386SX wrote on 2024-03-17, 13:52:

I wonder why Powerstrip seems to read ram clock (40Mhz) but not the chip clock at all and of course you can't increase that. Need to check memory timings as well.

Both chip and memory clocks are controlled by that one value.

Putas wrote on 2024-03-17, 19:41:

386SX wrote on 2024-03-17, 13:52:

I wonder why Powerstrip seems to read ram clock (40Mhz) but not the chip clock at all and of course you can't increase that. Need to check memory timings as well.

Both chip and memory clocks are controlled by that one value.

When I pressed the "default" button values, that went up to "66Mhz" breaking GUI graphic (horizontal color lines). Not sure the real clocks, need to check that dos tool.

Still deciding which card should I buy first.. I've found all the usual bad ones, aT3D, Laguna3D, 3DImage9750, etc.. if they'd cost less I'd have bought them already but can't spend too much..

Question: late Laguna3D GD5465-HC-C revisions were slower or identical to the early faster ones with heatsinks? I've read they were oriented to low power systems so I suppose they might have been clocked slower?

386SX wrote on 2024-03-18, 20:51:

Still deciding which card should I buy first.. I've found all the usual bad ones, aT3D, Laguna3D, 3DImage9750, etc.. if they'd cost less I'd have bought them already but can't spend too much..

Yeah, it sucks that even the prices for slow/useless 3D cards are unreasonably high nowadays.

Some time ago, I wanted to get a Trident Blade 3D, since that was the first 3D accelerator that I ever owned. However, the price was too steep, even on my local classifieds. I mean, it's not like these cards were produced in limited quantities. A lot of "value" PCs from that time had them.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-03-18, 21:01:

386SX wrote on 2024-03-18, 20:51:

Still deciding which card should I buy first.. I've found all the usual bad ones, aT3D, Laguna3D, 3DImage9750, etc.. if they'd cost less I'd have bought them already but can't spend too much..

Yeah, it sucks that even the prices for slow/useless 3D cards are unreasonably high nowadays.

Some time ago, I wanted to get a Trident Blade 3D, since that was the first 3D accelerator that I ever owned.However, the price was too steep, even on my local classifieds. I mean, it's not like these cards were produced in low quantities. A lot of "value" PCs from that time had them.

I was lucky to find a cheap built PCB Blade3D some time ago and it is a great card indeed. I've still got some rare vga I collected when times were better to buy them. But prices are absurd for such thin market. I'm going to buy few anyway one at the time. Maybe the worst will be the first... at3D.. 😁

386SX wrote on 2024-03-18, 20:51:

Still deciding which card should I buy first.. I've found all the usual bad ones, aT3D, Laguna3D, 3DImage9750, etc.. if they'd cost less I'd have bought them already but can't spend too much..

Question: late Laguna3D GD5465-HC-C revisions were slower or identical to the early faster ones with heatsinks? I've read they were oriented to low power systems so I suppose they might have been clocked slower?

Frenquencies are different, the fastest one is the Chaintech version. Its logo is on the PCB.

JustJulião wrote on 2024-03-19, 08:13:

386SX wrote on 2024-03-18, 20:51:

Still deciding which card should I buy first.. I've found all the usual bad ones, aT3D, Laguna3D, 3DImage9750, etc.. if they'd cost less I'd have bought them already but can't spend too much..

Question: late Laguna3D GD5465-HC-C revisions were slower or identical to the early faster ones with heatsinks? I've read they were oriented to low power systems so I suppose they might have been clocked slower?

Frenquencies are different, the fastest one is the Chaintech version. Its logo is on the PCB.

Ok, it's also quite rare it seems. I can only find the later cheaper versions. I wonder how much the clocks may differ. About the rdram modules, do they fail for the heat or they still usually works? Cause I find some of these cards sold as not working for ram problems.

I haven't notice any memory failures on RDRAM cards. I doubt any memory on 90's cards would die due to heat.

Putas wrote on 2024-03-19, 11:03:

I haven't notice any memory failures on RDRAM cards. I doubt any memory on 90's cards would die due to heat.

I've read they unusually heat up a lot compared to old ram modules and I was also susprised that they would do that so much for a late 90 tech.

While still searching for a Laguna3D in a better version of the ones I find, meanwhile maybe I may buy something pointless and expensive like the at3D PCI. I was wondering in their press releases the line where they suggested basically the upgrade to 3dfx...

"AT25 and AT3D Support the 3Dfx Voodoo Rush Upgrade
For even greater 3D performance with dramatic special effects, ProMotion-AT25 and AT3D support an external 3D accelerator through the 64-bit VR interface jointly developed with 3Dfx Interactive."

It seems like an unusual move for marketing in the very middle 1997.

The AT3D deserves a deeper dive. Alliance worked on the drivers for a while as if they could salvage it. Anyway, all the first-generation sins in one card? That is an achievement, maybe educational nowadays.

Putas wrote on 2024-03-19, 20:28:

The AT3D deserves a deeper dive. Alliance worked on the drivers for a while as if they could salvage it. Anyway, all the first-generation sins in one card? That is an achievement, maybe educational nowadays.

It'd have been nice to see a better final driver release to get acceptable levels almost like a late Trio3D or Rage II serie. I suppose not many had the resources/people to invest in drivers development as much as needed back then. Looking at the reviews, it seems like it actually had that possibility for the specifications.
The AT25 chip seems like accepting that situation and go on but beside graphic errors that engine might have had at least some speed to do a bit better.

Anyway... AT3D has been bought and on its way for intense testing... take that Voodoo Graphic! 😁

https://vintage3d.org/M2.php#sthash.43uFmYrL.dpbs

What about MPACT ? i own a STB Nitro DVD.

I also have Laguna 3D.
But did not play yet with it.
Maybe it mates good with Celeron 266Mhz Slot 1

Worst to Worst ;-D

matze79 wrote on 2024-03-19, 22:00:

https://vintage3d.org/M2.php#sthash.43uFmYrL.dpbs […]
Show full quote

https://vintage3d.org/M2.php#sthash.43uFmYrL.dpbs

What about MPACT ? i own a STB Nitro DVD.

I also have Laguna 3D.
But did not play yet with it.
Maybe it mates good with Celeron 266Mhz Slot 1

Worst to Worst ;-D

That's a card I always wanted too also considering the DVD feature and the unique architecture. If I will find one card cheap I may buy it. I suppose I will test these with the 500Mhz P3 because my mainboard has problems with the Pentium II and Celeron not reading the L2 cache but is ok with the early Pentium III.

The aT3D arrived... testing it on the P-III 500Mhz. A bit disappointed by the card status, I thought better but anyway.. Final Reality is running with Win ME and impressive (that it even start like 3DMark99)... I don't know why it seems the video output to be disturbed when hard disk is running like the desktop seems to become a bit darker/noise when hard disk is loading data or also moving mouse in bright UI windows. Changed PSU cause I noticed 3,3v was quite low in that old P4 PSU but still seems to happen. Bios 2.30.00 (Build 29) with latest drivers of course. Beside that good VGA quality @ 1024x768. Better than the usual cheap Virge/DX cards around I'd say.

Seems audio card being quite disturbed by the video card and or the opposite and without sound of course the Final Reality score is higher more than expected. I wonder if some ISA audio card (instead of the 1998 PCI SoundBlaster) might increase the possibility to hear less noise during rendering or increase a bit speed. EDIT: I'm trying with an ESS ISA card and with the i440 chipset board I'm testing this, it seems like having a bit "better" audio while still broken as never heard. I was looking also into Powerstrip options that read the chip clock at 60Mhz and that the card doesn't have Bus Master flag?

The card. 😀

It's impressive how many games it actually get to start even if failing to render. I'm even impressed by the 3DMark actually even trying and Thief2 start while everything become broken in graphic almost immediately. On the speed side it seems like it had something there.

We've found it, the Richard Hammond of 3D, starts off fast but crashes spectacularly. 🤣

BitWrangler wrote on 2024-03-22, 22:11:

We've found it, the Richard Hammond of 3D, starts off fast but crashes spectacularly. 🤣

Spoiler

(Top Gear / Grand Tour joke for those who are lost ) https://topgear.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Hamm … d%27s_Accidents

I think I'm going to buy another expensive one identical... don't know why.. it has something special itself.. 😁

I want to think it "only" needed a big amount of drivers work to be useful, would be nice to ask some old Alliance developers what was wrong with it and where later generation chip ended up in prototypes.
I was also wondering about the Bus Master option and other mainboard related compatibilities; could it be that we are testing these cards on the wrong chipsets and something might get better?

(anyway.. just bought a Trident 3Dìmage9750 4MB four modules SGRAMs meanwhile.. 😁)