3mark99? I have a 600mhz p3 with geforce 2 MX and am running a 3dmark now to compare results.

LewisRaz wrote on 2020-01-28, 17:49:

3mark99? I have a 600mhz p3 with geforce 2 MX and am running a 3dmark now to compare results.

Yeah 3DMark 99 - thanks for the effort. I did a slight OC and got slightly better numbers:

672Mhz (6x 112Mhz) + GeF4 MX 420
5191 3DMarks
10358 CPU 3DMarks

Geforce 2 mx
asus p2b
256mb ram
600mhz p3

3572 3dmarks
9200 cpu 3dmarks

Here a couple of 3DMark99 results with a 600E that I saved in the past. Your outcomes are not that far off imo. I think that the Gf 4 cards, in particular the ti 4200, will profit from a faster cpu.

video / mobo / cpu / 3dMark / res / video bench / cpu bench
Geforce2 MX 400 64Mb / MSI 6163 Pro / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 4336 / 9348
Voodoo 2 SLI / ASUS P2B-S / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3974 / 9317
Voodoo 2 SLI / ASUS P2B-S / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 5162 / 9361
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3896 / 9347
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3903 / 9443
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3905 / 9447
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4863 / 9408
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4865 / 9417
XFX ti 4200 / ASUS P3V4X / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 4966 / 9151

PARKE wrote on 2020-01-28, 18:15:

Here a couple of 3DMark99 results with a 600E that I saved in the past. Your outcomes are not that far off imo. I think that the […]
Show full quote

Here a couple of 3DMark99 results with a 600E that I saved in the past. Your outcomes are not that far off imo. I think that the Gf 4 cards, in particular the ti 4200, will profit from a faster cpu.

video / mobo / cpu / 3dMark / res / video bench / cpu bench
Geforce2 MX 400 64Mb / MSI 6163 Pro / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 4336 / 9348
Voodoo 2 SLI / ASUS P2B-S / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3974 / 9317
Voodoo 2 SLI / ASUS P2B-S / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 5162 / 9361
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3896 / 9347
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3903 / 9443
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 3905 / 9447
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4863 / 9408
Voodoo 3 2000 PCI / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4865 / 9417
XFX ti 4200 / ASUS P3V4X / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 4966 / 9151

Thanks for the info. I did my bench at 800x600 16bit - seems the Voodoo 3 gets slightly better results there.

FYI - here a couple of random outcomes with different configurations:

video / mobo / cpu / 3dMark / res / video bench / cpu bench

Geforce2 MX 400 64Mb / ASUS P5A / AMD K6-3+ 400@600 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4347 / 7845
Geforce2 MX 400 64Mb / ASUS P5A / AMD K6-3+ 400@600 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4395 / 8107

Geforce2 MX 400 64Mb / Chaintech 6BJM / 850/100 MHz FCPGA / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 5821 / 12435

Geforce4 MX 440 64Mb / ASUS P2B-S / 1 GHz Celeron FCPGA /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 5671 / 13201
Geforce4 MX 440 64Mb / ASUS P2B-S / 1.1 GHz Celeron FCPGA /100 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 6314 / 13994
Geforce4 MX 440 64Mb / Chaintech 6ATA2 / 933/133 MHz PIII SECC / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4868 / 10798
Geforce4 MX 440 64Mb / Jetway 993AN / 933/133 MHz PIII SECC / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4373 / 10752

Geforce4 MX 440 ASUS / ASUS P3B-F (oem) / 233 MHz PII SECC @ 133/66/2x / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 868 / 1332

Could you each post the driver versions you're running? Thanks! 👍

For Ti4200 you need something much faster than PIII 600. PIII 600E was released at the end of 1999. Ti4200 was released at the begining of 2002. So there's 2.5 years between them, in that period hardware was evolving very fast. And there's one more thing, graphics cards were bottenecked then even with the fastest CPUs available. Ti4200 should be paired with (at least) an Athlon XP 2000+ or a P4 Northwood 2 GHz. Personally I'd go for a Barton 2500+.

I had Athlon 900 and GF3 Ti200 (quite a bit slower than Ti4200), I've upgraded to Athlon 1700+ and the difference was big. Even then I think the GPU was a bit bottlenecked.

RaverX wrote on 2020-01-28, 19:54:

For Ti4200 you need something much faster than PIII 600. PIII 600E was released at the end of 1999. Ti4200 was released at the begining of 2002. So there's 2.5 years between them, in that period hardware was evolving very fast. And there's one more thing, graphics cards were bottenecked then even with the fastest CPUs available. Ti4200 should be paired with (at least) an Athlon XP 2000+ or a P4 Northwood 2 GHz. Personally I'd go for a Barton 2500+.

I had Athlon 900 and GF3 Ti200 (quite a bit slower than Ti4200), I've upgraded to Athlon 1700+ and the difference was big. Even then I think the GPU was a bit bottlenecked.

This is what I was thinking. I used a GeForce 2 GTS on a 750Mhz Slot A Athlon in 2000-2001 and later upgraded to a Ti 4400 and a 1.33Ghz Thunderbird (then an 1800+ Palamino). A 600Mhz P3 is going to bottleneck almost anything faster than a Voodoo 3, at least in most situations. Those are tough times for PCs because CPU and graphics gaming performance were doubling every year or two at the most until about 2004. Also, nothing was really fast enough for the performance we expect today, so you really have to go overboard with ALL the specs if you intend to use one thing that is from a later period.

I run a 4400Ti on an Athlon 64 system running Windows ME. I get diminishing returns with it after 1.4 GHz cpu speed.

Doornkaat wrote on 2020-01-28, 19:17:

Could you each post the driver versions you're running? Thanks! 👍

Most of these outcomes were from test setups - I have only found notes on drivers for these two:
oooooo
driver 45.32
XFX ti 4200 / ASUS P3V4X / 600E MHz SECC /100 / 3DMark99 / 1024x768x16 / 4966 / 9151

oooooo
driver 776
Geforce2 MX 400 64Mb / ASUS P5A / AMD K6-3+ 400@600 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4347 / 7845
Geforce2 MX 400 64Mb / ASUS P5A / AMD K6-3+ 400@600 / 3DMark99 / 800x600 / 4395 / 8107

RaverX wrote on 2020-01-28, 19:54:

For Ti4200 you need something much faster than PIII 600. PIII 600E was released at the end of 1999. Ti4200 was released at the begining of 2002. So there's 2.5 years between them, in that period hardware was evolving very fast. And there's one more thing, graphics cards were bottenecked then even with the fastest CPUs available. Ti4200 should be paired with (at least) an Athlon XP 2000+ or a P4 Northwood 2 GHz. Personally I'd go for a Barton 2500+.

I had Athlon 900 and GF3 Ti200 (quite a bit slower than Ti4200), I've upgraded to Athlon 1700+ and the difference was big. Even then I think the GPU was a bit bottlenecked.

Well I don't want to go that fast because this will break too many games. I ordered a 800Mhz CPU off eBay - when I boosted the CPU to 672Mhz I already had a 10% performance increase so the 800Mhz should see a 30% increase if I'm lucky. With that I'm happy. I'm able to play Quake III Arena smoothly as is on high detail 1024x768. If I want to slow down, I can just change the multiplier and slow down my CPU to 400Mhz.

red_avatar wrote on 2020-01-29, 11:15:

Well I don't want to go that fast because this will break too many games. I ordered a 800Mhz CPU off eBay - when I boosted the CPU to 672Mhz I already had a 10% performance increase so the 800Mhz should see a 30% increase if I'm lucky. With that I'm happy. I'm able to play Quake III Arena smoothly as is on high detail 1024x768. If I want to slow down, I can just change the multiplier and slow down my CPU to 400Mhz.

The 600E from the above benchmarks is an SL43E, stepping cB0 and runs @800 fsb 133 without overvolting. The P 3's, btw, are all multiplier locked and you can only adjust the fsb.

PARKE wrote on 2020-01-29, 12:07:

red_avatar wrote on 2020-01-29, 11:15:

Well I don't want to go that fast because this will break too many games. I ordered a 800Mhz CPU off eBay - when I boosted the CPU to 672Mhz I already had a 10% performance increase so the 800Mhz should see a 30% increase if I'm lucky. With that I'm happy. I'm able to play Quake III Arena smoothly as is on high detail 1024x768. If I want to slow down, I can just change the multiplier and slow down my CPU to 400Mhz.

The 600E from the above benchmarks is an SL43E, stepping cB0 and runs @800 fsb 133 without overvolting. The P 3's, btw, are all multiplier locked and you can only adjust the fsb.

I have the same type it seems - I should try fsb 133 then ? Does it impact the RAM I need? It's been soooo long since I messed with this era hardware I forgot everything. I vaguely remember you needing PC133 RAM if you increase the FSB but this may be a false memory.

red_avatar wrote on 2020-01-29, 16:22:

PARKE wrote on 2020-01-29, 12:07:

The 600E from the above benchmarks is an SL43E, stepping cB0 and runs @800 fsb 133 without overvolting. The P 3's, btw, are all multiplier locked and you can only adjust the fsb.

I have the same type it seems - I should try fsb 133 then ? Does it impact the RAM I need? It's been soooo long since I messed with this era hardware I forgot everything. I vaguely remember you needing PC133 RAM if you increase the FSB but this may be a false memory.

An 800/100 secc is nice to have anyway when the prize is right but a 600, or some of them, can do the same if needed.
Yes, pc 100 memory will be overclocked so I feel it is better to use pc 133 sticks in that scenario.

ps Where did you find that 800 secc ?

PARKE wrote on 2020-01-29, 16:39:

An 800/100 secc is nice to have anyway when the prize is right but a 600, or some of them, can do the same if needed.
Yes, pc 100 memory will be overclocked so I feel it is better to use pc 133 sticks in that scenario.

ps Where did you find that 800 secc ?

I checked and all my memory is PC 133. Odd since the CPU runs at 100 but I guess later on only PC133 was available and someone went nuts since it used the max allowed by the motherboard.

I tried setting FSB to 133 but upon reboot it wouldn't post, not even a beep. I had to reset the BIOS and leave it at 100.

I got the 800 off eBay:

https://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/CPU-Intel-Pentiu … 353.m2749.l2649

For €13 it seemed cheap. I'm not going to get a 1Ghz or over, I know those cost a LOT more. The idea is that I can slow down the CPU by just lowering the FSB to 66 for example.

red_avatar wrote:

I tried setting FSB to 133 but upon reboot it wouldn't post, not even a beep. I had to reset the BIOS and leave it at 100.

That is a pity.

red_avatar wrote:

I got the 800 off eBay:
https://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/CPU-Intel-Pentiu … 353.m2749.l2649
For €13 it seemed cheap. I'm not going to get a 1Ghz or over, I know those cost a LOT more. The idea is that I can slow down the CPU by just lowering the FSB to 66 for example.

But, according to the advertisement that is an SL4BX 800EB / 133 fsb. Which means that it may(?) run but it is not what you are after. You need an 800E / 100 fsb. - the problem is that they are the next best SECC after the 1Ghz/100 version and not easy to score. The sSpecs for the 800/100 are: SL3Z6, SL4BY, SL3XR, SL457, SL4KF.

PARKE wrote on 2020-01-29, 17:48:

That is a pity. […]
Show full quote

red_avatar wrote:

I tried setting FSB to 133 but upon reboot it wouldn't post, not even a beep. I had to reset the BIOS and leave it at 100.

That is a pity.

red_avatar wrote:

I got the 800 off eBay:
https://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/CPU-Intel-Pentiu … 353.m2749.l2649
For €13 it seemed cheap. I'm not going to get a 1Ghz or over, I know those cost a LOT more. The idea is that I can slow down the CPU by just lowering the FSB to 66 for example.

But, according to the advertisement that is an SL4BX 800EB / 133 fsb. Which means that it may(?) run but it is not what you are after. You need an 800E / 100 fsb. - the problem is that they are the next best SECC after the 1Ghz/100 version and not easy to score. The sSpecs for the 800/100 are: SL3Z6, SL4BY, SL3XR, SL457, SL4KF.

The motherboard supports 133 though - would it not work with the 800 at 133? The multiplier doesn't even go up to 8 - 7.5 is the max.

I figured the reason it wouldn't post, is that I pushed the CPU too high or should that not be possible.

red_avatar wrote on 2020-01-29, 18:02:

The motherboard supports 133 though - would it not work with the 800 at 133? The multiplier doesn't even go up to 8 - 7.5 is the max.

If the motherboard chokes at fsb 133 it may or will run that Ebay 800EB at fsb 100 = 600 Mhz and you already have that.
Multipliers indicated in manuals are not necessarily the only settings available. I do not know the particulars of your board so I cannot comment on that aspect.

red_avatar wrote on 2020-01-29, 18:02:

I figured the reason it wouldn't post, is that I pushed the CPU too high or should that not be possible.

Again, I don't know. Maybe with another 600E it would work ? I saw in a review that your mobo does not have a means to fiddle with voltage which is a handicap for this sort of testing.
Anyway, that 600EB from Ebay will only run @ 800/133 or 600/100 and that is not what you want.