Drivers which are not aware of AGP-to-PCI-E bridge probably won't work.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
7x drivers the earlier one, are probably the best bet, nothing lower than 6x drivers are going to work as serpent rider said those are the earlyest ones that are agp/pci-e bridge aware. I was able to get 2001se to run on the card and finish but then something happened and on the 1st test 2001se car chase it started humming and then the fan would shut off and the video card would crash, so I think my card is bad. unlike the 6x series though the 7x series do not have lines in the INF for the card, Easyest way is to just copy those 2 lines from the 6x inf and paste them into the 7x.
wrote:7x drivers the earlier one, are probably the best bet, nothing lower than 6x drivers are going to work as serpent rider said those are the earlyest ones that are agp/pci-e bridge aware. I was able to get 2001se to run on the card and finish but then something happened and on the 1st test 2001se car chase it started humming and then the fan would shut off and the video card would crash, so I think my card is bad. unlike the 6x series though the 7x series do not have lines in the INF for the card, Easyest way is to just copy those 2 lines from the 6x inf and paste them into the 7x.
Yeah the 71.84 drivers is what I wanted to test when I found out my install is belly up. According to your tests it should be the best probably, wanted to confirm it on all the games I have tested previously though. There could also be an issue with my machine if the same tests you did will fail for me, you never know. We will see after I find the time to reinstall everything 😒
only real difference if there is would be, I was using 915 chipest with proper chipset driver support for win 98
So I found my PCX 5750 and PCX 5900. Can't locate the PCX 5950 and now I'm having serious doubts to its whereabouts... Hmm. I tried going back to my eBay buying history to give me a clue, but this only goes back to 2017 and nothing further.
In the meantime, here are pics of the NV35 based PCX 5900:
I wonder what drivers I could use and how much it could overclock...
Current thinking is modded 71.84 drivers updated with the strings from 6x series so it detects the card, but maybe your card will run on 6x series, but the fx1300 did not like 6x series drivers from what we gathered even though they worked we had issues launching games. I am curious to see how its compatibility is compared to the fx1300.
wrote:Current thinking is modded 71.84 drivers updated with the strings from 6x series so it detects the card, but maybe your card will run on 6x series, but the fx1300 did not like 6x series drivers from what we gathered even though they worked we had issues launching games. I am curious to see how its compatibility is compared to the fx1300.
Checked and the 6x series drivers officially support Win98 for the PCX 5900. I'm curious as well, especially being NV35 based. I've also found my X58 and X79 boards, but won't be able to test until I get my other DOS projects out of the way. This card is pencilled in for a future WIP build.
Did anyone get some where with testing the FX 1300 / PCX 5900?
My Winfast card Bought these (retro) hardware today came with 60.86 drivers (4.14.10.6086)
cyclone3d wrote on 2019-09-06, 14:55:wrote:No such thing as retro PCI-E.
So you wouldn't consider Geforce FX cards as retro?
General misconception is that "Retro" means old, when, well it's quite the opposite in fact.
I think only retro graphic cards were those discussed in one thread here on VOGONS (ISA, OAK chipset based).
PS: And PCI-E is not vintage either. PCI-E 1.0 was introduced in 2004, so 4 more years...
New items (October/November 2022) -> My Items for Sale
Early PCI-E are already considered vintage. Some are looking for cards like GeForce 6800 or Radeon X800 for universal Win9x/XP machine.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
general consensus with these cards based on this thread and research was that becasue you cannot use 40.xx drivers with them than they are not considered viable for retro gaming. A few people think 40.xx drivers are even too new when it comes to direct3d compatibility on 9x. As Nvidia started messing up support after 45.xx Which is the driver version a lot of people like when using geforce4 cards on 98.
However if 60.xx-70.xx drivers on 98 work just fine for the games you want to play than they could be solid cards.
BTW FX1300 could be potentially softmodded to PCX5900 via RivaTuner, if drivers are old enough. Although, from my experience with Quadro series cards, it's probably doesn't matter. At least if minor FPS differences don't bother you.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
I'll see how get on in putting them in a X58 rig. Perhaps the AGP bridge driver part could be backported to older drivers.
Sorry for bringing up this old thread, but I was looking for the PCX 5950 specifically, which I need for a rather special build (replicating an old configuration used by Microsoft during early Windows Vista / Longhorn development).
Alternatively, I'm looking for a way to mod a Quadro FX 1300, which I can obtain with relative ease, to appear as a PCX 5950 to the OS and driver. Not so much for getting 5950 clocks, but rather what I need is for Windows and the driver to see a 5950 PCI ID. (NVStrap is not an option, unfortunately.)
j^aws, by any chance, have you managed to find your elusive 5950?
Googulator wrote on 2021-11-15, 17:47:j^aws, by any chance, have you managed to find your elusive 5950?
Not quite. I found another PCX 5900 in a random box though - this one from Asus rather than Gigabyte.
Do you remember the PCX 5950 sporting a different, much larger cooler than the 5900s?
The AGP FX 5950 apparently came with a dual-slot cooler very similar to the FX 5800 (some single-slot designs exist, but they all have crazy dual or even triple fan coolers), suggesting that the FX 5900 cooler was found inadequate when running at the 5950's clocks. By contrast, all supposed PCX 5950 pictures show a 5900-style cooler. This leads me to conclude that those early samples were either PCX 5900 or Quadro FX 1300 units, misidentified as PCX 5950.
Leadtek apparently planned a 256MB GDDR3 version of their PCX 5900 card (Leadtek PCBs have a space for marking 128MB vs 256MB RAM), but it seems likely that that's all it was, a 256MB 5900, running at normal 5900 clocks (& it seems no cards were ever released with this spec).
So, if it's indeed a proper PCX 5950, it should come with a larger cooler.
Found this schematic for the PCX59xx cards: https://elektrotanya.com/gigabyte_gv-nx59128d … f/download.html
On the first page, there is a variant listing, containing 2 variants of the 5900 (with vs without VIVO), and 2 variants of the FX 1300 (generic vs Dell), plus a "base level generic" variant. No sign of a GDDR3 or 5950 variant.
PCX 5950 = PCX 5900/FX 1300. Additional "50" sometimes mentioned in style of another PCX card - 5750.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
Googulator wrote on 2021-11-19, 09:56:Do you remember the PCX 5950 sporting a different, much larger cooler than the 5900s? […]
Do you remember the PCX 5950 sporting a different, much larger cooler than the 5900s?
The AGP FX 5950 apparently came with a dual-slot cooler very similar to the FX 5800 (some single-slot designs exist, but they all have crazy dual or even triple fan coolers), suggesting that the FX 5900 cooler was found inadequate when running at the 5950's clocks. By contrast, all supposed PCX 5950 pictures show a 5900-style cooler. This leads me to conclude that those early samples were either PCX 5900 or Quadro FX 1300 units, misidentified as PCX 5950.
Leadtek apparently planned a 256MB GDDR3 version of their PCX 5900 card (Leadtek PCBs have a space for marking 128MB vs 256MB RAM), but it seems likely that that's all it was, a 256MB 5900, running at normal 5900 clocks (& it seems no cards were ever released with this spec).
So, if it's indeed a proper PCX 5950, it should come with a larger cooler.
When I found the ASUS PCX 5900, the cooler looked bigger, mainly due to having heatsinks on the memory modules. Didn't take them off to check memory speeds compared to the Gigabyte PCX 5900 though.
My Quadro FX1300 arrived today, allowing for some experimentation and some examination.
I also did some analysis of that schematic - Page 4 describes straps for the BR02 chip. This reveals that the PCI ID isn't determined by the GPU like on normal NVIDIA PCIE or AGP cards, but rather by the BR02.
The way strapping works, device IDs 00F0..00F7 are reserved for AGP cards with a PCIE-native GPU, while IDs 00F8..00FF are for PCIE cards with AGP-native GPUs. This latter range covers:
And with that, the range is exhausted.
This is further corroborated by this article (in Russian) about the Albatron ATOP AGP to PCIE adapter, built around the BR02 chip: https://overclockers.ru/hardnews/show/19471/A … etsya_v_Yaponii
The 2nd image shows strapping jumpers matches the values expected based on the leaked PCX 5900 schematic. The jumper settings corresponding to a 0x00F8 or 0x00FD device ID aren't shown, but all the others match.
This leaves no ID to be filled by a GeForce PCX 5950 built around the same BR02 bridge. In particular, the claim of the PCX 5950 having a device ID of 0x0333 is clearly unsubstantiated; BR02 simply cannot pass through a device ID that high. So, either PCX 5950 never actually existed, or any samples that were produced had 0x00FB as their device ID, same as the PCX 5900.
In light of this, and the fact that no photo of an alleged PCX 5950 with a proper 5950-sized cooler has ever surfaced, I think it's a safe bet that if any 256MB GDDR3 cards were indeed built, they would've been just that, DDR3 PCX 5900s, not 5950 by any standard.
