What is the point in using so fast VGA on socket 7 platform?
K6-III+ can't fully utilize Voodoo3... let alone GF6800.

All socket 7 boards AGP implementation is very problematic and incompatible with many video cards. I suggest using Riva TNT/TNT2 or GeForce2 - chance to get them working properly is much higher.

Thank you for your suggestion.
I tested the socket7 with a lot of VGA cards without problems. The fastest was a FX5950 Ultra, several times faster than a poor TNT-2 (the most balanced card for a Super7 with a K6 PLUS is a Geforce MX 440/ Radeon 8500, again way faster than a TNT-2...)

I was hoping to find people who like to experiment on old platforms, I tought it was the right place to search....

Could the problem be related with AGP aperture size?

Mamba wrote:

Could the problem be related with AGP aperture size?

Maybe; what's it set at? If I remember right setting it >128MB and <32MB is usually a bad idea for most systems/AGP cards - 64 or 128M should be good though.

Also, any IRQ conflicts with the 6800 + anything else?

Totally out there idea: have you tried setting the system to initialize a PCI card first, and seeing if the 6800 will start up properly in Windows?

The AGP aperture size is on 64Mb if I can remember correctly.
I can't say what IRQ causes conflicts, I think the VGA is not inizialized at all due to "ERROR 12". From bios enumeration I can't see conflicts anyway(VGA uses IRQ 15 and nothing else use the same IRQ).
Just to be sure I disconnected everything but the Promise controller and the VGA, still no luck.

Maybe my V9999GE is not a real AGP native card?

It would be highly strange cause it's the same card J'aws used for his 440BX:

440BX was alot more accurate with how AGP is implemented vs any Socket 7 AGP, Intel designed AGP, and they didn't really help VIA or ALi get AGP working properly, because they wanted everyone to go to slot 1.

gotta remember this was when Intel was getting away with blackmailing the press, blackmailing OEM system builders, and trying to force every other x86 maker out of the market anyway it could. This was before the DOJ sat Intel down and told them to stop being a bully and play nice.

Mamba wrote:

Thank you for your suggestion. I tested the socket7 with a lot of VGA cards without problems. The fastest was a FX5950 Ultra, se […]
Show full quote

Thank you for your suggestion.
I tested the socket7 with a lot of VGA cards without problems. The fastest was a FX5950 Ultra, several times faster than a poor TNT-2 (the most balanced card for a Super7 with a K6 PLUS is a Geforce MX 440/ Radeon 8500, again way faster than a TNT-2...)

I was hoping to find people who like to experiment on old platforms, I tought it was the right place to search....

Could the problem be related with AGP aperture size?

Sure I like to experiment with old hardware but there are certain limits and passing them brings no benefit. GF 6800 for example needs at least Athlon 64 to get most performance out of it.
I've performed many tests so I can estimate the right CPU + GPU combination quite accurately.

Lets take Quake 3 Arena 1024x768:
TNT2 Ultra = 43.7 fps (AXP 2600+)
GeForce2 GTS = 126.7 (AXP 2600+)
GeForce4 MX 460 = 299.4 (Core2 Duo @ 3.9)
Radeon 8500 = 320.1 (Core2 Duo @ 3.9)
GeForce FX 5800 Ultra = 630.4 (Core2 Duo @ 3.9)

And K6-III+ 577 + Voodoo3 3000 = 42.4 fps
Even GF2 MX is an overkill for any K6. 😊

As for the GF6800 problem - NV40 officially doesn't support AGP 2x. I would stick with FX 5900 if you really want the best.

havli wrote:

Sure I like to experiment with old hardware but there are certain limits and passing them brings no benefit. GF 6800 for example […]
Show full quote

Mamba wrote:

Thank you for your suggestion. I tested the socket7 with a lot of VGA cards without problems. The fastest was a FX5950 Ultra, se […]
Show full quote

Thank you for your suggestion.
I tested the socket7 with a lot of VGA cards without problems. The fastest was a FX5950 Ultra, several times faster than a poor TNT-2 (the most balanced card for a Super7 with a K6 PLUS is a Geforce MX 440/ Radeon 8500, again way faster than a TNT-2...)

I was hoping to find people who like to experiment on old platforms, I tought it was the right place to search....

Could the problem be related with AGP aperture size?

Sure I like to experiment with old hardware but there are certain limits and passing them brings no benefit. GF 6800 for example needs at least Athlon 64 to get most performance out of it.
I've performed many tests so I can estimate the right CPU + GPU combination quite accurately.

Lets take Quake 3 Arena 1024x768:
TNT2 Ultra = 43.7 fps (AXP 2600+)
GeForce2 GTS = 126.7 (AXP 2600+)
GeForce4 MX 460 = 299.4 (Core2 Duo @ 3.9)
Radeon 8500 = 320.1 (Core2 Duo @ 3.9)
GeForce FX 5800 Ultra = 630.4 (Core2 Duo @ 3.9)

And K6-III+ 577 + Voodoo3 3000 = 42.4 fps
Even GF2 MX is an overkill for any K6. 😊

As for the GF6800 problem - NV40 officially doesn't support AGP 2x. I would stick with FX 5900 if you really want the best.

I fail to see from your argument why a mere Geforce-2MX is overkill for a K6-III+.
And again, NV40 is AGP native and it supports AGP 2X.
The fact that it has not been functionally implemented is not due to compatibility but marketing.

Here is the link on the discussion of a 440BX (AGP 2X) with 6800:

Would this mod to this Geforce 6800 from AGP 1.5v to 3.3v kill it?

candle_86 wrote:

440BX was alot more accurate with how AGP is implemented vs any Socket 7 AGP, Intel designed AGP, and they didn't really help VIA or ALi get AGP working properly, because they wanted everyone to go to slot 1.

gotta remember this was when Intel was getting away with blackmailing the press, blackmailing OEM system builders, and trying to force every other x86 maker out of the market anyway it could. This was before the DOJ sat Intel down and told them to stop being a bully and play nice.

I really hope is not the case but I am afraid of that.
Still, I want to give it a shot woth your help, if you want. I did the mod in the right way, and it was the worst/more dangerous part.

Was card tested in another PC? Seen bad cards which wont allow install drivers...

DX version? When i tested recently 1st gen 3D cards, i found that Nvidia TNT2 card won't work in W98 when DX7 is installed. I had to use DX8.1.

Mamba wrote:

I fail to see from your argument why a mere Geforce-2MX is overkill for a K6-III+. And again, NV40 is AGP native and it supports […]
Show full quote

I fail to see from your argument why a mere Geforce-2MX is overkill for a K6-III+.
And again, NV40 is AGP native and it supports AGP 2X.
The fact that it has not been functionally implemented is not due to compatibility but marketing.

Here is the link on the discussion of a 440BX (AGP 2X) with 6800:

Would this mod to this Geforce 6800 from AGP 1.5v to 3.3v kill it?

It is overkill - let me put it this way:
K6-III+ 577 can feed the video card just fast enough to produce ~42 fps. So no matter the VGA used, This PC only can render 42 fps, not faster. Therefore it is pointless to install faster VGA because CPU is the bottleneck here. When using very high resolution and AA/AF then better VGA may prove useful... but I can guarantee you wont see a performance benefit when upgrading FX 5900 -> 6800. Btw - GeForce FX anisotropic filtering quality is much better than GF6/7, so you will gain no performance and actually decrease image quality (when using AF).

NV40 is native AGP 4/8x (1.5V), not AGP 2x. Just like Radeon 9800 and X800/850 are AGP 4/8x parts.
Running NV40 in 3.3V AGP board might actually kill both MB and the VGA after some time.

DX version is also important, as vlask pointed out - newer driver refuse to work correctly when old DX is installed. Anyway this is not the case, imho - outdated DX would "only" kill D3D and OGL functionality, desktop should be still working fine.

vlask wrote:

When i tested recently 1st gen 3D cards, i found that Nvidia TNT2 card won't work in W98 when DX7 is installed. I had to use DX8.1.

Driver version? I have never seen this happen even with newer cards. I usually use DirectX 7 with GeForce FX!

NV40 is native AGP 4/8x (1.5V), not AGP 2x. Just like Radeon 9800 and X800/850 are AGP 4/8x parts.
Running NV40 in 3.3V AGP board might actually kill both MB and the VGA after some time.

Is not like that, maybe you are not aware of the differences in bridged AGP cards and native AGP ones.
Please read the link. Thank you anyway, help if you can.

I did read the link and it says nothing about long term stability or potencial damage after days/weeks/months of operation.

I am aware of difference between native and bridged AGP. There is no connection between native/bridged AGP and signalling voltage. The fact that modded NV40 works with some AGP 2x boards doesn't change the fact it was designed as a AGP 4/8x only chip. Just like Voodoo3 modified to work in AGP 4x boards - I've seen some of them with second notch cut, so they fit AGP 4/8x boards and works when voltage is boosted a bit in BIOS.

Both cases are operating outside designed conditions and although it might work for some time, risk of damage to both MB and VGA is quite high.

Once again - there are some "native AGP" GPUs which are AGP 4/8x (1.5V) only - R420, R481, NV40. And of course all bridged cards, since HSI and Rialto are both AGP 1.5V only.
Just as there are plenty of 3.3V AGP 2x chips - Banshee, Voodoo3, Riva 128, Riva TNT, Virge GX2, Savage 3D, Rage Pro, Rage XL, Permedia 2, etc.

There is no such thing as "native AGP" which will allow you to run all AGP video cards in all boards.

havli wrote:

I did read the link and it says nothing about long term stability or potencial damage after days/weeks/months of operation. […]
Show full quote

I did read the link and it says nothing about long term stability or potencial damage after days/weeks/months of operation.

I am aware of difference between native and bridged AGP. There is no connection between native/bridged AGP and signalling voltage. The fact that modded NV40 works with some AGP 2x boards doesn't change the fact it was designed as a AGP 4/8x only chip. Just like Voodoo3 modified to work in AGP 4x boards - I've seen some of them with second notch cut, so they fit AGP 4/8x boards and works when voltage is boosted a bit in BIOS.

Both cases are operating outside designed conditions and although it might work for some time, risk of damage to both MB and VGA is quite high.

Once again - there are some "native AGP" GPUs which are AGP 4/8x (1.5V) only - R420, R481, NV40. And of course all bridged cards, since HSI and Rialto are both AGP 1.5V only.
Just as there are plenty of 3.3V AGP 2x chips - Banshee, Voodoo3, Riva 128, Riva TNT, Virge GX2, Savage 3D, Rage Pro, Rage XL, Permedia 2, etc.

There is no such thing as "native AGP" which will allow you to run all AGP video cards in all boards.

well not native, but universal AGP cards do exist

candle_86 wrote:

well not native, but universal AGP cards do exist

+1. GeForce 2/3/4/FX fit into this. Some of the older Radeon 7/8/9 cards as well. There's also "universal AGP slots" (like on Intel i815) which are meant to work with both 3.3V and 1.5V (they won't support .8V/AGP 8x but who cares about that). 😀

Did someone actually make a .8V AGP card? Didn't all 8x cards operate at 1.5V anyways?

alexanrs wrote:

Did someone actually make a .8V AGP card? Didn't all 8x cards operate at 1.5V anyways?

AGP 8x requires .8V signalling, but there is no keying for .8V - all AGP 8x cards are keyed for 1.5V and (afaik) will support 1.5V signaling (AGP 4x). For 8x mode, however, they're using .8V signalling. There's also universally keyed cards that will only support AGP 4x at max (e.g. first-gen Matrox Parhelia). The performance gains for 8x are also usually non-existent too - I'm sure if you were trying to run a fairly modern game (e.g. Skyrim) on a fairly recent AGP card (e.g. HD 3850) switching it between 8x and 4x could have some more noticeable impact.

For more:
http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php … d=3&id=604&pg=1 (this has 3 parts)

Mamba wrote:

...
Some suggestions?

Okay, this was like 2 years ago - which feels like an eternity. But here are some facts I remember from back then, if it helps:

1) I used a very late 440BX board - can't remember which one as I have too many. The board also had a very late BIOS. And the variant I used for the GPU was a 6800 GT that was clockable to a 6800 Ultra. This was running a Tualatin setup and was very stable over several weeks of testing. The only time it was unstable, and very rarely, was when the AGP bus was overclocked and out of spec.

2) I used an early 440BX board for testing too, but I had to get the latest BIOS for the card to POST. Which is where I drew the line and didn't look at older Super Socket 7 systems for testing. Although there maybe really up to date BIOSes for those systems.

3) Can't rememeber which DirectX version I was testing - I was messing around with loads, but was probably DX9b running on Win98 SE.

4) The NV driver version is posted in that screenshot within the link you provided - 81.98

5) I was messing with Riva Tuner - can't remember what I was testing there.

6) I was messing with BIOS settings - can't remember what.

7) I was testing 3rd party AGP/ GART drivers - can't remember if that made any difference.

8.) I was testing chipset drivers - can't remember if they made any difference.

So, I managed to get it work, but there seemed very little interest at the time, so I didn't document that much, but it did work, and was stable with the right board.

Back then, my philosophy for builds was CPU limited builds, which transitioned to a preference for GPU limited builds. But now, my builds usually focus on flexibility both ways, where they can be both CPU and GPU limited.

Hope this helps as most of that gear is packed away in 'junk boxes' at the moment, and if I get the time, I may revisit this. My main focus for experimenting lies currently with Pentium 4 ISA systems and Socket 7 Turbo-switched systems...

this idea is just insane and absolutely a way of getting yourself into trouble for no good, a complete waste of the 6800.
i used a gf2ultra with k6-3+ and i knew its a waste. the card can score over 6300 3dmark01 pts with faster cpus, and with the k6-3+ it scored only 1550pts. that is to say, the k6-3+ only made use of 1/4 the card's performance.
things can get even worse in quake3: the card scored about 50fps in quake3 with faster cpus(default "high quality" setting), but only 6.5fps with the k6-3+, phew.