northernosprey02 wrote:

And I am wondering about video card compatibility on 440BX. When I install Matrox G400 from HP Vectra VL600 to my ASUS P2B-F, it won't boot. What is the problem.

Are you running an overclocked bus speed? If it's running 133FSB, then the AGP slot is at 89MHz. It's easy to forget that if you've had it set that way for a long time. Geforce 2-4 cards (maybe 5) usually didn't care but Matrox probably doesn't like it.
If you're on 100FSB, then make sure you have the AGP ratio set right. It should be 2/3, not 1/1. I don't know if there's a jumper for that but I think there is.

m1919 wrote:

northernosprey02 wrote:

And I am wondering about video card compatibility on 440BX. When I install Matrox G400 from HP Vectra VL600 to my ASUS P2B-F, it won't boot. What is the problem.

I think FX5200 was suck when installed on old hardware, DX9 on PII/PIII was not sense for me.

The FX5200 sucks on any hardware. The only FX cards that were half-way decent were the 5900 Ultra and 5950 Ultra.

I saw the FX5200 on my cousin computer, I have testing the CS:S it work decent. But when in the time I am not understand.

shamino wrote:

I think the TI4200 (and it's bigger brothers) is a 3.3v guzzler. I ruined a more modern 550W power supply with that card. Like many modern PSUs, it was strong on 12V but weak on 3.3V. An older board with the TI4200 killed the 3.3V rail after a couple weeks of use. That's the only system that ever ruined one of those power supplies, I've used them successfully on many newer machines.

How much amps did that PSU exactly have on 3.3V?

northernosprey02 wrote:

I saw the FX5200 on my cousin computer, I have testing the CS:S it work decent. But when in the time I am not understand.

5200 Ultra is not a bad card for D3D8 and older. It is more efficient at anisotropic and antialiasing than NV2x cards. It is usually speed competitive with GF3 but can run with GF4 if you use those features because NV2x takes a big hit with AA and AF.

The non Ultras and especially the 64bit editions are awful. TNT2 speed. But I suppose I would rather have a 64bit 5200 than a TNT2 🤣

Of course these cards have utterly useless D3D9 too that can be fun to try.

m1919 wrote:

northernosprey02 wrote:

And I am wondering about video card compatibility on 440BX. When I install Matrox G400 from HP Vectra VL600 to my ASUS P2B-F, it won't boot. What is the problem.

I think FX5200 was suck when installed on old hardware, DX9 on PII/PIII was not sense for me.

The FX5200 sucks on any hardware. The only FX cards that were half-way decent were the 5900 Ultra and 5950 Ultra.

FX5200 is horrible when you try to use it's DX9 features, but as a DX8 card it isn't nearly as bad. For DX8, it probably performs comparable to a GeForce3 ti200.

Sliderider it is always a good idea to read the thread you're posting into. 🤣 Look at my post right before yours.

swaaye wrote:

Sliderider it is always a good idea to read the thread you're posting into. 🤣 Look at my post right before yours.

I start reading threads at the first new post since I last read it.

d1stortion wrote:

shamino wrote:

I think the TI4200 (and it's bigger brothers) is a 3.3v guzzler. I ruined a more modern 550W power supply with that card. Like many modern PSUs, it was strong on 12V but weak on 3.3V. An older board with the TI4200 killed the 3.3V rail after a couple weeks of use. That's the only system that ever ruined one of those power supplies, I've used them successfully on many newer machines.

How much amps did that PSU exactly have on 3.3V?

It was an AcBel API4FS06.
3.3v 22A
5V 26A
12V 17A, 16A, 8A
-12V 1A
5Vsb 3A
* 160W max combined on 3.3v+5v - that's maybe the provision that wasn't good enough, but 3.3 is where the failure occurred. 3.3 and 5v are regulated separately, that wasn't the issue.

The system was a late nForce2 with a bunch of stuff on it besides the TI4200. A lighter slot-1 BX machine might get by with it, but this PSU is really a mismatch for that era and I wouldn't try that combo again.
In occasional bench testing of some other old boards, I always noticed that when the TI4200 was involved, my 3.3V readings were sagging a bit. That was really what convinced me the card eats 3.3v.

I don't think the TI4xxx require a huge power supply, but I think they need one with a robust 3.3v rail. That machine ran well on an older 300W Fortron. I can't remember if the 3.3V sagged any, but it didn't die. Yet that Fortron would have no hope of running my modern system, which the AcBel handles easily. Horses for courses.

Yeah if you were running a higher Athlon XP that probably contributed a lot, those things consume twice the power of a PIII. It's a dilemma for sure, being that modern PSUs are normally less likely to fail, but can cause trouble with higher-spec vintage machines due to the different loads. Was thinking to get a Ti4600 for my BX but probably not a great idea with my 3.3v 24A, 5v 16A, measly max. 120W on both of those and 430W total PSU 😉

swaaye wrote:

I've found with BX you need to use driver 56.64 or older for stability. Sorry this didn't come to mind sooner 🤣

You are right,with 61.76 and newer they are really unstable on BX chipset, 61.76 driver throwed some artifacts in 3Dmark99 while 56.64 and older didn't

swaaye wrote:

I've also found that going beyond DirectX 7.0a on 9x causes a problem with NVIDIA drivers. You can start a 3D app once but if you quit and try to start it again (or another 3D app), there is some sort of kernel meltdown that kills the OS. I tried a slew of NV cards and old/new drivers. All is peachy until you move past DX7A.

In my testing with GeForce4 MX440-SE and Soyo 6BA+ IV i didn't have any sort of trouble updating DirectX 6.1 to 9.0c. I even used some DirectX9 games (GTA Vice City,NFS Underground 2) with various drivers and no sort of kernel meltdown crashed the OS

PowerPie5000 wrote:

Is the Soyo 6BA+ III one of the later BX boards? They probably fixed the AGP power issues with that one.

Yes, it is one of the later BX boards, it supports Coppermine cpus with slocket adapter and also supports power hungry cards (Geforce 4 Ti,Voodoo 3), It is one of the best 440BX mobos, some of its features are:
-Support for coppermine CPUs
-SB-Link connector for PCI cards and DOS games
-5 PCI and 2 ISA slots
-4 DIMM slots
-Support for power hungry AGP cards

Here are my test results with Geforce 4 MX440-SE and 440BX board

Between 45.23 and 56.64 there is the sweetspot for 440BX and Win98SE+nVidia cards

Though i would like to avoid 56.64 because when you uninstall it the new menu is gone

This is how it should look normally

If you happen to uninstall this driver and your new menu is gone this is the commandline to get it back

regsvr32.exe /i shdoc401.dll

sebaz_ri wrote:

Yes, it is one of the later BX boards, it supports Coppermine cpus with slocket adapter and also supports power hungry cards (Ge […]
Show full quote

PowerPie5000 wrote:

Is the Soyo 6BA+ III one of the later BX boards? They probably fixed the AGP power issues with that one.

Yes, it is one of the later BX boards, it supports Coppermine cpus with slocket adapter and also supports power hungry cards (Geforce 4 Ti,Voodoo 3), It is one of the best 440BX mobos, some of its features are:
-Support for coppermine CPUs
-SB-Link connector for PCI cards and DOS games
-5 PCI and 2 ISA slots
-4 DIMM slots
-Support for power hungry AGP cards

My Intel SE440BX-2 also has the SB-link (PC/PCI) cable which i'm currently using with my PCI Yamaha sound card 😀. Mine also supports Coppermine PIII CPU's upto 850MHz and is confirmed to work with the Powerleap PL-iP3/T adapter. Mine has 4 PCI slots and 3 dimm slots compared to the Soyo board... It still has 2 ISA slots though.

Is the Voodoo 3 really that power hungry? It runs perfectly with my SE440BX-2 and 200W Seasonic PSU (as do the Rage Fury Maxx, Matrox G400 Max, GF2 MX400 and Voodoo5 5500)... I wonder if the AGP slot on my board has been fixed/modified for power hungry cards since the release of the original SE440BX board?

I've run Geforce 2 GTS and Geforce4 Ti on SE440BX (probably Gen 2 or 3).

sebaz_ri wrote:

swaaye wrote:

I've also found that going beyond DirectX 7.0a on 9x causes a problem with NVIDIA drivers. You can start a 3D app once but if you quit and try to start it again (or another 3D app), there is some sort of kernel meltdown that kills the OS. I tried a slew of NV cards and old/new drivers. All is peachy until you move past DX7A.

In my testing with GeForce4 MX440-SE and Soyo 6BA+ IV i didn't have any sort of trouble updating DirectX 6.1 to 9.0c. I even used some DirectX9 games (GTA Vice City,NFS Underground 2) with various drivers and no sort of kernel meltdown crashed the OS

I forgot that it is a combination of NVIDIA, DirectX 7.1 or later, and some sound cards such as Audigy2 and Vortex2. I found that I could only run a 3D app one time per boot. After that the OS would freeze.

I tried a number of Geforce generations, driver 28.32 and newer, Win98SE and Me, and KT333 and nForce2. Moving to Radeon or Voodoo5, or staying with DirectX 7.0a or older, solved the problem.

I did all this because I had been trying to play Homeworld on 98SE and had always assumed DirectX 9c was perfectly backwards compatible and stable. I think I eliminated other variables. No 3rd party mouse drivers or Daemon Tools for example.

swaaye wrote:

I've run Geforce 2 GTS and Geforce4 Ti on SE440BX (probably Gen 2 or 3).

I know there was an SE440BX-3, but i think it was an 'unofficial' Dell modified version used in their old XPS systems. Intel released and sold the SE440BX and the SE440BX-2 (which i have).

I think i'll have no issues running a power hungry AGP card then... Well apart from the PSU being only 200W, but i have a spare 300W PSU i could use 😀.

ASUS P2L97 works fine.

ATI Rage IIC 4MB runs fine.
S3 Trio 3D/2X onboard (not integrated on the motherboard) runs fine.
S3 Trio 64V+ runs very fine.

My Intel SE440BX-2 board is currently running an Asus Geforce 4 MX440 with no issues (using the latest Win98 drivers and DX 9.0c)... It also works fine with a 64Mb Hercules Geforce 2 Pro too. I tried a Gainward Geforce 3 but it wouldn't boot, but i suspect it's down to a tiny resistor that had snapped off.

Here's a list of AGP graphics cards that are confirmed working with my 440BX board:

-16Mb 3dfx Voodoo3 3000.
-32Mb Matrox Millenium G400 Max.
-32Mb Inno3D Geforce 2 MX400 (crap image quality!).
-64Mb ATI Rage Fury Maxx.
-64Mb Hercules 3D Prophet II GTS Pro (Geforce 2 Pro with good 2D/3D image quality).
-64Mb Inno3D Geforce 4 MX440-SE (crap image quality and seemed slower than my Geforce 2 Pro).
-64Mb Asus Geforce 4 MX440 (good 2D/3D image quality).
-64Mb 3dfx Voodoo5 5500.

All the above cards run fine with a 200W Seasonic PSU 😀. I might have missed one or two cards, but can't quite remember.

have anyone tried a Viper II z200 (savage 2000) with the 440BX?

I remember this card used to work fine with my P3V133 back in the day, but now it just doesn't work at all with my p2b.

My Viper Z200 works with my Abit BF6 440BX. It is indeed picky though and would not boot on a Super 7 board I tried.

And as I recall whenever I quit a 3D game, GUI acceleration is dead and the GUI is extremely slow. On 440BX.

My 440LX can't handle a Savage4 LT AGP. Graphical corruption and driver freezes out the wazoo.

Info on the net suggests that the major cause of troubles on 1.0 was poor supply of 3.3v through the board, and that one fix was to hook directly to the 3.3v of the PSU. Perhaps running a jumper wire from the 3.3v pin of the ATX connector to the respective pin(s) of the AGP connector would solve this. I'm going to have to try this on my P6DBE.