on their terms because it's a citation!!!1!
We don't "have to remember" revised history because it surely makes sense they'd release a DX7 card before even DX6.1 came out.
Yep, the sdr was available oct-nov, and the the ddr ca from dec in 99 (creative, leadtek), but some vendors released just in q1 of 2000 (asus), not too much before the gts.
The 64-bit memory bus GeForce 256 in all its glory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otwyh3JsKyU
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
Maybe I have wrong memory of those times but the original Geforce 256 SDR sure was much slower than the DDR version but I wasn't remembering that much compared to those TNT2. Is that possible that with a time correct mobo/cpu/chipset the card would results better?
That's an extra slow version of the GeForce 256 SDR, since it has a 64-bit memory bus instead of 128-bit.
386SX wrote on 2021-09-19, 17:40:Maybe I have wrong memory of those times but the original Geforce 256 SDR sure was much slower than the DDR version but I wasn't remembering that much compared to those TNT2. Is that possible that with a time correct mobo/cpu/chipset the card would results better?
No, the difference is around 10% I believe. The Geforce 2 GTS (also called the GeForce256 GTS at the time for some reason) was what was almost twice as fast as the SDR..
Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.
devius wrote on 2021-09-19, 18:42:That's an extra slow version of the GeForce 256 SDR, since it has a 64-bit memory bus instead of 128-bit.
Ok that's why i didn't even remember there was such version but I remembered the original SDR to be a bit better. Is it possible they were trying some cheaper solution MX like, when in fact after the DDR the SDR version soon was left behind? Considering how many TNT2 based solutions there were still around and the soon released GTS..
Anyway i remember different benchmarks even on this forum where the DDR version really was impressively fast to be un "upgraded" version when compared to the SDR 128bit
Is there a good troubleshooting and repair guide for these anywhere? I have the SGI NV990 board and it's had some backside SMDs crunched years ago and halfassed patched, not sure if that was the only prob or whether there was a RAM chip going south and that also needs replacing.
I remember it "sorta working" but seeing the mention of stutter early in the thread, I'm wondering if it was working as built, but I was expecting too much from it at the time I tried it in a system that had the kind of games that ran on a GF4200TI
Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.
Picked up this nice 3D Prophet the other day
Fits in with the other DDR boards I’ve got
I’ve also got this nice ASUS 64MB DDR card too, currently in my PIII 933
And here are three SDR models
This is the only Geforce 256 I own.
It's not much but hey its a canopus at least.
Also speaking of TwoFiftySixes , I've got a feeling they're about to get a fair bit more popular since this video came out.
Interesting that power connector I didn't remember some having that already. Does it still stress the AGP bus for the power or it take most from the connector?
Anyway I don't have any DDR version of this card, only the original Creative SDR version. And unfortunately those early fans nowdays make noise.
386SX wrote on 2022-02-12, 12:30:Interesting that power connector I didn't remember some having that already. Does it still stress the AGP bus for the power or it take most from the connector?
Anyway I don't have any DDR version of this card, only the original Creative SDR version. And unfortunately those early fans nowdays make noise.
I'm not sure unfortunately as I don't have a rig to test it with yet , I'm working on fixing one up though.
I'm assuming it would help somewhat with the load , at least from what I've read?
That's a very cool card 😀
I thought i'd have a look at 3D Mark 2000 again, with the Geforce256 DD6 64MB that in my PIII 933.
I get 5213 for the default 16bit benchmark. If I use a DDR board in my Athlon 64 X2 3.2ghz agp machine i get 6464 3D Marks, so it's interesting to see how GeForce256 continues to scale beyond a relatively fast PIII from mid 2000.
The other thing I wanted to test was HW T&L vs PIII 933 T&L as I'd read that the CPU quickly beats the GeForce
HW T&L: 5213
Helo Low detail = 106.7
Helo Med detail = 79
Helo High detail = 43.9
Adventure Low detail = 100.5
Adventure Med detail = 64.3
Adventure High detail = 40.3
High poly count 1 light = 11358
High poly count 4 lights = 6506
High poly count 8 lights = 3446
PIII optimized T&L: 4359
Helo Low detail = 79.3
Helo Med detail = 57.6
Helo High detail = 32.5
Adventure Low detail = 99.9
Adventure Med detail = 58.2
Adventure High detail = 35.9
High poly count 1 light = 7039
High poly count 4 lights = 5816
High poly count 8 lights = 4779
It interesting that the PIII is significantly slower than the Geforce in everything other than High poly count 8 lights
----------------
Athlon 64 X2 3.2Ghz, HW T&L: 6464
Helo Low detail = 128.9
Helo Med detail = 94.3
Helo High detail = 45.3
Adventure Low detail = 110.6
Adventure Med detail = 93.7
Adventure High detail = 66.1
High poly count 1 light = 13829
High poly count 4 lights = 6929
High poly count 8 lights = 3684
Athlon 64 X2 3.2Ghz, 3DNow! cpu T&L: 6721
Helo Low detail = 129.8
Helo Med detail = 92.1
Helo High detail = 32.9
Adventure Low detail = 114.3
Adventure Med detail = 103
Adventure High detail = 88.0
High poly count 1 light = 11157
High poly count 4 lights = 11173
High poly count 8 lights = 11168
Cause I think to remember the SDR version on those early mainboards were already quite "heavy" on the bus, that's in an interesting PCB layout. I wonder if other manufacturer built the card without it cause there was still space for the power requirement or close to some limit.
About the above test it'd be interesting to know wich CPU actually surpassed the original Geforce hw T&L speed using sw T&L/MMX/3DNow!/SSE. On the 8 lights test I think to remember old reviews were talking about the impact final results had with that test. I wonder if it's simply too much for the "first GPU" and how much it was increased on the Geforce2 GTS.
trixster wrote on 2022-02-12, 12:33:That's a very cool card :) […]
That's a very cool card 😀
I thought i'd have a look at 3D Mark 2000 again, with the Geforce256 DD6 64MB that in my PIII 933.
I get 5171 for the default 16bit benchmark. If I use a DDR board in my Athlon 64 X2 3.2ghz agp machine i get 6464 3D Marks, so it's interesting to see how GeForce256 continues to scale beyond a relatively fast PIII from mid 2000.
The other thing I wanted to test was HW T&L vs PIII 933 T&L as I'd read that the CPU quickly beats the GeForce
HW T&L:
Helo Low detail = 103
Helo Med detail = 79
Helo High detail = 43.9
Adventure Low detail = 100.5
Adventure Med detail = 64.3
Adventure High detail = 40.3High poly count 1 light = 11050
High poly count 4 lights = 6505
High poly count 8 lights = 3446PIII optimized T&L:
Helo Low detail = 79.3
Helo Med detail = 57.6
Helo High detail = 32.5
Adventure Low detail = 99.9
Adventure Med detail = 58.2
Adventure High detail = 35.9High poly count 1 light = 7039
High poly count 4 lights = 5816
High poly count 8 lights = 4779It interesting that the PIII is significantly slower than the Geforce in everything other than High poly count 8 lights
Cheers , It seems like the Hardware TnL is better than most people give it credit , I guess until you hit the 1ghz plus mark.
