Baoran wrote on 2020-10-27, 04:58:kolderman wrote on 2020-10-27, 03:51:Virge GX.
I did read some reviews online about virge cards from the time and they all say that they are bad basically.
As far a 3d goes compared to other stuff that was available then, yes they are bad. But they are great for 2d.
cyclone3d wrote on 2020-10-27, 06:08:Baoran wrote on 2020-10-27, 04:58:kolderman wrote on 2020-10-27, 03:51:Virge GX.
I did read some reviews online about virge cards from the time and they all say that they are bad basically.
As far a 3d goes compared to other stuff that was available then, yes they are bad. But they are great for 2d.
How is the picture quality when compared to for example nvidia cards like riva 128 and tnt2 m64?
Also my virge/gx is a compaq branded one...
Baoran wrote on 2020-10-27, 04:58:kolderman wrote on 2020-10-27, 03:51:Virge GX.
I did read some reviews online about virge cards from the time and they all say that they are bad basically.
The ViRGE line of cards are bad 3D performers compared to what else is avaliable nowadays. But they're solid 2D cards with good DOS compatibility.
They make a good team with the Voodoo Graphics but that wasn't the perspective of tests back then.
Baoran wrote on 2020-10-27, 06:17:How is the picture quality when compared to for example nvidia cards like riva 128 and tnt2 m64?
Also my virge/gx is a compaq branded one...
Picture quality depends on the analog circuitry. You already have the card, why not just try it? 🙂
The picture quality the riva 128 was not well regarded, but it was a reasonable 2d/3d solution back in the day.
Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-27, 07:14:Baoran wrote on 2020-10-27, 06:17:How is the picture quality when compared to for example nvidia cards like riva 128 and tnt2 m64?
Also my virge/gx is a compaq branded one...Picture quality depends on the analog circuitry. You already have the card, why not just try it? 🙂
I don't think I can see the differences. At least in just normal dos text mode. Like if I had a pci matrox card I would have just put that one because of reading that people say that it has very good image quality. There is the short cable between the main video card and a voodoo 1 card so I thought it would help with quality loss of the passthrough if the original image was good quality with strong signal. I have a bad experience of having a card that has such low quality signal that the horizontal sync was totally messed up when the signal went through a voodoo card. Would like to just finish building the PC before I start installing windows and all the software that might allow me to see any problems that there might be.
Sorry, but it's hard to predict signal quality without trying. Compaq probably used some of the better designs but I honestly have no experience with that card.
Signal degradation through the Voodoo is another variable. A buddy of mine tried his Voodoo with an LCD some years ago for the first time. He had diagonally rolling lines that weren't visible on CRTs no matter what 2D card or passthrough cable he used. The Voodoo was one of the early Diamond Monster 3D cards (rev. A or B ).
Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-27, 09:33:Sorry, but it's hard to predict signal quality without trying. Compaq probably used some of the better designs but I honestly have no experience with that card.
Signal degradation through the Voodoo is another variable. A buddy of mine tried his Voodoo with an LCD some years ago for the first time. He had diagonally rolling lines that weren't visible on CRTs no matter what 2D card or passthrough cable he used. The Voodoo was one of the early Diamond Monster 3D cards (rev. A or B ).
I had horizontal lines/distortions when horizontal sync went wrong. So far I have had it with only one card and that was Geforce MX 4000. It only happened when connected through a voodoo card but not when monitor was connected directly to the mx 4000 card. That is when I learned about importance of the signal quality coming from the main video card.
Baoran wrote on 2020-10-27, 08:49:[...]
I don't think I can see the differences. At least in just normal dos text mode. Like if I had a pci matrox card I would have just put that one because of reading that people say that it has very good image quality. There is the short cable between the main video card and a voodoo 1 card so I thought it would help with quality loss of the passthrough if the original image was good quality with strong signal. I have a bad experience of having a card that has such low quality signal that the horizontal sync was totally messed up when the signal went through a voodoo card. Would like to just finish building the PC before I start installing windows and all the software that might allow me to see any problems that there might be.
For that sort of testing you can use X-VESA, a simple DOS utility. It will both show you how VESA mode compatibility is and do so with test images that lets you see how good quality is.
If you can't tell the difference from a test image, it's good enough for you.
Would you be able to use socket A cooler on socket 7 or are the sockets different sizes?
Baoran wrote on 2020-10-28, 00:57:Would you be able to use socket A cooler on socket 7 or are the sockets different sizes?
Yes, but
They have much greater force to install due to the thinner socket A chip vrs the thick socket 7
It is possible to break the plastic clips.
Just be careful
Also some Socket 462 heatsinks are wider than the socket causing them to collide with components on some Socket 7 boards.
rmay635703 wrote on 2020-10-28, 01:16:Yes, but […]
Baoran wrote on 2020-10-28, 00:57:Would you be able to use socket A cooler on socket 7 or are the sockets different sizes?
Yes, but
They have much greater force to install due to the thinner socket A chip vrs the thick socket 7
It is possible to break the plastic clips.Just be careful
Thanks. Main thing that made me consider this was actually that the metal thing in my socket 7 cooler is just connected to one plastic clip but those socket A coolers have wider thing that connects to 3 plastic clips on socket A motherboard and the socket 7 I have on my motherboard has 2 plastic clips on each side. Perhaps it isn't such good idea because the whole point would have been to have less strain on those plastic clips.
Socket 7 cooler
VS socket A cooler.
After looking at the socket A cooler I mentioned more carefully. It is actually Nexus AXP-3200 socket A/462/370 cooler if that makes a difference when it comes to if it fits to a socket 7.
I wouldn't use that on a Socket 7 board. It has heavy mounting pressure that's even increased by the thicker Socket 7 CPUs and it weighs >300g. Both puts more strain on the mounting tabs than a regular Socket 7 heatsink without significantly improving thermals on this platform.
Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-28, 05:58:I wouldn't use that on a Socket 7 board. It has heavy mounting pressure that's even increased by the thicker Socket 7 CPUs and it weighs >300g. Both puts more strain on the mounting tabs than a regular Socket 7 heatsink without significantly improving thermals on this platform.
Thanks. Perhaps I will use it with a tualatin cpu instead of this build then.
Baoran wrote on 2020-10-28, 07:00:Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-28, 05:58:I wouldn't use that on a Socket 7 board. It has heavy mounting pressure that's even increased by the thicker Socket 7 CPUs and it weighs >300g. Both puts more strain on the mounting tabs than a regular Socket 7 heatsink without significantly improving thermals on this platform.
Thanks. Perhaps I will use it with a tualatin cpu instead of this build then.
With the heatspreader the Tualatin CPUs are simularly thick. See how it goes but really I wohldn't use a heatsink like that on anything but Coppermine PIIIs and Socket 462 CPUs.
Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-28, 09:08:Baoran wrote on 2020-10-28, 07:00:Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-28, 05:58:I wouldn't use that on a Socket 7 board. It has heavy mounting pressure that's even increased by the thicker Socket 7 CPUs and it weighs >300g. Both puts more strain on the mounting tabs than a regular Socket 7 heatsink without significantly improving thermals on this platform.
Thanks. Perhaps I will use it with a tualatin cpu instead of this build then.
With the heatspreader the Tualatin CPUs are simularly thick. See how it goes but really I wohldn't use a heatsink like that on anything but Coppermine PIIIs and Socket 462 CPUs.
You would think that a cooler from 2004 which has specs list that says that it is meant for pentium 3 cpus 1.13Ghz and faster would also include tualatin cpus or am I wrong?
Baoran wrote on 2020-10-28, 09:16:Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-28, 09:08:Baoran wrote on 2020-10-28, 07:00:Thanks. Perhaps I will use it with a tualatin cpu instead of this build then.
With the heatspreader the Tualatin CPUs are simularly thick. See how it goes but really I wohldn't use a heatsink like that on anything but Coppermine PIIIs and Socket 462 CPUs.
You would think that a cooler from 2004 which has specs list that says that it is meant for pentium 3 cpus 1.13Ghz and faster would also include tualatin cpus or am I wrong?
Since it only explicitly lists the fastest official Coppermine speed but not the faster Tualatin speeds despite all of them having long been released I would be cautious. Like most Socket 370/462 coolers you are most likely going to get it to fit if you actually try. It'll also be possible to mount it on many Socket 7 boards. But it'll be tight, the cooler is heavier than many other good Socket 370 coolers and you can get good temps even with stock heatsinks on Pentium IIIs. Also keep in mind that on many Socket 370 boards there are small SMD components next to the middle tab which you may damage with a wide mounting clip designed primarily for the three tabs on Socket 462.
Again: See how it goes. Personally I wouldn't bother with it.
Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-28, 11:13:Baoran wrote on 2020-10-28, 09:16:Doornkaat wrote on 2020-10-28, 09:08:With the heatspreader the Tualatin CPUs are simularly thick. See how it goes but really I wohldn't use a heatsink like that on anything but Coppermine PIIIs and Socket 462 CPUs.
You would think that a cooler from 2004 which has specs list that says that it is meant for pentium 3 cpus 1.13Ghz and faster would also include tualatin cpus or am I wrong?
Since it only explicitly lists the fastest official Coppermine speed but not the faster Tualatin speeds despite all of them having long been released I would be cautious. Like most Socket 370/462 coolers you are most likely going to get it to fit if you actually try. It'll also be possible to mount it on many Socket 7 boards. But it'll be tight, the cooler is heavier than many other good Socket 370 coolers and you can get good temps even with stock heatsinks on Pentium IIIs. Also keep in mind that on many Socket 370 boards there are small SMD components next to the middle tab which you may damage with a wide mounting clip designed primarily for the three tabs on Socket 462.
Again: See how it goes. Personally I wouldn't bother with it.
For me when they listed "Intel Pentium III 1.13GHz or higher" in specs it made me think about Pentium III-S cpus because the slowest Pentium III-S cpu is the 1133Mhz one like they don't support slower coppermines at all officially.
