Hoping wrote on 2024-06-22, 20:45:

On the other hand, I already received the Quadro K620 and has exceeded my expectations at the moment with 20539 points in 3DMark […]
Show full quote

On the other hand, I already received the Quadro K620 and has exceeded my expectations at the moment with 20539 points in 3DMark 2006 and a minimum of 70 fps and a maximum of 232 fps in FEAR with a resolution of 1280x1024 and the entire configuration to the maximum, AA X4, Aniso X16.
I still want to try more things with the drivers since I used a driver that I found on the Internet that did not even had the HDMI audio driver.
Temperatures are quite good at the moment with a maximum of 67 degrees celsius with the case closed.
Thank you very much to @Ozzunej for the suggestion of the K620.
Edit: I paid 30€ shiping included for the K620, by far, more reasonable than the prices of the 750.

I downloaded 3DMark 06 as I was curious how the Quadro K620 measures up to the 750Ti.
On an i7-3770, 3.47Gb RAM, 1Tb SSHD and a 750Ti it scored 26010 3DMarks. SM2.0 Score: 10210 HDR/SM3.0 Score 12268.
Desktop screen resolution was set to 1280x1024 but I dont know what it tests at.

The numbers are higher as expected but I know nothing about benchmarks so what does that mean in practical terms?

I paid £35 delivered for my 750Ti.

That the 750i is higher than the K620 was to expect, in my case, prices apart, the 750i is also discarded because almost all the low profile occupy two slots and the combination of motherboard and case that I am using leaves out leave to use a graphic card that needs two slots. I lack the Shield IO because the board is of a lot of broken boards and we already know that these things usually miss in these lots, and I will not pay much money for a metal spit without which the computer can work perfectly.

Another game that I always use as a performance test is Oblivion, with everything to the maximum and in 1920x1080, which is not my target resolution for XP, even in exterior areas the K620 does not lower the 60 fps, which is very good in my opinion.
Today I have tried 3DMark2006 and F.E.A.R on several older computers, although some with Windows 7 32, which have much more modern graphic cards than the rest of the computer and the one that most approached the K620 in 3DMark2006 was a Q6600 with a 760, But even so, it was quite far away with only 13244 points, but in F.E.A.R the Q6600+GTX760 exceeds the K620 with a minimum of 95 fps and a maximum of 512 fps with everything to the maximum, so F.E.A.R seems to rely more on the GPU than on the CPU.
This also tells me that the 3DMark score depends a lot on the rest of the computer, not only on the graphics card, so it is not totally useful to compare graphic cards, rather to compare computers.
E450 + HD 6470m 3577 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 20-71 FPS. Windows 7 32.
GX280 Pentium 4 630 + GeForce 8800GT G92 4669 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 32-179; Windows XP.
Optiplex 740 ATHLON 64 X2 5600+ R7 260x 10548 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 67-308; Windows 7 32.
Optiplex 745 CORE 2 E 6700 + HD 6850 11897 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 73-452; Windows XP.
Asrock 4Core1600P35 WIFI+ CORE 2 Q6600 + GTX 760 13244 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 95-512; Windows 7 32
In F.E.A.R everything was maxed out in all the computers at 1280x1024 resolution except in the case of the E450 that only allowed to reach 1280x720, maybe because of the laptop screen maximum resolution of 1600x900.

Hoping wrote on 2024-06-23, 16:26:

That the 750i is higher than the K620 was to expect, in my case, prices apart, the 750i is also discarded because almost all the […]
Show full quote

That the 750i is higher than the K620 was to expect, in my case, prices apart, the 750i is also discarded because almost all the low profile occupy two slots and the combination of motherboard and case that I am using leaves out leave to use a graphic card that needs two slots. I lack the Shield IO because the board is of a lot of broken boards and we already know that these things usually miss in these lots, and I will not pay much money for a metal spit without which the computer can work perfectly.

Another game that I always use as a performance test is Oblivion, with everything to the maximum and in 1920x1080, which is not my target resolution for XP, even in exterior areas the K620 does not lower the 60 fps, which is very good in my opinion.
Today I have tried 3DMark2006 and F.E.A.R on several older computers, although some with Windows 7 32, which have much more modern graphic cards than the rest of the computer and the one that most approached the K620 in 3DMark2006 was a Q6600 with a 760, But even so, it was quite far away with only 13244 points, but in F.E.A.R the Q6600+GTX760 exceeds the K620 with a minimum of 95 fps and a maximum of 512 fps with everything to the maximum, so F.E.A.R seems to rely more on the GPU than on the CPU.
This also tells me that the 3DMark score depends a lot on the rest of the computer, not only on the graphics card, so it is not totally useful to compare graphic cards, rather to compare computers.
E450 + HD 6470m 3577 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 20-71 FPS. Windows 7 32.
GX280 Pentium 4 630 + GeForce 8800GT G92 4669 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 32-179; Windows XP.
Optiplex 740 ATHLON 64 X2 5600+ R7 260x 10548 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 67-308; Windows 7 32.
Optiplex 745 CORE 2 E 6700 + HD 6850 11897 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 73-452; Windows XP.
Asrock 4Core1600P35 WIFI+ CORE 2 Q6600 + GTX 760 13244 3DMARKS; F.E.A.R 95-512; Windows 7 32
In F.E.A.R everything was maxed out in all the computers at 1280x1024 resolution except in the case of the E450 that only allowed to reach 1280x720, maybe because of the laptop screen maximum resolution of 1600x900.

Yes but is it a lot?
20593 vs 26010 means nothing to me at all because I dont usually run benchmarks. I just play the games I play and they either work ok or they dont.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-06-24, 03:04:

Yes but is it a lot?
20593 vs 26010 means nothing to me at all because I dont usually run benchmarks. I just play the games I play and they either work ok or they dont.

I do something similar, if a game does not work as I expect on a computer, I take another more or less powerful, with another OS and that's it, I do not like to spend a lot of time to solve problems that are solved with another computer or different OS.
Well, I did those tests to compare, all the computers I used are from the XP era, but they have much more modern graphics cards.
Your i7 3770 +750ti doubles a Q6600 + 760, as you can tell from the tests I did the 3DMark test is not only dependent on the graphics card, it's more global.
In my humble opinion, the difference between the 750ti and the K620 in 3DMark does not reflect the real theoretical and price difference, but, price, forget about it because there are many factors that are not worth evaluating in terms of price.
I think there will be more of a difference in gaming, and it's clear that your computer should be able to run any DX8/9 game at full 1080p at least without a problem.
Edit.
Another thing I forgot; As I have already said, in the case of my computer, I cannot use a graphics card that occupies two slots because the box is very tight for everything, as you can see in the last photograph, and I would also be worried about the consumption with a power supply with a maximum of 14A on the 12V line, that is, 14*12=168W in optimal conditions, if we take into account the almost 90W consumed by the Xeon that I used during a Prime95 session and add the maximum 60W of a 750ti I think would be a lot for my PSU, while the K620's 45W max gives a little more headroom.
It was already mentioned that the issue of consumption could be a limiting factor in small computers because the usual power supplies in these computers are not very powerful.
Someone also commented that some motherboards of these SFF computers have a limit on the power that the PCIE slot can supply, I had never heard of that, but it seems possible to me if it is a proprietary motherboard.

Ok, so far I failed to install Windows XP on T730. It just constantly reboots. Looks like this thin client is out of the question for Windows XP. I didn't tried Eazy2Boot route though. Just straightforward install directly from SSD with preinstalled Windows XP CD image (works fine on T620 Plus).

I usually prefer to use a USB optical drive, Easy2Boot and Ventoy, usually work well, but sometimes not, so I prefer to use the optical drive, I only have the USB optical driver for this matter, Netbooks and old thin clients.

Hoping wrote on 2024-06-24, 11:11:

It was already mentioned that the issue of consumption could be a limiting factor in small computers because the usual power supplies in these computers are not very powerful.
Someone also commented that some motherboards of these SFF computers have a limit on the power that the PCIE slot can supply, I had never heard of that, but it seems possible to me if it is a proprietary motherboard.

Regarding this, I found this post specifically relating to the Optiplex 9010... which is probably one of the absolute best options for a cheap, compact, totally overkill Windows XP system assuming a Quadro K620 works in it...

https://www.dell.com/community/en/conversatio … 4ccf8a8dedbdd58

That post also links to the technical guidebook for the Optiplex 9010 (all models). Page 19 of that document states that the Blue PCI-E x16 slot in the SFF system is limited to 50 Watts. In the Mini Tower form factor the blue slot has a standard 75W limit (which mean anything card that physically fits should work in the system if you put in a good enough ATX power supply). In both systems, the black x16 slots have a 25W limit, and the black x1 slots are limited to 10W.

So, it's very likely that the K620's 45W TDP will be totally fine for an Optiplex 9010 as long as the blue slot is used (which it should be since it gives the GPU more room to breathe).

I just found a similar guidebook for the 9020 series, and sadly it says (on page 27) that the x16 slot in the SFF variant of the 9020 is limited to only 35 watts. I don't know if this is a hard limit or if it's just a general "suggestion" due to the slot being so close to the power supply that it limits GPU cooling.

It's possible that even 75W GPUs will work fine in either of these systems as long as they stay cool... I honestly haven't tried it to see if the board actually limits the power (causing them to not work) or if this is just a cooling-related suggestion.

These seem highly relevant to this discussion, so I'll attach both guidebooks to this post for posterity. 😀

EDIT: In this post, people are saying that even the 7020 works with a K620, so it doesn't seem to be a hard 35W limit. The guidebook for the 7020 seems to show the same PCI-E power limits as the 9020.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-06-24, 18:12:

Ok, so far I failed to install Windows XP on T730. It just constantly reboots. Looks like this thin client is out of the question for Windows XP. I didn't tried Eazy2Boot route though. Just straightforward install directly from SSD with preinstalled Windows XP CD image (works fine on T620 Plus).

Tried the Universal ahci driver?
http://alter.org.ua/en/soft/win/uni_ata/
If the error is 0x0000007b that's a hdd driver issue

This might help with background info
https://winraid.level1techs.com/t/guide-integ … p-w2k3-cd/32098

AHCI is not the problem. T730 has an IDE mode. Working installation from T620 just cycles reboots. And trying to install from USB, without Easy2Boot wrapper, but with USB xHCI drivers integrated, leads to a blinking command prompt. I just can't get to the setup at all.

Installing Windows XP directly from SSD to the same SSD works normally on T620.

Oh 🤣.
Of course. Xp can't boot from usb natively.
You can install it on another machine and swap it over though.
Just make sure that the generic ide driver in currentcontrolset is set in the registry to always start.
Iirc it's start =1
That prevents the 0x7b error
Been a long time though. I used to have a guide up, but that site died a few years ago.

Like I said, swapping does not work. Trying to install Windows XP from SSD in IDE mode directly (SSD-to-SSD) also does not work. There is no error.

Like I said the generic ide driver has to be set to start in the registry.

Iirc
0=disabled
1=start on boot
2=start with gui
3=start on demand
4=something else

It's been 20 years, so I can't remember exactly.
On the working pc poke around under currentcontrolset\services and look for ide/ata and their start settings.

Should disable auto restart on bsod too. That'll confirm its bsodding on 0x0000007b which is storage not found.

I meant to mention this before but another viable low profile gaming card is the GTX 745. It is basically identical to the Quadro K620, except it usually has 4GB of memory (still GDDR3), slightly different clocks and a different selection of outputs... DVI-D (no VGA pins), HDMI and a dedicated VGA port if you use a full-height bracket. I don't know how often these turn up with low profile brackets, but I'm sure it isn't too hard to find a bracket that would fit it.

It really doesn't offer much (or any) practical benefit over the K620, it's just something to be aware of if you're looking for a card like this and happen to have access to a GTX 745.

I figured it was worth mentioning because, much like the Quadro having the super misleading "K" prefix (you'd assume it was Kepler), the GTX 745 looks like a card that would be slight variation of other budget Kepler cards... like a GT 740 with 4GB GDDR3 or something... but both the K620 and GTX 745 are in fact Maxwell GM107 based.

The power supply that seems to be more common in the Optiplex 9010 is the 240W that in the 12v line specifies 17A ie 12v*17A=204W, that power should be enough for a 75W graphics card and an i7 3770, always thinking in the worst case scenario.
Although I tend to avoid desktop CPUs whenever I can, XEON CPUs usually reach lower temperatures and uses less power than their desktop counterparts based on my limited experience with XEON.
This can be simulated with Prime95+Furmark, but this load is not real, during gaming sessions it is not very likely to reach 100% absolute load on both CPU and GPU at the same time.
Although it all depends on how the motherboard manages the power supply of the PCIE slot, I have no idea about that, we all know that as far as maximum power is concerned there are often quite flexible margins depending on many circumstances, the most common circumstance is the time, often for a short period of time you can use more power than what in theory is the maximum allowed.

Further investigation proved that T730 can work with Windows XP and Kaveri has still drivers for it, for whatever reason both this client and T610 I got recently refused to boot from HDD installer, but were fine with Easy2Boot, while T620 was absolutely fine with HDD self-installation.

Performance wise, the CPU hovers around 3200 MHz most of the time and can match Core 2 Quad/Phenom 2 X4 in performance.
So there you go: a thin client with Phenom 2 and GeForce 8600GTS performance. Installation of more powerful GPU is also possible, but limited to 30W apparently. GTX745 probably can fit into that power requirement, but only if you edit BIOS.

What would the most powerful single slot video card be that will work with it?

Like I said, that requires further investigation with undervolting/underclocking, because big chips could scale better. Otherwise GeForce GT 730 (38W) with very mild underclocking should fit the bill.

Ok, I've grabbed Quadro K620 and apparently Techpowerup database is smoking some magic grass again. Because by default this card consumes about 20W while running Heaven. And you can easily power it down to 15W with practically no performance drop. So it's absolutely fine for HP thin clients.

In terms of performance it's nowhere near GTX 280 though. Like I predicted, it's behind GTS 450, although not by much, because you can't magically solve 50% less bandwidth pipeline stalls with a better chip. I guess Quadro K1200 also should be good, with real power consumption about 30-35W.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-08-06, 20:33:

Ok, I've grabbed Quadro K620 and apparently Techpowerup database is smoking some magic grass again. Because by default this card consumes about 20W while running Heaven. And you can easily power it down to 15W with practically no performance drop. So it's absolutely fine for HP thin clients.

In terms of performance it's nowhere near GTX 280 though. Like I predicted, it's behind GTS 450, although not by much, because you can't magically solve 50% less bandwidth pipeline stalls with a better chip. I guess Quadro K1200 also should be good, with real power consumption about 30-35W.

Good to hear that the power consumption is so low in actual usage.

I would be curious to see the actual benchmark numbers and the specs of your test setup though, as well as comparisons to IGP performance when installed in your thin clients. When comparing such vastly different graphics cards the performance will depend quite a bit on the game and the graphics settings. Running at higher resolutions and anti-aliasing will likely show the bandwidth limitations more.

Also, if you can get your hands on an HD7750 (or any of it's relabeled Radeon or FireGL clones) it would be interesting to see a comparison there as well.

EDIT: Oh, and I had totally forgotten about the K1200 being low profile. I kept confusing it with the full height K2200. The K1200 should be a beast of a low profile card for old games. It's too bad it just has displayport though. I like the idea of being able to use a CRT from time to time, and DP to VGA adapters tend to be a bit limited (or expensive).

I won't place my bet on any FirePro cards, because just as Quadro cards, they could be locked out in terms of overclocking and tinkering with power limit on GCN 1.0 is not good.