VOGONS


Reply 40 of 97, by evoportals

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
candle_86 wrote:
evoportals wrote:

Ok, so what's better than the fx5600 for Windows 98 builds??? Nothing. ATI is out of the question since it lack features for retro gaming, the GeForce 3 and older are all slower. The GeForce 4 to series is a close second but it uses WAY more power and runs hot. Also the fx5600 has superior AA and anioscopic filtering performance.

So please someone explain to me what would be better for Windows 98 and WHY. Don't just say the FX 5600 sucks. Give me reason plz. I am correct here.

FX5700 Ultra, it has all the improvements that made the 5900 a good card just for the mid-range. Unlike the fx5600 a 5700 actually competes in SM 1.4 with a 9600 pro/XT

Again wrong. The FX5700 cards do NOT support the 45.23 driver. The FX5700 can only use the LESS windows 98 compatible 5x.xx series of drivers. The 5x series driver and up have some issues with Windows 98 games.

I am correct here so far.

Reply 41 of 97, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Wrong add the fx5700 into the 45 inf full support

Phenom II X4 840T @ 4ghz - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - GTX 560 Ti- 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - x850 XT PE - 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Duron 1600 - ASUS A7N8X - 512MB DDR 266 - Radeon 8500 LE

Reply 42 of 97, by evoportals

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
candle_86 wrote:

Wrong add the fx5700 into the 45 inf full support

I don't know about that. The fx5700 launched with driver version 50. It is a different GPU from the fx5600. Doing a inf hack by adding it in does not guarantee compatibility. It's a different silicon chip that the 45 driver was never written for.

Reply 43 of 97, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

It was written for FX 5900, which is identical to FX 5700.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 44 of 97, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

fx 5950 ultra has been working fine for me with 45.23 driver after adding it to ini. I have not noticed any compatibility problems so far, so I assume it is same for fx 5700.

Reply 45 of 97, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I would have my doubts only for PCX 5900, because it's uncertain how the driver will react to additional bridge between AGP and GPU.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 46 of 97, by mockingbird

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
candle_86 wrote on 2019-02-16, 03:13:

Wrong add the fx5700 into the 45 inf full support

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2019-02-16, 12:58:

It was written for FX 5900, which is identical to FX 5700.

Sorry to say, but evoportals was correct, and you were both wrong. I tested the 5700LE in Windows 98 with 45.23 after performing a modification on the NVAGP.INF. The card seems to work initially on reboot, but what is immediately apparent is that there's something wrong as there's some minor glitching, and then the system comes to a halt.

Looking at the Wikipedia GeForce page, the 5700 series seems to have been manufactured at the IBM fab, while the rest of the GeForce FX was manufactured at TSMC.

After loading driver 56.64, which supports the 5700 series natively, the problems are gone. Unfortunately, as was mentioned here, anything past 45.23 is inadequate for Windows 9x. So the 5700 series is not a good choice for a Windows 9x system.

7ivtic.png

Reply 47 of 97, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Because in 2003 everyone ran XP for the most part. Try playing Halo on them, they are slow the gf4 was faster though you could make the fx as fast if you forced dx8.1. Then came the half life leaked beta and the source particle test and the fx tanked bad. It cheated hard in 3d mark 03 and bombed in every sm2 benchmark. Then in early 04 we got FarCry and Half Life 2 and what the benchmarks and previous dx9 games showed got worse.

The fx deserved its scorn at the time. The thing that sticks with me is I had a friend that bought an FX5900 Ultra and another who bought a 9600 Pro. The sad fact was when Counterstrike Source dropped the friend with the 9600pro ran at higher settings than that fx5900 and got a better frame rate.

Today we use them for 9x rigs for pre 2002 gaming that should tell you something. If someone builds an early XP Rig they go for 9700/9800 unless it's for nostalgia, because the fx is incapable. The 9700 remained useful until 2007 as a budget option, the 5950 Ultra wasn't relevant the second the 6200 AGP dropped.

Last edited by Stiletto on 2020-03-11, 06:23. Edited 1 time in total.

Phenom II X4 840T @ 4ghz - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - GTX 560 Ti- 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - x850 XT PE - 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Duron 1600 - ASUS A7N8X - 512MB DDR 266 - Radeon 8500 LE

Reply 48 of 97, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The 9700 remained useful until 2007 as a budget option

I wouldn't be so optimistic.

Then in early 04 we got FarCry and Half Life 2 and what the benchmarks and previous dx9 games showed got worse.

Far Cry was quite decently optimised on FX series. Yes, image quality was worse, but not very noticeable after patch 1.2. Technically, Half-Life 2 could be even better, since it's not SM 2.0 heavy game.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 49 of 97, by Shagittarius

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I went from a Geforce 3 Ultra to a 9800 Pro, then too an X800 XT PE, then back to Nvidia for the 8800 GTX. The 97/9800 Pro and X800 cards to me are the only ATI/AMD cards that were ever better than the Nvidia competing cards. ATI also had their best drivers during that period. It wasn't to last and I don't think they have ever surpassed Nvidia again for speed and quality in total. I've never thought I should go ATI/AMD since then.

Reply 50 of 97, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

ATI was also ahead of Nvidia during the x1900/1950 days,
also for some 6 months with the HD 5870, after that AMD was in a strong position a few times, the 7950/7970 was fairly good and aged better than the 670/680, the 290x was also not far from the best (bad cooler excluded)

the 9700PRO was probably a good card until 2004/2005, after that it could play many games the FX couldn't but the quality wasn't great.
still, a much better buy than anything Nvidia before the 6000 series,

Reply 51 of 97, by Shagittarius

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It depends on how you look at the releases, I'm just looking generationally. I don't care that ATI had their new card out 6 months before Nvidia put out their new card. When you compare generationally I don't see ATI having a lead since the 9800 days...I'm also talking top of the line, not value cards or mid range cards, thats a numbers game that doesn't really mean squat to me.

So comparing starting with the FX series would be:

ATI | Nvidia

R300 FX Series
R420 6 Series
R520 7 Series
R600 8 Series
RV770 9 Series
Evergreen 200 Series
Northern Islands 400 Series
Southern Islands 500 Series
Sea Islands 600 Series
Volcanic Islands 700 Series
Artic Islands 900 Series
Vega 10 Series
Navi 20 Series

Maybe I just didn't notice if ATI had a genuine lead flagship to flagship...but I don't recall anything really putting a hurt on Nvidia, and the drivers were never as good as they were back in the day either...AMD is value , except for a few certain CPUs and GPUs including todays, but Intel / Nvidia have always held the performance crown traditionally.

Reply 52 of 97, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Maybe I just didn't notice if ATI had a genuine lead flagship to flagship...but I don't recall anything really putting a hurt on Nvidia

ATI hold roughly 50% of the market in R300-R580 era. They've also been favored by OEM.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 53 of 97, by Shagittarius

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

In talking performance not dollars earned or market share, I'm not rooting for a company. It's interesting though if their peak market share also occurred when they had undeniably the best product.

Reply 54 of 97, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Shagittarius wrote on 2020-03-09, 15:13:

In talking performance not dollars earned or market share, I'm not rooting for a company. It's interesting though if their peak market share also occurred when they had undeniably the best product.

In terms of performance they had the fastest GPU on the market with the Radeon HD5000 series, HD7000 series and the R9 200 Series.

The market just didn't notice, as it's full if ignorant nvbots.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 55 of 97, by Shagittarius

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

"Codenamed Cypress, the Radeon HD 5800 series was announced on September 23, 2009. Products included Radeon HD 5850 and Radeon HD 5870. The launching model of Radeon HD 5870 can support three display outputs at most, and one of these has to support DisplayPort. In terms of overall performance, the 5870 comes in between the GTX 470 and GTX 480 from rival company Nvidia, being closer to the GTX 480 than the GTX 470."

So I think you are wrong about that. But the other 2 generations seem like you are correct. I was a dual-gpu guy at the time so I guess I didn't notice that AMD had taken the performance crown. Also, I don't appreciate the name calling.

Reply 56 of 97, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Shagittarius wrote on 2020-03-09, 16:03:

"Codenamed Cypress, the Radeon HD 5800 series was announced on September 23, 2009. Products included Radeon HD 5850 and Radeon HD 5870. The launching model of Radeon HD 5870 can support three display outputs at most, and one of these has to support DisplayPort. In terms of overall performance, the 5870 comes in between the GTX 470 and GTX 480 from rival company Nvidia, being closer to the GTX 480 than the GTX 470."

So I think you are wrong about that. But the other 2 generations seem like you are correct. I was a dual-gpu guy at the time so I guess I didn't notice that AMD had taken the performance crown. Also, I don't appreciate the name calling.

the thing is, Nvidia released the 480 over 6 months after September 23, and it had some major drawbacks with power/heat and supply, they got it working well as the 580 later on, but the 480's launch and the delay was not great,

Reply 57 of 97, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Shagittarius wrote on 2020-03-09, 16:03:

"Codenamed Cypress, the Radeon HD 5800 series was announced on September 23, 2009. Products included Radeon HD 5850 and Radeon HD 5870. The launching model of Radeon HD 5870 can support three display outputs at most, and one of these has to support DisplayPort. In terms of overall performance, the 5870 comes in between the GTX 470 and GTX 480 from rival company Nvidia, being closer to the GTX 480 than the GTX 470."

So I think you are wrong about that. But the other 2 generations seem like you are correct. I was a dual-gpu guy at the time so I guess I didn't notice that AMD had taken the performance crown. Also, I don't appreciate the name calling.

I'm not wrong, 480 is not contemporary to the HD5800 series, it was released almost a generation later. The HD5800 series retained the performance crown for the better part of 2010. Also, I did not call you any names; it is (in my opinion) an objective fact that the GPU market is full of morons who will blindly buy nVidia cards regardless of how much better the competition is. AMD threw in the towel after the R9 290X because they saw just that. nVidia can sell people pure shit and make them eat it. The GTX480 (Fermi) you referenced above was just that. Pure, stinking, polished shit; and people gobbled it up.

Last edited by appiah4 on 2020-03-10, 14:23. Edited 1 time in total.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 58 of 97, by BinaryDemon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I don’t think AMD threw in the towel, AMD had to split resources between CPU and GPU development. Hopefully AMD can return to glory with a modular multi chip approach (like Ryzen).

Check out DOSBox Distro:

https://sites.google.com/site/dosboxdistro/ [*]

a lightweight Linux distro (tinycore) which boots off a usb flash drive and goes straight to DOSBox.

Make your dos retrogaming experience portable!

Reply 59 of 97, by Shagittarius

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The 480 was the generational competitor of the HD5800 series, you can't say just because it was late it wasn't the competing generation. If we are comparing cards based on when they were released and not generation then each company will have the lead for about 6 months at a time, but I don't think that's a fair way to do the comparison.

I never had a 480, I had heard they ran very hot and were a stopgap so I ended up picking up a second GTX280 and running that in SLI until the release of the 580. Then I went GTX690 in the following generation. It wasn't until the GTX 1080 that I went back to a single card. Truth is if the 690 had had more ram I wouldn't have needed to upgrade at that point yet either but i was bumping up against ram limitations and that was slowing it down. I actually think the longevity of cards like the 690 contributed to the descision to downplay multi-gpu setups in the future, at that time software support was much more robust for multi-gpu.