VOGONS


First post, by Rikintosh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I have one of those cool mid-2000s barebones that are small and look like a stereo. However it uses a proprietary PSU and it is only 200w. I would like to use a video card in it, but I'm afraid to ruin the PSU with a card that draws a lot of energy.

Initially I wanted a card that was low profile, to maintain good air circulation inside the case, but I only found gf6200, so I decided that the only way out would be to use a full-size card (I want to play NFS U2 and some other titles of the time with a good graphic quality), I already have a GF4200ti, but I used it for a short time, for fear of ruining my PSU, because I believe it has a slightly higher consumption. I recently looked at my wallet, and what I could afford, I came up with a 9600PRO or a X1650 Pro. I read somewhere that the maximum power consumption of this card is 18w or something, is this correct?

I know you will tell me that there are better cards, but in my country they are rare and expensive. And for me to import one, I would have to pay expensive shipping, and abusive import fees. So I'm limiting the choices here. As for the consumption of the rest of my rig, it has a P4 2.66ghz processor, 2 ram sticks, an IDE hd (which I intend to exchange for a 7200rpm sata 2.5" laptop hd), but it has an LCD display on the front and a radio tuner, which I don't know about their power consumption. I tried to put a baby ATX power supply but it's still too big!

Take a look at my blog: http://rikintosh.blogspot.com
My Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfRUbxkBmEihBEkIK32Hilg

Reply 2 of 13, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

None of them are going to be particularly high power consumption but the Radeons are probably the least. You could use an AC wattmeter to measure if you feel like it.

Reply 3 of 13, by Revolter

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Take a look at this graph gem of a power consumption chart:

https://www.vintage3d.org/rgraph/single/cons2.php

GeForce GPUs did better in terms of backward compatibility with certain features, but it's hard to beat Radeon 9600 Pro's bang for the watt (*if* those numbers are true, of course).

Celeron 800, 512MB, GeForce2 MX, ES1938S/DB S2, Windows ME/DOS 6.22

Reply 4 of 13, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

9600Pro/XT consume less power for sure - different fabrication and less transistors. Not sure about later entries, some of them don't match up.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 6 of 13, by schmatzler

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The ATI 9600 can be easily cooled with a big heatsink like the Zalman ZM80D-HP.

I have such a setup in my system and it's almost silent. My GeForce 4800SE on the other hand performs much slower and outputs a lot of heat, so I have to run the fans on higher RPM and that's...a tad annoying.

ATI > NVidia.

Reply 7 of 13, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Just to be sure, what OS will you be running ?

There are no drivers for anything newer than the Radeon X8x0 series for Windows 9x/ME, so the X1650 would not be an option for these OSes .

Reply 8 of 13, by Rikintosh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
darry wrote on 2022-08-09, 21:33:

Just to be sure, what OS will you be running ?

There are no drivers for anything newer than the Radeon X8x0 series for Windows 9x/ME, so the X1650 would not be an option for these OSes .

Sorry, forgot to mention that. This machine will be Windows XP only (although all its hardware is compatible with 98, and it has drivers for 98, but I think the performance of modern XP era games runs slower on 98)

Take a look at my blog: http://rikintosh.blogspot.com
My Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfRUbxkBmEihBEkIK32Hilg

Reply 9 of 13, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Rikintosh wrote on 2022-08-09, 22:05:
darry wrote on 2022-08-09, 21:33:

Just to be sure, what OS will you be running ?

There are no drivers for anything newer than the Radeon X8x0 series for Windows 9x/ME, so the X1650 would not be an option for these OSes .

Sorry, forgot to mention that. This machine will be Windows XP only (although all its hardware is compatible with 98, and it has drivers for 98, but I think the performance of modern XP era games runs slower on 98)

Thank you for the clarification, I just wanted to avoid any potential bad surprises.

Reply 10 of 13, by bakemono

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

here is a power consumption ranking / chart I saved a long time ago:

d'oh! vogons clobbered the image. You can find it here instead http://www.hyakushiki.net/misc/gfxpowerchartby3d.png

yet another retro game on itch: https://90soft90.itch.io/super-wild-war-22

Reply 11 of 13, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Lucked into 9600XT that needs little repair, within my means, for very little expense within Canada just recently today and bought that because of this thread. I read this prior to this purchase.

My trade is electronics repair and hobby so this is not a problem.

Cheers,

Great Northern aka Canada.

Reply 12 of 13, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
bakemono wrote:

Once again, lots of conflicting measurements.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 13 of 13, by debs3759

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

9600 Pro, TDP 18W
X1650 Pro, TDP 44W
I don't know the TDP for the 4200Ti

See my graphics card database at www.gpuzoo.com
Constantly being worked on. Feel free to message me with any corrections or details of cards you would like me to research and add.