Skalabala wrote on 2024-05-15, 23:42:

That is a good CPU score for 633MHz

Yeah not to shabby. I even had the motherboard cache off.
Quite difficult to break 10k on a stable clock.

Hello,
I am sure I am not aiming anywhere here.

Soltek 56G5 (512kb cache)
K6-2+ @ III+ 600mhz
512mb c2 crucial
Radeon 9250 256ddr 128bit catalyst 5.11
Xp SP3

GeForce 5200/5700/mx 440 all cause reboot on any 3D application start.
Really do not know why.

I use 4x interleaving and write allocation utility.

What can I do?

Switching to windows 9x will help

Downgrade driver version older the better

Take out half the ram.

Sphere478 wrote on 2024-10-23, 17:43:

Switching to windows 9x will help

Downgrade driver version older the better

Take out half the ram.

Thanks,
But do you think that the result is in line with R9250 ?
This is what I am guessing.

The motherboard I am using has a strange option:
“Redirect USB to AGP”, it is a jumper…
Does it mean that it can redirect usb bandwith to agp?

Mamba wrote on 2024-10-23, 07:59:

Hello, I am sure I am not aiming anywhere here. […]
Show full quote

Hello,
I am sure I am not aiming anywhere here.

Soltek 56G5 (512kb cache)
K6-2+ @ III+ 600mhz
512mb c2 crucial
Radeon 9250 256ddr 128bit catalyst 5.11
Xp SP3

GeForce 5200/5700/mx 440 all cause reboot on any 3D application start.
Really do not know why.

I use 4x interleaving and write allocation utility.

What can I do?

Took a look at your board

Use three, single sided 128mb sticks. Not double sided

You may be able to get a radeon 9800 to work.

A geforce 2 or 3 might get better scores. But I never had much luck with them.

Use the onboard usb. Don’t use a usb card.

The fastest card I have ever tested on a SS7 was a Readeon 9250. But the driver and windows was very specific.

Skalabala wrote on 2024-10-25, 03:22:

The fastest card I have ever tested on a SS7 was a Readeon 9250. But the driver and windows was very specific.

Thanks,
I am installing Win98se this time.
Can you be more specific at least for drivers?

Mamba wrote on 2024-10-25, 04:37:

Thanks, I am installing Win98se this time. Can you be more specific at least for drivers? […]
Show full quote

Skalabala wrote on 2024-10-25, 03:22:

The fastest card I have ever tested on a SS7 was a Readeon 9250. But the driver and windows was very specific.

Thanks,
I am installing Win98se this time.
Can you be more specific at least for drivers?

Ok now it is super weird.
Installed win98SE and service packs. Everything ok.
Installed VIA 4in1 4.43
Installed DX 9.0c from Soggi's site (thank you).
Installed Catalyst 4.3 from this site.

AGP texture acceleration is greyed out...
3DMark talks about PCI and not AGP....

Alright,
It seems to be a dxdiag glitch cause both Rivatuner and CpuZ tell me that agp is operational at 2X.

I ended up doing this with my R9250 128bit (attached).
Not sure if a change in driver might help (support is welcome)
But I have the feeling that the motherboard’s caps are falling apart as the FSB is floating around.
That said, I can enter Windows at 133mhz FSB (then freezes).
Because of the weak state of the motherboard, I am not comfortable at overvolting too much to search for stability.
Plus, I may be out of luck with the AGP out of specs that does not cope with ATI in general.

Just a note:
With a fx5700 that should be supposedly a lot faster, I have 900 points less…. What a nonsense.

Mamba wrote on 2024-10-25, 04:37:

Thanks, I am installing Win98se this time. Can you be more specific at least for drivers? […]
Show full quote

Skalabala wrote on 2024-10-25, 03:22:

The fastest card I have ever tested on a SS7 was a Readeon 9250. But the driver and windows was very specific.

Thanks,
I am installing Win98se this time.
Can you be more specific at least for drivers?

Unfortunately I can not remember how I did it but I am sure it was not Win9x. If it was win9x then there must have been no ALi driver installed because I remember I could not do anything in regedit with the ALi AGP settings.

Hey there you go! That score is better! 😀

with k6-3+550, geforce2ultra and windows2000, i got 1550pts in 3dmark01, and 2220pts in 3dmark2000.
the 3dmark2000 score may seem low, i could have scored higher with win98 and older drivers, probably around 3000pts. but that would hurt 3dmark01 performance so i would let it be.

noshutdown wrote on 2024-11-01, 03:38:

with k6-3+550, geforce2ultra and windows2000, i got 1550pts in 3dmark01, and 2220pts in 3dmark2000.
the 3dmark2000 score may seem low, i could have scored higher with win98 and older drivers, probably around 3000pts. but that would hurt 3dmark01 performance so i would let it be.

3DMARK2001 should not be used on a K6 to measure performance at all. Only use 2000.
The only place where I see newer GPU drivers work in favour of a K6 is when you play battlefield 1942, call of duty, Need For Speed hot persuit 2 Underground 1/2 and Most Wanted.
What GF2 Ultra do you have? What motherboard?

Skalabala wrote on 2024-11-02, 03:06:

3DMARK2001 should not be used on a K6 to measure performance at all. Only use 2000.

01's VERY representative for Geforce2+ testing and better for that than 00 (and any other prior 3dMarks). Just because the numbers aren't sky high enough doesn't mean it's not a good test. It'll just brush over nature and pixel shader tests (which were extremely new at the time of 3dMark01's release as only GF3 could do them), and in the case of GF2, no EMBM test. It's also a good case for showing the compensation of the HWT&L over the K6.

My best score so far with 512Kb cache is 5450

leileilol wrote on 2024-11-02, 03:13:

Skalabala wrote on 2024-11-02, 03:06:

3DMARK2001 should not be used on a K6 to measure performance at all. Only use 2000.

01's VERY representative for Geforce2+ testing and better for that than 00 (and any other prior 3dMarks). Just because the numbers aren't sky high enough doesn't mean it's not a good test. It'll just brush over nature and pixel shader tests (which were extremely new at the time of 3dMark01's release as only GF3 could do them), and in the case of GF2, no EMBM test.

I have tested many methods. No matter what GPU you use in 2001 on a K6 the FPS in Game 1 and 2 is low.
I have gotten over 4000 in 2001 with my K6 witch means its pretty fast but its not like that. I used a FX5950 Ultra.
A Geforce 3 beats a 5950 ultra in games and 3dmark2000. 5950 is faster in NFS Most Wanted.

Skalabala wrote on 2024-11-02, 03:21:

I have tested many methods. No matter what GPU you use in 2001 on a K6 the FPS in Game 1 and 2 is low. I have gotten over 4000 i […]
Show full quote

leileilol wrote on 2024-11-02, 03:13:

Skalabala wrote on 2024-11-02, 03:06:

3DMARK2001 should not be used on a K6 to measure performance at all. Only use 2000.

01's VERY representative for Geforce2+ testing and better for that than 00 (and any other prior 3dMarks). Just because the numbers aren't sky high enough doesn't mean it's not a good test. It'll just brush over nature and pixel shader tests (which were extremely new at the time of 3dMark01's release as only GF3 could do them), and in the case of GF2, no EMBM test.

I have tested many methods. No matter what GPU you use in 2001 on a K6 the FPS in Game 1 and 2 is low.
I have gotten over 4000 in 2001 with my K6 witch means its pretty fast but its not like that. I used a FX5950 Ultra.
A Geforce 3 beats a 5950 ultra in games and 3dmark2000. 5950 is faster in NFS Most Wanted.

You know that I know but….
Of course games are more important than 3dMark but both can be influenced by drivers, both sides (too new, too old).
Interesting part: only nfsmw on k6 “responds” to 5950u.
Can you show numbers? Which drivers?
Do you have experience with ATI cards?

leileilol wrote on 2024-11-02, 03:13:

01's VERY representative for Geforce2+ testing and better for that than 00 (and any other prior 3dMarks). Just because the numbers aren't sky high enough doesn't mean it's not a good test. It'll just brush over nature and pixel shader tests (which were extremely new at the time of 3dMark01's release as only GF3 could do them), and in the case of GF2, no EMBM test. It's also a good case for showing the compensation of the HWT&L over the K6.

i have a solid belief that neither nvidia nor ati cards can work well with k6, the only thing that can save it is 3dfx.
of course, 3dfx won't run some newer games that geforce and radeon can, but those games weren't developed with k6 in mind, either.

noshutdown wrote on 2024-11-02, 13:51:

i have a solid belief that neither nvidia nor ati cards can work well with k6, the only thing that can save it is 3dfx.
of course, 3dfx won't run some newer games that geforce and radeon can, but those games weren't developed with k6 in mind, either.

Geforce2/3 and ATi Rage128 Pro works well for me @ K6-2+/3+. Some should say what driver Radeon 7 8 9 series likes for AMD K6 build, they i havent got working as i like for old K6.

marxveix wrote on 2024-11-02, 16:12:

Geforce2/3 and ATi Rage128 Pro works well for me @ K6-2+/3+. Some should say what driver Radeon 7 8 9 series likes for AMD K6 build, they i havent got working as i like for old K6.

"work well" means to achieve comparable performance to the pentium2, not just to get things running.