Could try 2.4. But wouldn’t do more than that.

Considering the K6-3+, its FPU, the usual memory bandwidth performances, well I'd stay time correct for the Directx6/7 titles with the help of the early GPUs so my choice would be the early Radeon 7200 SDRAM version with some early lighter driver and still oriented to those AGP machines. So to have a very advanced real GPU with most multimedia accelerations, most Directx7 compatibility, not too much power demand (not that low too that's why I'd go for the lower clocked R100 that's more than enough for such system). Basically what would have been at that time the "last" video card I'd have installed on a K6 system, similar to the early Geforce2 MX original version.

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-09-10, 07:40:

Could try 2.4. But wouldn’t do more than that.

Somewhat cautiously I tried 2.4, 🤣. Still no dice. But that is ok, probably a bit much to hope for. I could try for getting 124mhz working but I think that I am going to leave it be.
There is only so much performance that I can squeeze out of this thing after all.

Now I did do a slight overclock on my Voodoo 3. It is a 3000 model so I overclocked it to the 3500 speed, 183/183.
I should mention that I long ago added a large fan in the Phil's computer lab style. It seems to work flawlessly at this speed.
So I think that if I decide to keep the v3 in the K6-3+ that it is about as tuned as it is going to get.

386SX wrote on 2022-09-10, 08:09:

Considering the K6-3+, its FPU, the usual memory bandwidth performances, well I'd stay time correct for the Directx6/7 titles with the help of the early GPUs so my choice would be the early Radeon 7200 SDRAM version with some early lighter driver and still oriented to those AGP machines. So to have a very advanced real GPU with most multimedia accelerations, most Directx7 compatibility, not too much power demand (not that low too that's why I'd go for the lower clocked R100 that's more than enough for such system). Basically what would have been at that time the "last" video card I'd have installed on a K6 system, similar to the early Geforce2 MX original version.

I have a Radeon SDR that I tried with it, I had some issues with AGP. I had to use Powerstrip to force AGP to work and I was able to mostly get it working. However dxdiag didn't seem to think it was working.
I tried a few different drivers as well as trying my Radeon 7500 DDR and my Radeon 9250SE (128bit) They all seemed to perform about the same.
This was before I did and overclock to 600mhz on the CPU but honestly I don't think that would have much effect.

I settled for now on the TNT2 Pro, I did add a fan to that card and overclocked it to 150/183 to a reference TNT2 Ultra clocks. It performs the best in this machine with the exception of my Voodoo 3.
I might move the Voodoo 3 back to this machine later and run the Geforce 2 GTS in the K6-3+ machine, but probably will stick it in the PIII as that makes more sense to me.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2022-09-11, 05:14:

I have a Radeon SDR that I tried with it, I had some issues with AGP. I had to use Powerstrip to force AGP to work and I was abl […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote on 2022-09-10, 08:09:

Considering the K6-3+, its FPU, the usual memory bandwidth performances, well I'd stay time correct for the Directx6/7 titles with the help of the early GPUs so my choice would be the early Radeon 7200 SDRAM version with some early lighter driver and still oriented to those AGP machines. So to have a very advanced real GPU with most multimedia accelerations, most Directx7 compatibility, not too much power demand (not that low too that's why I'd go for the lower clocked R100 that's more than enough for such system). Basically what would have been at that time the "last" video card I'd have installed on a K6 system, similar to the early Geforce2 MX original version.

I have a Radeon SDR that I tried with it, I had some issues with AGP. I had to use Powerstrip to force AGP to work and I was able to mostly get it working. However dxdiag didn't seem to think it was working.
I tried a few different drivers as well as trying my Radeon 7500 DDR and my Radeon 9250SE (128bit) They all seemed to perform about the same.
This was before I did and overclock to 600mhz on the CPU but honestly I don't think that would have much effect.

I settled for now on the TNT2 Pro, I did add a fan to that card and overclocked it to 150/183 to a reference TNT2 Ultra clocks. It performs the best in this machine with the exception of my Voodoo 3.
I might move the Voodoo 3 back to this machine later and run the Geforce 2 GTS in the K6-3+ machine, but probably will stick it in the PIII as that makes more sense to me.

Last time I tried on a Super Socket 7 machine I didn't have any problem with the early PCB layout of the Radeon SDR (with 8 SDRAM modules and many capacitors). While anyway it's already more than a K6 based system will benefit from imho, not necessary from a time correct point of view but as a balanced choice. But those cards like the Geforce2 MX (early version) were probably at the end "also" oriented to those K6-2/Pentium II last upgrades beside how much late. Any cards after these imho would be useless beside some lab experiment tests with specific games.
About the drivers I don't remember exactly differences but I suppose latest drivers were heavy and probably more optimized for later GPUs maybe more than the original R100 so I suppose the early ones were already light and good enough, but just wondering.

386SX wrote on 2022-09-11, 08:00:

Jasin Natael wrote on 2022-09-11, 05:14:

I have a Radeon SDR that I tried with it, I had some issues with AGP. I had to use Powerstrip to force AGP to work and I was abl […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote on 2022-09-10, 08:09:

Considering the K6-3+, its FPU, the usual memory bandwidth performances, well I'd stay time correct for the Directx6/7 titles with the help of the early GPUs so my choice would be the early Radeon 7200 SDRAM version with some early lighter driver and still oriented to those AGP machines. So to have a very advanced real GPU with most multimedia accelerations, most Directx7 compatibility, not too much power demand (not that low too that's why I'd go for the lower clocked R100 that's more than enough for such system). Basically what would have been at that time the "last" video card I'd have installed on a K6 system, similar to the early Geforce2 MX original version.

I have a Radeon SDR that I tried with it, I had some issues with AGP. I had to use Powerstrip to force AGP to work and I was able to mostly get it working. However dxdiag didn't seem to think it was working.
I tried a few different drivers as well as trying my Radeon 7500 DDR and my Radeon 9250SE (128bit) They all seemed to perform about the same.
This was before I did and overclock to 600mhz on the CPU but honestly I don't think that would have much effect.

I settled for now on the TNT2 Pro, I did add a fan to that card and overclocked it to 150/183 to a reference TNT2 Ultra clocks. It performs the best in this machine with the exception of my Voodoo 3.
I might move the Voodoo 3 back to this machine later and run the Geforce 2 GTS in the K6-3+ machine, but probably will stick it in the PIII as that makes more sense to me.

Last time I tried on a Super Socket 7 machine I didn't have any problem with the early PCB layout of the Radeon SDR (with 8 SDRAM modules and many capacitors). While anyway it's already more than a K6 based system will benefit from imho, not necessary from a time correct point of view but as a balanced choice. But those cards like the Geforce2 MX (early version) were probably at the end "also" oriented to those K6-2/Pentium II last upgrades beside how much late. Any cards after these imho would be useless beside some lab experiment tests with specific games.
About the drivers I don't remember exactly differences but I suppose latest drivers were heavy and probably more optimized for later GPUs maybe more than the original R100 so I suppose the early ones were already light and good enough, but just wondering.

Yes my card is one of the early models built by ATi, with the Rage Theater chip. I tried a few different drivers, each one I had issues with AGP. Kinda sucks, but it agree you are right about the performance as neither the 7500 or 9250 gained my any notable performance. I am pretty hapy with the TNT2 and the early detonator drivers though.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-09-10, 04:23:

On Vogonsdrivers, the supported cards are usually listed in the description, but you can also check manually by looking at the r […]
Show full quote

Jasin Natael wrote on 2022-09-10, 03:53:

Yeah I figured that the earlier ones might give better performance, though I wasn't sure quite how far back I could go for the TNT2.

On Vogonsdrivers, the supported cards are usually listed in the description, but you can also check manually by looking at the relevant .inf file after downloading the driver archive. Since your card is a TNT2 Pro, I'm not sure if 2.08 will work with it, but 3.68 certainly will.

Just trying to get a baseline, but games likely be Unreal, UT, Half Life, Soldier of Fortune, Motocross Madness, pro ably racing games like NFS3, Test Drive 5/6 to name a few.

Rule of thumb, you want your graphics card driver to be 6 months newer than the game that you're playing, in case the manufacturer added some optimizations for it.

Any suggestions on the ram size?

No idea, sorry. Maybe Asus made a 16 MB version for certain markets or something.

I tried the 3.68 drivers, nice little performance bump along with the slight overclock to TNT2 Ultra clocks. Thanks!

Good point about the different pcb revisions.

Many a time have I encountered the same gpu that would work on one mobo but not with a different card pcb revision.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2022-09-12, 03:10:

386SX wrote on 2022-09-11, 08:00:

Jasin Natael wrote on 2022-09-11, 05:14:

I have a Radeon SDR that I tried with it, I had some issues with AGP. I had to use Powerstrip to force AGP to work and I was abl […]
Show full quote

I have a Radeon SDR that I tried with it, I had some issues with AGP. I had to use Powerstrip to force AGP to work and I was able to mostly get it working. However dxdiag didn't seem to think it was working.
I tried a few different drivers as well as trying my Radeon 7500 DDR and my Radeon 9250SE (128bit) They all seemed to perform about the same.
This was before I did and overclock to 600mhz on the CPU but honestly I don't think that would have much effect.

I settled for now on the TNT2 Pro, I did add a fan to that card and overclocked it to 150/183 to a reference TNT2 Ultra clocks. It performs the best in this machine with the exception of my Voodoo 3.
I might move the Voodoo 3 back to this machine later and run the Geforce 2 GTS in the K6-3+ machine, but probably will stick it in the PIII as that makes more sense to me.

Last time I tried on a Super Socket 7 machine I didn't have any problem with the early PCB layout of the Radeon SDR (with 8 SDRAM modules and many capacitors). While anyway it's already more than a K6 based system will benefit from imho, not necessary from a time correct point of view but as a balanced choice. But those cards like the Geforce2 MX (early version) were probably at the end "also" oriented to those K6-2/Pentium II last upgrades beside how much late. Any cards after these imho would be useless beside some lab experiment tests with specific games.
About the drivers I don't remember exactly differences but I suppose latest drivers were heavy and probably more optimized for later GPUs maybe more than the original R100 so I suppose the early ones were already light and good enough, but just wondering.

Yes my card is one of the early models built by ATi, with the Rage Theater chip. I tried a few different drivers, each one I had issues with AGP. Kinda sucks, but it agree you are right about the performance as neither the 7500 or 9250 gained my any notable performance. I am pretty hapy with the TNT2 and the early detonator drivers though.

I had one of these early Radeon SDR cards and I always liked that PCB layout cause very old style with a classic big heatsink, old style single side SDRAM modules, the great tvout chip, very well designed imho. Maybe even better than the Radeon DDR with those huge capacitors.

You mean this one ? https://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/comments … ati-radeon-7200 Because as far as I know this is the only one SDR based R100 design with 8 RAM chips. It is a good card of course, but it is actually rather late design. Hence the Radeon 7200 name on the sticker.

The early Radeon SDR is based on different PCB layout http://hw-museum.cz/vga/78/ati-radeon-256-sdr This is one of the earliest - 37th week of 2000 which is not long after launch. Later ATi used different heatsing, the same as you can find on reference R7500 and R8500, but the PCB remained the same.

havli wrote on 2022-09-12, 17:51:

You mean this one ? https://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/comments … ati-radeon-7200 Because as far as I know this is the only one SDR based R100 design with 8 RAM chips. It is a good card of course, but it is actually rather late design. Hence the Radeon 7200 name on the sticker.

The early Radeon SDR is based on different PCB layout http://hw-museum.cz/vga/78/ati-radeon-256-sdr This is one of the earliest - 37th week of 2000 which is not long after launch. Later ATi used different heatsing, the same as you can find on reference R7500 and R8500, but the PCB remained the same.

I can't seem to open your links, probably the content filter here at work.

I will check when I get home and see. I am fairly sure both my 7000 (7200) and my 7500 are fairly early cards. But I could be wrong.

That's the card I had but I thought it was already an early PCB layout considering the amount of components. Are there informations about how common was the other four ram module design? I always thought that layout was for cost reasons and never had that specific one. It's seems more similar to the Radeon DDR which would make sense but I'd not understand the very different layout of the other one.

havli wrote on 2022-09-12, 17:51:

You mean this one ? https://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/comments … ati-radeon-7200 Because as far as I know this is the only one SDR based R100 design with 8 RAM chips. It is a good card of course, but it is actually rather late design. Hence the Radeon 7200 name on the sticker.

The early Radeon SDR is based on different PCB layout http://hw-museum.cz/vga/78/ati-radeon-256-sdr This is one of the earliest - 37th week of 2000 which is not long after launch. Later ATi used different heatsing, the same as you can find on reference R7500 and R8500, but the PCB remained the same.

My card is identical to the second link. Down to the placement of stickers and the part number, except mine ends in "00" and not "11"

Edit: I assume this is a fate code of some sort, likely the year? 00 for 2000 maybe?

386SX wrote on 2022-09-12, 18:46:

That's the card I had but I thought it was already an early PCB layout considering the amount of components. Are there informations about how common was the other four ram module design? I always thought that layout was for cost reasons and never had that specific one. It's seems more similar to the Radeon DDR which would make sense but I'd not understand the very different layout of the other one.

I didn't mention explicitly the 4-chip SDR design is 32 MB only, while the later is 64 MB. I think the 7200 was designed like this because at the time (mid 2001) 64 MB was needed to compete with GF2 MX400 and perhaps these SDR chips were the cheapest option to have that back then. Also the 7200 is clocked at 155 MHz IIRC and the original Radeon SDR runs at 160-166 MHz and passive vs active heatsink, so more cost cutting.

How common both variants are, I have no idea. I have several pieces of the original 32 MB Radeon SDR and none of the 64 MB 7200. But that is hardly representative statistics. I simply like the original design because of the large Radeon logo that the later cards don't have. 😁

havli wrote on 2022-09-13, 05:57:

386SX wrote on 2022-09-12, 18:46:

That's the card I had but I thought it was already an early PCB layout considering the amount of components. Are there informations about how common was the other four ram module design? I always thought that layout was for cost reasons and never had that specific one. It's seems more similar to the Radeon DDR which would make sense but I'd not understand the very different layout of the other one.

I didn't mention explicitly the 4-chip SDR design is 32 MB only, while the later is 64 MB. I think the 7200 was designed like this because at the time (mid 2001) 64 MB was needed to compete with GF2 MX400 and perhaps these SDR chips were the cheapest option to have that back then. Also the 7200 is clocked at 155 MHz IIRC and the original Radeon SDR runs at 160-166 MHz and passive vs active heatsink, so more cost cutting.

How common both variants are, I have no idea. I have several pieces of the original 32 MB Radeon SDR and none of the 64 MB 7200. But that is hardly representative statistics. I simply like the original design because of the large Radeon logo that the later cards don't have. 😁

I wasn't considering the ram size difference and it make sense the early SDR version would have used that to compete with the Geforce 2 MX 32MB while the next one with the later versions. I usually like more the 64MB layout cause it looks very compact while full of components and in a balanced old style design. Also I never liked those early active ATi coolers with that thin heatsink and loud micro fans.. they used that since the Rage 128 Pro and considering how big the R100 GPU package was, I prefer that huge passive heatsink. 😉

386SX wrote on 2022-09-13, 07:00:

havli wrote on 2022-09-13, 05:57:

386SX wrote on 2022-09-12, 18:46:

That's the card I had but I thought it was already an early PCB layout considering the amount of components. Are there informations about how common was the other four ram module design? I always thought that layout was for cost reasons and never had that specific one. It's seems more similar to the Radeon DDR which would make sense but I'd not understand the very different layout of the other one.

I didn't mention explicitly the 4-chip SDR design is 32 MB only, while the later is 64 MB. I think the 7200 was designed like this because at the time (mid 2001) 64 MB was needed to compete with GF2 MX400 and perhaps these SDR chips were the cheapest option to have that back then. Also the 7200 is clocked at 155 MHz IIRC and the original Radeon SDR runs at 160-166 MHz and passive vs active heatsink, so more cost cutting.

How common both variants are, I have no idea. I have several pieces of the original 32 MB Radeon SDR and none of the 64 MB 7200. But that is hardly representative statistics. I simply like the original design because of the large Radeon logo that the later cards don't have. 😁

I wasn't considering the ram size difference and it make sense the early SDR version would have used that to compete with the Geforce 2 MX 32MB while the next one with the later versions. I usually like more the 64MB layout cause it looks very compact while full of components and in a balanced old style design. Also I never liked those early active ATi coolers with that thin heatsink and loud micro fans.. they used that since the Rage 128 Pro and considering how big the R100 GPU package was, I prefer that huge passive heatsink. 😉

Both my 7000 and 7500 have similar hratsink and fan. They are loud and whiny. Great cards, they look classic and the 7500 in particular is thick and dense feeling. Very well made cards. I also have a FireGL 8800 that is similar in design but has a different heatsink fan design.

Repo Man11 wrote on 2022-09-05, 22:09:

I did these just for you. Quadro 2 Pro, 7.76, the rest is in the screen shots. The early driver is a big help - I think 3D Now support was dropped rapidly after that.

Your scores are pretty epic.
I finally got my Geforce 2 GTS in and it works great. I was even able to overclock it to 250/195, so pretty close to Ti levels.
I still can't quite match your scores.
Best I can do in 3dmark 99 is about 8100/4330 or so.
Using same driver version , 7.75.

I am guessing your ram performance must be greater than mine. I am using the K6-3+ at 112x5.5.
If I'm not mistaken these scores were from your k6-2+ before you modded it to the 3+
All the more depressing for me, 🤣.

On my P5A, k6-3+, 128mb 133 sdram system I tested A lot of cards and opted for A gf2 GTS.

It has been running perfectly and thanx to TnL support some newer games got playable fps (on a TNT2 ultra those games were too slow Thanx to the cpu). All for fun ofcourse but it works.

Also have v2 12mb sli which get used the most in this computer but the GTS was my choice over other NV and ATI cards. GeForce 3 and higher are no use as cpu bottlenecks too much and drivers become too new for the games you would play on K6

I picked up a 64 megabyte Asus GF2 MX today and tested it in my 5EMA; all else the same, this card scored about 500 points lower in 3D 2000 than the Quadro 2 Pro.

Repo Man11 wrote on 2022-09-18, 01:16:

I picked up a 64 megabyte Asus GF2 MX today and tested it in my 5EMA; all else the same, this card scored about 500 points lower in 3D 2000 than the Quadro 2 Pro.

That is interesting. Seems like those Quadro cards are binned pretty well. My GTS overclocks pretty well but it get's fairly toasty in the process.
All said I still left in in the K6-3+ build. The TnL really does help. I ended up putting the Voodoo 3 in my Pentium III build, along side a Radeon 9250SE PCI card. I switch between the two with the bios.
Clunky but cheaper than a Voodoo 2 SLI setup.

I have lately moved onto getting one of my K6-2+ chips to work in a Toshiba Satellite 1625cdt.
Thanks to and old thread on Hardforum I was able to get it working, if only at 500mhz. Still a worthy upgrade.

I am curious RepoMan11 if this RepoMan in this thread is you? If so thanks for the help!

https://hardforum.com/threads/check-out-my-ha … upgrade.845058/