feipoa wrote:

Thank you for your input. You were correct - vsync was enabled for the Q1 and Q2 tests, which limits my frame rate to the monitor's refresh rate. By disabling vsync, I get GLQuake = 117.5 fps; Quake II = 132.9 fps. I did not expect such performance out of a $30 low power VIA/Winchip product.

I did not realise that a 64-bit MX440 card existed. Would that be the MX4000?

Keep in mind how old Q1 and Q2 are, they should run faster than Q3 (ie. Q1 fps > Q2 fps > Q3 fps - haven't seen an example where this is not the case - no idea why in your case Q2 runs faster).
[EDIT] Also compare Phil's Voodoo2 scaling results: Even a P100 can score 44fps in glQuake (only close to 20fps in Q2), and hardware T&L should also help, so the performance you got is easily to be believed.

On the MX440: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_g … GeForce4_Series says the MX4000 is basically the 64-bit variant of the MX440SE.
http://thandor.net/object/429 says there is a 64-bit MX440.

I don't think it's that important how you call it, expect if you are looking for a card.

I have used an Asus V9180SE MX440 NV18, and has 64-bit memory. Then there is an older original Abit Siluro MX440 which is has 128-bit memory, this one runs faster. I suppose it is just what memory they decided to install on the card.

After the MX440's first year it was picked out to be the default budget AGP card for the next few years, and many where produced with plain 64-bit memory and passive cooling.

GPU-Z lists both of my AGP MX440 cards as being 128-bit. Could GPU-Z be wrong? Here are the specs again with a little more detail.

PNY Tech - VGA, S-video - 8 TSOP memory chips - passive cooling - 4X AGP
GF4 MX440 64 MB (NV17, 128-bit, 5.3 GB/s)
http://images.highspeedbackbone.net/skuimages … e/P56-2632b.jpg

XFX - VGA, DVI, S-video - 4 BGA memory chips - passive cooling - 8X AGP
GF4 MX440 128 MB (NV18, 128-bit, 4.6 GB/s)
Back: http://microdream.co.uk/media/catalog/product … /img_0964_2.jpg
Front: http://images.highspeedbackbone.net/skuimages … e/P450-7233.jpg (except my card also has DVI)

If card manufacturers switch from 128-bit to 64-bit, don't they usually switch the type of memory from SDR to DDR or DDR to DDR2 to maintain similar memory bandwidth?

feipoa wrote:

If card manufacturers switch from 128-bit to 64-bit, don't they usually switch the type of memory from SDR to DDR or DDR to DDR2 to maintain similar memory bandwidth?

But then all MX440 cards would be equal in memory bandwidth, they are not.

We talked about this subject before here:
Vogons: Best Fanless AGP/PCI Graphics Card
The memory recognition guide you posted there:
PlayTool: Understanding video RAM memory bandwidth

My memory is not what it used to be. Screaming kids all day and little sleep these days.

I suppose I could look up the memory chip specs to be certain. Has anyone noticed errors of this sort in GPU-Z?

feipoa wrote:

If card manufacturers switch from 128-bit to 64-bit, don't they usually switch the type of memory from SDR to DDR or DDR to DDR2 to maintain similar memory bandwidth?

You are probably thinking of GF2 MX400 or Matrox G400/G450 with 128bit SDR/64bit DDR.
In my experience there is very often a variant with a narrower memory interface to safe cost, even if the GPU is usually specified for a certain memory interface. I one returned a Radeon 9000 for that reason.
Even with old 2D cards you often only get the full memory interface when you upgrade the video ram to the full amount.

feipoa wrote:

My memory is not what it used to be. Screaming kids all day and little sleep these days.

No problem 😀, I also lost track of many topics I participated in, in the past.

feipoa wrote:

I suppose I could look up the memory chip specs to be certain. Has anyone noticed errors of this sort in GPU-Z?

Never really used GPU-Z for that generation of cards, since it never ran on Windows 98, IIRC.

Both look 128 bit, but the bandwidth corresponds to 166/150 MHz DDR - you probably got 440 SE.

feipoa wrote:

I benchmarked my Dual PIII-850 slot 1 440BX system with the Ti4400. Quake III scores 67 fps (all quality settings at max). So the Via C3 Nehemiah at 1400 MHz is scores similarly to a PIII-850, but with a weaker graphics card. The PIII-850 was running WinXP SP3, while the Via C3 Nehemiah was running Win98SE, so I'm sure this has some impact on frame rate.

EDIT: I am beginning the W2K and XP Pro segment of the system setup (NT4/98SE already complete). The TUSL2-C manual mentions there is a Support CD for this motherboard. Does anyone know where to find this disc image?

Sorry for the rez, but I remember having a boxed TUSL2-C in the attic.
Do you still need the CDROM? If so, I can take a look tomorrow and see if the box had this support CDROM included 😀

I no longer remember what I wanted the CD for. I have completed my Nehemiah 1.4 GHz setup some time ago. It can boot between NT4/98SE/W2K/XPPro3 all using the same HDD and the Windows default boot loader.