VOGONS


Reply 40 of 62, by Synaps3

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

OK, it doesn't work (the FX5500 PCI). Philscomputerlab has it working on the same board. Maybe it's because he is using REV 5 and I'm using 4.1

The problem is only with OpenGL. It works with DirectX all the way up to 9.0. The desktop goes all the way up to 1920x1200 at 32-bit color and seems accelerated.
Whenever I launch an OpenGL program, I get the message "The exception privileged instruction...."

I have tried a few versions of the ALi and ULi AGP driver and also tried installing the PCI PCI bridge driver (which is the correct one for PCI card I think).

It's pretty ridiculous how many drivers I have tried:
45.23 - installed, but didn't support the card (it supports only FX5200 and FX5600)
52.16 - same
53.04 - same
56.64 - works on desktop and DirectX, NOT OpenGL
56.72 - works on desktop and DirectX, NOT OpenGL
61.77 - don't remember, but doesn't work
81.94 - only works in desktop, no DirectX or OpenGL
93.71 - only works in desktop, no DirectX or OpenGL

I'm getting very tired of this board. Maybe I should just sell it and do another PIII build. Maybe PII would have better support.

I'm pretty surprised that it's not working with this card. Is there something else I should try to get OpenGL to work?

Systems:
BOARD | RAM | CPU | GPU
ASUS CUV4X-D | 2GB | 2 x PIII Tualatin ~1.5 GHz | Radeon HD 4650
DELL DIMENSION XPS 466V | 64MB | AMD 5x86 133MHz | Number Nine Ticket to Ride

Reply 42 of 62, by Synaps3

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
rasz_pl wrote:

56.64 should work fine Topic 35051
go down with cpu clock by 1/2 and try again

OK, I tried that with driver 56.72 because it is the last one I installed and it's very close.

I underclocked the CPU to 300 MHz and put the voltage down from 2.7 to 2.4. It still has the same problem. It crashes instantly on any OpenGL program with the error I stated. Even screen savers don't work.
Just so you know, the FSB was not overclocked. It was set at 100MHz and still is. If the FSB is not overclocked, then it doesn't make sense why the overclocked CPU would stop working by changing the graphics card. It's also not random errors.

I also installed the right directX as per this site: http://www.amd-k6.com/os-support/
I tried doing exactly what he did and still doesn't work!
One thing I'm not sure of is that windows 2k update pack. I installed a ton of update packs, but I don't know if this was one of them.

Right now I'm thinking about what might happen if I try to uninstall as many drivers as possible and then just instert the windows 2k installation into a Pnetium III board.

Systems:
BOARD | RAM | CPU | GPU
ASUS CUV4X-D | 2GB | 2 x PIII Tualatin ~1.5 GHz | Radeon HD 4650
DELL DIMENSION XPS 466V | 64MB | AMD 5x86 133MHz | Number Nine Ticket to Ride

Reply 44 of 62, by Synaps3

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
rasz_pl wrote:

maybe you have opengl driver requiring SSE installed

Yeah, that makes sense considering it says "privileged instruction" which might mean some instruction that is not implemented in the CPU.

But, I don't know about "OpenGL drivers". I never install them, so are they included by the OS or by the Nvidia driver? Can it be updated or actually down-dated?

Systems:
BOARD | RAM | CPU | GPU
ASUS CUV4X-D | 2GB | 2 x PIII Tualatin ~1.5 GHz | Radeon HD 4650
DELL DIMENSION XPS 466V | 64MB | AMD 5x86 133MHz | Number Nine Ticket to Ride

Reply 46 of 62, by misterjones

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
rasz_pl wrote:

maybe you have opengl driver requiring SSE installed

I second this. I ran into this as a problem with my Thunderbird machine and an AGP Geforce 6200. Thunderbird Athlons don't support SSE instructions. Switched to Morgan core Duron (which, oddly, does have SSE support) and the problem went away.

Reply 47 of 62, by havli

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I don't think SSE is the problem here. Some other instruction perhaps (K6 isn't 686 class CPU). I had working OGL on K7 Athlon and FX 5900, using 70 series drivers (not sure which one).

HW museum.cz - my collection of PC hardware

Reply 48 of 62, by Ozzuneoj

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
dirkmirk wrote:

Your Runnings windows 2000?

Give XP a try it could be a driver combo problem.

This is starting to sound like a very odd system.

A K6-2 gaming in Windows XP or even 2000 seems like an experiment to find the absolute limits of what is functional on socket 7, rather than a usable gaming system.

Unless there's a specific reason for using a K6-2 for newer games, GPUs and OSes I would really think about changing either the focus or the CPU/motherboard in this system.

Time Machine = FIC PA-2013 2.1 - K6-2 500 - 256MB PC-100 - TNT2 Pro 16MB AGP - Labway Yamaha YMF719-E - Midiman MM401

Reply 49 of 62, by Synaps3

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Ozzuneoj wrote:
This is starting to sound like a very odd system. […]
Show full quote
dirkmirk wrote:

Your Runnings windows 2000?

Give XP a try it could be a driver combo problem.

This is starting to sound like a very odd system.

A K6-2 gaming in Windows XP or even 2000 seems like an experiment to find the absolute limits of what is functional on socket 7, rather than a usable gaming system.

Unless there's a specific reason for using a K6-2 for newer games, GPUs and OSes I would really think about changing either the focus or the CPU/motherboard in this system.

Oh I know it's odd. I really don't like Windows 9x. I'd rather just use DOS, 3.1, or windows 2K.
I also don't game too much. Most of this stuff is done just for the fun of the weird hardware. I mostly program.

When I started this system I wanted something that was right in between the DOS and PIII Windows XP era stuff. I thought this mobo would be a good balance for under clocking and using with DOS and then overclocking and using with windows 2k. The incompatibility issues are a bit surprising because I've done a lot with PIII systems running GFX cards that were WAY beyond the era of the mobo and they usually worked fine. This ss7 stuff is a lot more finicky.

The last card that looks good to me is the Geforce 4 MX 440. It's super cheap on ebay and there are tons of them available. All the good voodoos are too expensive imo. I would think it should work. It was also mentioned by an earlier post.

I'm also debating about the Matrox G400 because it's also relatively cheap and available.

If you had to choose between these two, which would you go with?
For compatibility?
For speed?

Systems:
BOARD | RAM | CPU | GPU
ASUS CUV4X-D | 2GB | 2 x PIII Tualatin ~1.5 GHz | Radeon HD 4650
DELL DIMENSION XPS 466V | 64MB | AMD 5x86 133MHz | Number Nine Ticket to Ride

Reply 50 of 62, by LunarG

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Synaps3 wrote:
Oh I know it's odd. I really don't like Windows 9x. I'd rather just use DOS, 3.1, or windows 2K. I also don't game too much. Mos […]
Show full quote
Ozzuneoj wrote:
This is starting to sound like a very odd system. […]
Show full quote
dirkmirk wrote:

Your Runnings windows 2000?

Give XP a try it could be a driver combo problem.

This is starting to sound like a very odd system.

A K6-2 gaming in Windows XP or even 2000 seems like an experiment to find the absolute limits of what is functional on socket 7, rather than a usable gaming system.

Unless there's a specific reason for using a K6-2 for newer games, GPUs and OSes I would really think about changing either the focus or the CPU/motherboard in this system.

Oh I know it's odd. I really don't like Windows 9x. I'd rather just use DOS, 3.1, or windows 2K.
I also don't game too much. Most of this stuff is done just for the fun of the weird hardware. I mostly program.

When I started this system I wanted something that was right in between the DOS and PIII Windows XP era stuff. I thought this mobo would be a good balance for under clocking and using with DOS and then overclocking and using with windows 2k. The incompatibility issues are a bit surprising because I've done a lot with PIII systems running GFX cards that were WAY beyond the era of the mobo and they usually worked fine. This ss7 stuff is a lot more finicky.

The last card that looks good to me is the Geforce 4 MX 440. It's super cheap on ebay and there are tons of them available. All the good voodoos are too expensive imo. I would think it should work. It was also mentioned by an earlier post.

I'm also debating about the Matrox G400 because it's also relatively cheap and available.

If you had to choose between these two, which would you go with?
For compatibility?
For speed?

The MX440 will be more bottlenecked, but should still perform much better than the G400. Also, the MX440 supports many newer features, such as hardware video decoding, T&L etc. Will it work in your SS7 motherboard though? That might be a different thing altogether. The G400 will, unless there is something especially odd about your specific board.

WinXP : PIII 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM, 73GB SCSI HDD, Matrox Parhelia, SB Audigy 2.
Win98se : K6-3+ 500MHz, 256MB RAM, 80GB HDD, Matrox Millennium G400 MAX, Voodoo 2, Waveforce 192XG.
DOS6.22 : Intel DX4, 64MB RAM, 1.6GB HDD, ELSA Winner 1000PRO, GUS 1MB, SB16.

Reply 52 of 62, by oohms

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
swaaye wrote:

That makes the GF2 MX400 the obvious choice.. pretty much the same performance but many more drivers to choose from. Shame the voodoo 3 3000 isn't on the list

DOS/w3.11/w98 | K6-III+ 400ATZ @ 550 | FIC PA2013 | 128mb SDram | Voodoo 3 3000 | Avancelogic ALS100 | Roland SC-55ST
DOS/w98/XP | Core 2 Duo E4600 | Asus P5PE-VM | 512mb DDR400 | Ti4800SE | ForteMedia FM801

Reply 53 of 62, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank Moderator
Rank
Moderator
oohms wrote:

That makes the GF2 MX400 the obvious choice.. pretty much the same performance but many more drivers to choose from. Shame the voodoo 3 3000 isn't on the list

Yeah 3DMark and Quake games are going to favor a Geforce over a Voodoo3. With the possible exception of Quake 2 equipped with the AMD developed Voodoo2 3DNow patch. But the Glide option with the Voodoo3 is very valuable for many old games.

Though with a Geforce, one could experiment with the excellent UTGLR for Unreal, Deus Ex, UT, and Rune. I've used it with a Geforce 256 on Win9x (UTGLR v3.4). I have not tried it with a K6 however. It appears to be most optimized for SSE 1/2.

Reply 54 of 62, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

going to favor a Geforce over a Voodoo3

From my experience it's completely opposite. Voodoo 3 3000 is noticeably faster both in D3D and OpenGL. ATi and Matrox performance is just pure garbage though.

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

Reply 55 of 62, by Palladium

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Garrett W wrote:
As everyone has already said, go for 3Dfx cards if possible, you will get better performance out of the Voodoo3 on a system such […]
Show full quote

As everyone has already said, go for 3Dfx cards if possible, you will get better performance out of the Voodoo3 on a system such as this as opposed to even something like a GF2 or GF4 MX. It all boils down to CPU overhead, even a K6-3+ at 600MHz is usually slower than a Pentium 2 400.
When it comes to 3D FPU-intensive games, the K6-2 400 is hardly any faster than an MMX 233. That 100MHz overclock won't really do you much good.

As for the games you mentioned wanting to play:

Half-Life is borderline unplayable for me on such a CPU. I've tried it a couple of times on my K6-3+ 550MHz and it really struggles once more than 2 enemies get on screen or you go outside. I'm talking 12-15FPS sort of performance.

Quake 3 is gonna be very slow as well, no matter what GPU you put in, because the CPU is holding it back. Minimum requirements for Q3 were an MMX 233 or K6-2 350, which could maybe net you an average of around 20FPS provided you tweaked everything. There were some 3DNow! DLLs floating around but they only improved performance by 2-3fps on my K6-III+ 550MHz, can't imagine they'll help here either.

Arx Fatalis came out in 2002 and required a PIII or Athlon at 500MHz I think, so a K6-2 has no business here at all. Again, K6-2 and even K6-3 is far inferior clock for clock versus PII/III and Athlon when it comes to games.

If you just want to have an overkill GPU in there just for fun though, more power to you. I keep that K6-III+ system and install various games it should have no business trying to run just for fun. Try Morrowind for example, that's an interesting experience 🤣

Back in 2002, I remember very well that my Celly 433/VIA133A destroyed my K6-2 500/ALi V in every single 32-bit 2D/3D game I got on the same 128MB SDRAM and GeForce 2 Ti, including games as late as Warcraft 3 and Star Wars: JK2.

I also had a MMX 233, K6-2 350, back then I knew nothing about benchmarks, but both felt pretty much just as slow as the 500 in games.

Reply 56 of 62, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank Moderator
Rank
Moderator
The Serpent Rider wrote:

going to favor a Geforce over a Voodoo3

From my experience it's completely opposite. Voodoo 3 3000 is noticeably faster both in D3D and OpenGL. ATi and Matrox performance is just pure garbage though.

For 3DMark 2000, I'm referring to the questionably big score boost from T&L support.

Ace's Hardware had some nice K6 look sees. I know I totally want to relive those K6 framerates! 🤣
https://web.archive.org/web/20031115174037/ht … ?article_id=103
jHfFAksO_o.jpg
HlIXn58P_o.png
A83vxByn_o.jpg
(Somebody give this game a Core 2)

Reply 57 of 62, by Synaps3

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Is there a website that people here tend to sell their stuff on other than ebay?

I decided I am going to sell this system. Without OGL it's pretty much useless to me. I could get a much older card, but the geforce4 is not even working, so I don't know what the problem is. I've tried 6 different cards now. All with similar problems. Maybe it would work with Windows 98. I didn't try that. Everything else works fine though. All versions of DirectX and full HD resolutions.

What I would be selling is:
Gigabyte GA-5AX REV 4.1
256MB PC133 RAM
AMD K6-2 400MHz OC to 506MHz

I'd be asking $120, seem reasonable?

Systems:
BOARD | RAM | CPU | GPU
ASUS CUV4X-D | 2GB | 2 x PIII Tualatin ~1.5 GHz | Radeon HD 4650
DELL DIMENSION XPS 466V | 64MB | AMD 5x86 133MHz | Number Nine Ticket to Ride

Reply 58 of 62, by Synaps3

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

This is the fourth board that I've been having problems with. And, yes, I have tried era correct cards on all the mobos I got.
Each board had a different problem. I really don't want to give up on this, but it's becoming much more of a chore than it is fun.
Anyway, I am not one to give up, so I am not going to sell the board. This is the most "working" board so far.

I've been reading at amd-k6.com and it seems strange that the guy there is using Windows 2000 with a newer graphics card and doesn't have the problems I'm having.

Here is an excerpt from his site:

AMD K6-2+ 550MHz
Gigabyte GA-5AX rev 5.2 with the latest F4 BIOS
768 MB RAM Infineon PC133 DS
nVidia GeForce FX5700 LE (GeForce-5 class). GeForce 2/3 and ATI Radeon 8500 were also tested at some point
Promise SATA-300 TX2 Plus controller

He's got REV 5.2 and a K6-2+ which is different from me.

Seeing as my error is "privileged instruction", it's making me think that my CPU is lacking some instruction.
Does the K6-2+ or K6-III have any newer instructions than the K6-2?
I know about the difference in on-chip cache, but what about instructions?

Systems:
BOARD | RAM | CPU | GPU
ASUS CUV4X-D | 2GB | 2 x PIII Tualatin ~1.5 GHz | Radeon HD 4650
DELL DIMENSION XPS 466V | 64MB | AMD 5x86 133MHz | Number Nine Ticket to Ride

Reply 59 of 62, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

To be fair as far as retro experiences go you succeeded reliving most of socket 7 owners struggle from 1998-2000. SS7 wasnt exactly a premium platform, nobody was consciously choosing K6 over Intel on merit. Broken AGP support, calling something 'stable' when it merely didnt crash a lot, juggling drivers/support packs, reinstalling OSes, thats all part of the true experience.