Charts on page 3 have been updated to include data from a GeForce 4 MX440 with AGP8x. I'm not sure how the "with AGP8x" is involved; this is a PCI card. Overall, the GeForce4 MX440 was the best overall for the graphics cards I tested. In benchmarks where the FX5500 had strength over the GF2 MX400, and the GF2 over the FX5500, the GF4 combined bridged the gap. I suspect this is about as fast as it gets for a 430tx board without using a 3dfx Voodoo3+ card of some sort.

After some testing on K6-2/3/-2+ testing on MVP3 chipset, I think that "time correct" cards are always better that anything higher on AGP 4x or 8x cards. I don't know if running Dx8 or newer games is requested but just an opinion overally, considering general speed, 2D/3D quality, 2D speed, mainboard agp power consumption, noise, heat... the S3 Savage 4 chipset based card are my definitive choice for the K6 2/3 cpu.

Could you provide some more rationale for your choice of a S3 Savage 4 and maybe back them up with some data? My conclusion was based on 3DMark and Quake results. Thanks.

Does anyone know if GF4MX-460 was made in PCI or only AGP? That would even give a small bump over a GF4MX-440.

feipoa wrote:

Could you provide some more rationale for your choice of a S3 Savage 4 and maybe back them up with some data? My conclusion was based on 3DMark and Quake results. Thanks.

IMHO
No numbers but an overall personal choice considering that newer time correct cards not gave me so much better frames limited by the whole system. Obviously a MX or FX or whatever post-2000 card would be technically faster and with better features and also dvi/vga quality plus compatibilty, but not so time correct. For a 1998/99 card this had already both very good 2d quality and smothness for a W98 system. It should also push much less the agp wattage resulting in less dissipated heat and less motherboard workload for a always powered computer. Plus motion compensation if you need it when some other had not. Also I usually like simpler layouts (less capacitors, less components) and much lighter drivers installation (3MB only).
But I don't play so many games, so I don't know which later game can or can't run and if I had W2000 or XP or whatever I would not use this, but when you consider the K6 architecture + chipset + ram performance... use a DX9 card with a K6 sound like a Voodoo2 with a 486DX2...

IMHO, a SuperSocket7 board with AGP and K6-III+ CPU is right at the cusp of the transition from video cards without hardware T&L and the new generation of cards that did (1999-2000). So I don't think you can go wrong with a Voodoo3 through V5, Riva TNT2, Geforce256, or Radeon (orig) card... or swap between them depending on your need. I know I'm missing some cards in that era, but the point is the same.

I have a K6-III with an original Radeon DDR AGP card and it will play Quake-III engine based games with no issues and more than playable frame rates under Win98SE.

How much different frame rates from 640x480 to 1280 or whatever?

386SX wrote:

the S3 Savage 4 chipset based card are my definitive choice for the K6 2/3 cpu.

Savage 4 would be OK but the PCI versions have a hardware bug that can cause a bus lock.
It's referenced in various Linux drivers, can't say for sure if it affects windows but sure enough I had a lot of crashes on 2D load, e.g scrolling a full-screen window.

feipoa wrote:

Charts on page 3 have been updated to include data from a GeForce 4 MX440 with AGP8x. I'm not sure how the "with AGP8x" is involved; this is a PCI card. Overall, the GeForce4 MX440 was the best overall for the graphics cards I tested. In benchmarks where the FX5500 had strength over the GF2 MX400, and the GF2 over the FX5500, the GF4 combined bridged the gap. I suspect this is about as fast as it gets for a 430tx board without using a 3dfx Voodoo3+ card of some sort.

Makes sense. More raw power then the GF2MX, less CPU overhead then the FX because it is DX7 only (I suppose with a DX9 chip some things have to be emulated) and it can use an older driver (don't know if you did use an older one).
A full GF2 might even be slightly faster because the older driver might have even less CPU overhead than the GF4MX.

bjt wrote:

386SX wrote:

the S3 Savage 4 chipset based card are my definitive choice for the K6 2/3 cpu.

Savage 4 would be OK but the PCI versions have a hardware bug that can cause a bus lock.
It's referenced in various Linux drivers, can't say for sure if it affects windows but sure enough I had a lot of crashes on 2D load, e.g scrolling a full-screen window.

I didn't know this! I never tried the PCI version, only the AGP version.

By the way since my experience with the Voodoo3 on the K6 back in the 99, I always prefer cards that are balanced on the system and don't end up waiting for the processor to complete his tasks.

idspispopd wrote:

feipoa wrote:

Charts on page 3 have been updated to include data from a GeForce 4 MX440 with AGP8x. I'm not sure how the "with AGP8x" is involved; this is a PCI card. Overall, the GeForce4 MX440 was the best overall for the graphics cards I tested. In benchmarks where the FX5500 had strength over the GF2 MX400, and the GF2 over the FX5500, the GF4 combined bridged the gap. I suspect this is about as fast as it gets for a 430tx board without using a 3dfx Voodoo3+ card of some sort.

Makes sense. More raw power then the GF2MX, less CPU overhead then the FX because it is DX7 only (I suppose with a DX9 chip some things have to be emulated) and it can use an older driver (don't know if you did use an older one).
A full GF2 might even be slightly faster because the older driver might have even less CPU overhead than the GF4MX.

Even with the GF2, driver versions all the way up to 53.04 showed improved benchmark results.

The only time I use an AGP card (GF2 MX) in my MVP3-based system with a K6-3+ is when I want to run certain Build Engine games at 1024x768. For some reason, these games crash at this resolution with the V3 PCI but work at 800x600.

feipoa wrote:

Even with the GF2, driver versions all the way up to 53.04 showed improved benchmark results.

Well, I suppose that will depend on the game. As far as I can see you tested the Quakes, 3DMark2000 and Final Reality, another dedicated benchmark.
Older DX games might behave differently.

I am still testing which is the best overall card for a K6-2+ 500 and MVP3. Usually i would not go higher the Voodoo3 2000 cause it seems to be already cpu limited but i am testing other possibilities. The g450 was not stable with my motherboard so i am testing the Radeon 7200 64mb SDR @ 2x and being a 2001 card it seems time correct and it greatly improved 2d gui quality and with the most fps i could get on a w9x dx7 system. I was thinking go try the R128Pro Ultra, the Geforce 256 sdr and the original Geforce 2 mx.

The last card i ran on my k63+ back in the day was an 8500le.

It was definitely better in every way than the voodoo 3 2000 pci and the geforce 2 mx i had before then.

mine was an AGP card but im sure you could get the 9100 which was a rebadged 8500le in pci

still have all the video cards, cpu and mobo though the 8500le has a leaky capacitor that i need to get around to replacing, something to keep an eye on, its of the era of terrible caps

I'm just building a K6 III+ system right now, I've opted for a Voodoo3, nice clean image, good DOS compatibility, Glide. Radeon and Nvidia are good for Windows/Direct3d, but if that is your target then why a K6 III+?, a PIII would be a much better choice.

I just received this today. PCCHIPS M590 and K6-III 400 CPU. They were sold as a working pair, so I will see how it goes, I suspect I will drop back to a Cyrix MII 333 on this board as it could only manage 90MHz FSB at best & I have had good results with this SiS chipset and Cyrix before, be interesting to see how it fairs as it is though.
Best,
Chris

lvader wrote:

I'm just building a K6 III+ system right now, I've opted for a Voodoo3, nice clean image, good DOS compatibility, Glide. Radeon and Nvidia are good for Windows/Direct3d, but if that is your target then why a K6 III+?, a PIII would be a much better choice.

Well, I also though that the Voodoo3 was probably the best in a time correct config but a 2000/01 card still sounds quiet "correct". Also it doesn't sound wrong to think that the Geforce 256 and R100 cards could have been targeted also for a SS7 machine when they were sold. I think I still had the K6-2 550 when I first tried the Geforce 2 MX (Point of View).

With the K6-2+ 500 and Radeon 7200 64mb sdr i get 2500 on 3dmark2000.

If you go Rage 128 grab SG RAM Cards.
SD Versions are slower.
16Mb SGRAM outperforms 32Mb SDRAM Cards