Yeah. I bet it's something like PIII 1.4Ghz. Although I'll rerun 3D Mark 2000 on the dual core 3.2Ghz to see what the Helo, Adventure and High poly count tests give, as that should show us what a maxed out DDR board is capable of.
Does anyone know what these headers are used for? 64M DDR card.
Which 64MB card make is that? I'm guessing Dell OEM?
386SX wrote on 2022-02-12, 12:40:Cause I think to remember the SDR version on those early mainboards were already quite "heavy" on the bus, that's in an interesting PCB layout. I wonder if other manufacturer built the card without it cause there was still space for the power requirement or close to some limit.
About the above test it'd be interesting to know wich CPU actually surpassed the original Geforce hw T&L speed using sw T&L/MMX/3DNow!/SSE. On the 8 lights test I think to remember old reviews were talking about the impact final results had with that test. I wonder if it's simply too much for the "first GPU" and how much it was increased on the Geforce2 GTS.
Yeah the molex connector is a bit of an oddity , I don't really know of any other gpus than maybe the voodoo 5s that had one but there might be others.
I'm guessing most other 256s were in spec enough that it didn't matter , so its a bit odd that canopus went through all the trouble.
A001 wrote on 2022-02-12, 12:50:Does anyone know what these headers are used for? 64M DDR card.
594.jpg
Maybe for a different fan from a different supplier depending on what they had?
trixster wrote on 2022-02-12, 12:55:Which 64MB card make is that? I'm guessing Dell OEM?
No clue. I suspect Dell. Identifies itself as reference 256 on boot and there is a hand-written serial number 739 on its PCB.
I think hw T&L felt much better in those times cause CPU still had to increase their speed but in a moment they got quite fast too. I wonder if GPU after GPU the T&L unit always had that jump ahead in polygon/s compared to the newer CPU released. I suppose at some point games used T&L without even mentioning it but CPU increased a lot their capabilities too. I think for example to how many features from MMX to all the 3DNow!/En/Pro, SSE1,2,3, HT etc.. added to the higher freqs compensated at least the newer GPUs in that.
I've added the Athlon 64 X2 3.2Ghz with GeForce256 DDR 32MB results to my post on the previous page
trixster wrote on 2022-02-12, 13:04:I've added the Athlon 64 X2 3.2Ghz with GeForce256 DDR 32MB results to my post on the previous page
That is the HW T&L test right? Any numbers about the Athlon CPU option (I suppose is a "En3DNow! option" in 3DMark2000) that should use sw T&L with that cpu? I imagine also it might use only a single core, it'd be interesting to know how much used as cpu usage during the tests. 😉
Yeah. I've added the 3DNow! results and am doing one called AMD Athlon to see if that's different.
/edit these are identical to the 3DNow ones
Interesting I wonder if it reach a GPU limit of triangle/s in a software T&L scenario cause the single core CPU is already too fast for it and if with a bit slower cpu that value change (decrease) a lot or not. Probably as said above the sw T&L is surpassed much before than such "high end" cpu.
About the 3DNow! I think to remember some differences testing the two options. Maybe the cpu is so powerful that it doesn't matter as much as in the early 3DNow! or SSE times.
I’d be interested to see some benchmarks from other cpus from 2001-2004 era, to see exactly when the Helo/adventure scores are surpassed by cpu T&L
And also when the 1 and 4 light poly counts scores are surpassed too. And finally to see what P2/earlier P3 matches the Geforce256’s 8 light score.
