UltimateElectronic wrote on 2022-03-17, 01:05:

Doornkaat wrote on 2022-03-14, 05:29:

The regular TNT2 is quite a bit faster than the TNT2 M64, mostly because it has more than double the VRAM bandwidth. As you said […]
Show full quote

The regular TNT2 is quite a bit faster than the TNT2 M64, mostly because it has more than double the VRAM bandwidth.
As you said the TNT2 M64 is a budget card from 99 while the Pentium III 866 is one of the fastest Coppermine Pentium IIIs and released in 2000. There's certainly a bit of a mismatch going on. If you bought your computer for gaming you would probably not have combined those two. If you wanted a computer mostly for 2D applications it would have made sense though.
Still a TNT2 M64 is a good enough entry level Win9x gaming card and if you already have it you can't go wrong with it. If you feel you need more performance you can upgrade any time.
Edit: And yes, the TNT2 was part of Nvidia's high end segment when it launched.

Alright fair enough. Looks as though it's probably an imbalance for gaming from everyone here is saying.
As I don't have a GF2 or GF3, my plan is to go with one of the MX440s I have that aren't in anything... I'd imagine that it'd create more of a balanced system for gaming.

So I don't know how much you're familiar with retro hardware (I can imagine it can be really daunting for anyone who's basically learning from scratch as of 2022), but if you want to know how good one graphics card was compared to some other graphics cards, I've always liked checking this page here https://www.pc-erfahrung.de/grafikkarte/vga-g … krangliste.html
It doesn't give graphics cards a score but it lists cards near cards that are about as good, so you can check how (for instance) GF MX420 compares to TNT2 Ultra or how Radeon9200SE compares to GF3, just to pull some random cards out of this air 😜

It's not definitive because one does not simply jumble all graphics cards into a single list like that and call it definitive, but I think it's a great starting point.

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-17, 07:30:

So I don't know how much you're familiar with retro hardware (I can imagine it can be really daunting for anyone who's basically […]
Show full quote

UltimateElectronic wrote on 2022-03-17, 01:05:

Doornkaat wrote on 2022-03-14, 05:29:

The regular TNT2 is quite a bit faster than the TNT2 M64, mostly because it has more than double the VRAM bandwidth. As you said […]
Show full quote

The regular TNT2 is quite a bit faster than the TNT2 M64, mostly because it has more than double the VRAM bandwidth.
As you said the TNT2 M64 is a budget card from 99 while the Pentium III 866 is one of the fastest Coppermine Pentium IIIs and released in 2000. There's certainly a bit of a mismatch going on. If you bought your computer for gaming you would probably not have combined those two. If you wanted a computer mostly for 2D applications it would have made sense though.
Still a TNT2 M64 is a good enough entry level Win9x gaming card and if you already have it you can't go wrong with it. If you feel you need more performance you can upgrade any time.
Edit: And yes, the TNT2 was part of Nvidia's high end segment when it launched.

Alright fair enough. Looks as though it's probably an imbalance for gaming from everyone here is saying.
As I don't have a GF2 or GF3, my plan is to go with one of the MX440s I have that aren't in anything... I'd imagine that it'd create more of a balanced system for gaming.

So I don't know how much you're familiar with retro hardware (I can imagine it can be really daunting for anyone who's basically learning from scratch as of 2022), but if you want to know how good one graphics card was compared to some other graphics cards, I've always liked checking this page here https://www.pc-erfahrung.de/grafikkarte/vga-g … krangliste.html
It doesn't give graphics cards a score but it lists cards near cards that are about as good, so you can check how (for instance) GF MX420 compares to TNT2 Ultra or how Radeon9200SE compares to GF3, just to pull some random cards out of this air 😜

It's not definitive because one does not simply jumble all graphics cards into a single list like that and call it definitive, but I think it's a great starting point.

Ahh, I didn't know that existed. Thanks for that!

I've been into retro computers since probably about 2016, but I've always been more focussed on Pentium 1 age hardware. I've got a friend who's wanting to get into DOS gaming (he's more of a retro console gamer), but thankfully there's a group of people that regularly meets who are knowledgeable about retro technology. I was also able to impart some recommendations to him as well, namely a Pentium 133 or 150, 16MB EDO and an S3 card (Trio or ViRGE).

UltimateElectronic wrote on 2022-03-20, 07:17:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-17, 07:30:

So I don't know how much you're familiar with retro hardware (I can imagine it can be really daunting for anyone who's basically […]
Show full quote

UltimateElectronic wrote on 2022-03-17, 01:05:

Alright fair enough. Looks as though it's probably an imbalance for gaming from everyone here is saying.
As I don't have a GF2 or GF3, my plan is to go with one of the MX440s I have that aren't in anything... I'd imagine that it'd create more of a balanced system for gaming.

So I don't know how much you're familiar with retro hardware (I can imagine it can be really daunting for anyone who's basically learning from scratch as of 2022), but if you want to know how good one graphics card was compared to some other graphics cards, I've always liked checking this page here https://www.pc-erfahrung.de/grafikkarte/vga-g … krangliste.html
It doesn't give graphics cards a score but it lists cards near cards that are about as good, so you can check how (for instance) GF MX420 compares to TNT2 Ultra or how Radeon9200SE compares to GF3, just to pull some random cards out of this air 😜

It's not definitive because one does not simply jumble all graphics cards into a single list like that and call it definitive, but I think it's a great starting point.

Ahh, I didn't know that existed. Thanks for that!

I've been into retro computers since probably about 2016, but I've always been more focussed on Pentium 1 age hardware. I've got a friend who's wanting to get into DOS gaming (he's more of a retro console gamer), but thankfully there's a group of people that regularly meets who are knowledgeable about retro technology. I was also able to impart some recommendations to him as well, namely a Pentium 133 or 150, 16MB EDO and an S3 card (Trio or ViRGE).

I don't understand why the S3 ViRGE is so highly esteemed in retro-circles today. My older rig had it and it was a terrible, terrible video card. Even just scrolling in Explorer would cause audio stuttering on my system - apparently because the card would somehow bog down the entire PCI bus while it was engaged in drawing operations. Maybe it was a good card for 486 with DOS, but even on a Pentium - I mean good god. Almost anything was better, a 2-4 MB Matrox or ATi (and ATi was notoriously bad with their drivers back then).

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:17:

I don't understand why the S3 ViRGE is so highly esteemed in retro-circles today.

Compatibility with DOS games mostly. The S3 Trio64V+ and the S3 Virge are among the best cards for that purpose, as seen on Gona's spreadsheet.

Some people also like to experiment with S3D compatible DOS games. While a Virge is much slower than a Voodoo1, its S3D acceleration is usually faster than software rendering on a period correct Pentium system when using the same resolution (e.g. 640x480). You also get 16-bit colors, bilinear filtering and perspective correction with S3D, which are not available using software rendering. Here are a few comparison screenshots.

Even just scrolling in Explorer would cause audio stuttering on my system - apparently because the card would somehow bog down the entire PCI bus while it was engaged in drawing operations.

I previously used a Virge on my Pentium MMX rig running Win95 OSR2.1 and never noticed anything like that. Possibly an IRQ conflict on your system?

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:36:

Compatibility with DOS games mostly. The S3 Trio64V+ and the S3 Virge are among the best cards for that purpose, as seen on Gona […]
Show full quote

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:17:

I don't understand why the S3 ViRGE is so highly esteemed in retro-circles today.

Compatibility with DOS games mostly. The S3 Trio64V+ and the S3 Virge are among the best cards for that purpose, as seen on Gona's spreadsheet.

Some people also like to experiment with S3D compatible DOS games. While a Virge is much slower than a Voodoo1, its S3D acceleration is usually faster than software rendering on a period correct Pentium system when using the same resolution (e.g. 640x480). You also get 16-bit colors, bilinear filtering and perspective correction with S3D, which are not available using software rendering. Here are a few comparison screenshots.
It's quite possible the ViRGE was a great card if you had a game with direct support for it.

Even just scrolling in Explorer would cause audio stuttering on my system - apparently because the card would somehow bog down the entire PCI bus while it was engaged in drawing operations.

I previously used a Virge on my Pentium MMX rig running Win95 OSR2.1 and never noticed anything like that. Possibly an IRQ conflict on your system?

I had that exact kind of system. Possibly there was some kind of IRQ conflict - I wouldn't know any more. I remember I got rid of that card quick, fast, and in a hurry and had no such troubles since then. Bygones.

I would still argue that for what it is, it's terribly overpriced just like the early 3Dfx gear now.

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:53:

I would still argue that for what it is, it's terribly overpriced just like the early 3Dfx gear now.

I took a peek at current Evil Bay prices, and I'm seeing Virge cards ranging between 15 and 50 USD. With generic "no name" cards being cheaper and the ones manufactured by reputable companies (e.g. Diamond, STB and Hercules) costing much more.

While you do get better image quality with branded cards, I would agree that their prices are way too inflated at this time.

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:53:

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:36:

Compatibility with DOS games mostly. The S3 Trio64V+ and the S3 Virge are among the best cards for that purpose, as seen on Gona […]
Show full quote

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:17:

I don't understand why the S3 ViRGE is so highly esteemed in retro-circles today.

Compatibility with DOS games mostly. The S3 Trio64V+ and the S3 Virge are among the best cards for that purpose, as seen on Gona's spreadsheet.

Some people also like to experiment with S3D compatible DOS games. While a Virge is much slower than a Voodoo1, its S3D acceleration is usually faster than software rendering on a period correct Pentium system when using the same resolution (e.g. 640x480). You also get 16-bit colors, bilinear filtering and perspective correction with S3D, which are not available using software rendering. Here are a few comparison screenshots.
It's quite possible the ViRGE was a great card if you had a game with direct support for it.

Even just scrolling in Explorer would cause audio stuttering on my system - apparently because the card would somehow bog down the entire PCI bus while it was engaged in drawing operations.

I previously used a Virge on my Pentium MMX rig running Win95 OSR2.1 and never noticed anything like that. Possibly an IRQ conflict on your system?

I had that exact kind of system. Possibly there was some kind of IRQ conflict - I wouldn't know any more. I remember I got rid of that card quick, fast, and in a hurry and had no such troubles since then. Bygones.

I would still argue that for what it is, it's terribly overpriced just like the early 3Dfx gear now.

Any crapcard in working condition is still excellent as a testing card 😜

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-03-20, 13:05:

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:53:

I would still argue that for what it is, it's terribly overpriced just like the early 3Dfx gear now.

I took a peek at current Evil Bay prices, and I'm seeing Virge cards ranging between 15 and 50 USD. With generic "no name" cards being cheaper and the ones manufactured by reputable companies (e.g. Diamond, STB and Hercules) costing much more.

While you do get better image quality with branded cards, I would agree that their prices are way too inflated at this time.

Wow..... these cards are actually selling for more than €5? 😮
I mean every collector from like 10 to 15 years ago has at least a box of those as spare parts xD

What's next? TNT2 M64 16MB selling for €40? xD 😜

Wouldn't it be something if, when searching for completed or sold listings, ebay was purposefully leaving out all search results that are within the lower 50% price bracket and only showing the top 50% results as a way to artificially inflate prices some more? 😜

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-20, 16:31:

Wouldn't it be something if, when searching for completed or sold listings, ebay was purposefully leaving out all search results that are within the lower 50% price bracket and only showing the top 50% results as a way to artificially inflate prices some more? 😜

Actually this would make sense.
On eBay you'll pay with PayPal. PayPal charges some payment fee. That's how PayPal makes profit. And it's owned by guess who 😕

waterbeesje wrote on 2022-03-20, 18:39:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-20, 16:31:

Wouldn't it be something if, when searching for completed or sold listings, ebay was purposefully leaving out all search results that are within the lower 50% price bracket and only showing the top 50% results as a way to artificially inflate prices some more? 😜

Actually this would make sense.
On eBay you'll pay with PayPal. PayPal charges some payment fee. That's how PayPal makes profit. And it's owned by guess who 😕

It's a shame they are so greedy. Not much we can do about it though. It would have been an awesome platform if it were more centered as a service and less about making a profit regardless of whatever.

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-20, 18:58:

waterbeesje wrote on 2022-03-20, 18:39:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-20, 16:31:

Wouldn't it be something if, when searching for completed or sold listings, ebay was purposefully leaving out all search results that are within the lower 50% price bracket and only showing the top 50% results as a way to artificially inflate prices some more? 😜

Actually this would make sense.
On eBay you'll pay with PayPal. PayPal charges some payment fee. That's how PayPal makes profit. And it's owned by guess who 😕

It's a shame they are so greedy. Not much we can do about it though. It would have been an awesome platform if it were more centered as a service and less about making a profit regardless of whatever.

Since nobody seems happy with it, there could be a market for a dedicated retro / vintage trade website called VogonsTrade.com 😜

Back on topic...
Putting an M64 into a P3 coppermine system actually wasn't that strange back in the day, as it provided affordable performance over your basic Intel graphics. The TNT2 pro or early Geforce would have made sense as well, but works have been more expensive. My IBM Netvista was originally equipped with a P3 866MHz and a just-as-basic TNT Vanta. It's onboard i815 VGA is fully functional as well when I remove the TNT so that wasn't the reason to put it in.
If you want to stay a bit period correct, the Geforce mx440 would be ok as well. It could have been 'the obvious upgrade on budget' after a few years, if you could not afford a completely new system.

waterbeesje wrote on 2022-03-20, 21:15:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-20, 18:58:

waterbeesje wrote on 2022-03-20, 18:39:

Actually this would make sense.
On eBay you'll pay with PayPal. PayPal charges some payment fee. That's how PayPal makes profit. And it's owned by guess who 😕

It's a shame they are so greedy. Not much we can do about it though. It would have been an awesome platform if it were more centered as a service and less about making a profit regardless of whatever.

Since nobody seems happy with it, there could be a market for a dedicated retro / vintage trade website called VogonsTrade.com 😜

Well, there kinda already is amibay.
And setting up some trade site is easier said than done (and I'm not even mentioning the suggested name there 😜 ).

Back on topic...
Putting an M64 into a P3 coppermine system actually wasn't that strange back in the day, as it provided affordable performance over your basic Intel graphics. The TNT2 pro or early Geforce would have made sense as well, but works have been more expensive. My IBM Netvista was originally equipped with a P3 866MHz and a just-as-basic TNT Vanta. It's onboard i815 VGA is fully functional as well when I remove the TNT so that wasn't the reason to put it in.
If you want to stay a bit period correct, the Geforce mx440 would be ok as well. It could have been 'the obvious upgrade on budget' after a few years, if you could not afford a completely new system.

It's definitely true that TNT2 M64 was used for a while even after it had been succeeded by GF.
Intel basic graphics must've been really kinda crappy to have TNT2 M64 surpass it 🤣
Was it a real TNT Vanta or a TNT2 Vanta? Information about the Vanta is kinda vague tbh. Mine didn't even come with a heatspreader 😜
I mean, when I got my Deschutes 350 the graphics card I got was a TNT (Diamond Viper v550). When a friend of mine got his Athlon 500 his graphics card was already a TNT2 (non-ultra, Diamond Viper v770) and he later upgraded to a GF1 which I sadly was never able to get my hands on (I did get his old TNT2 however ^^ ).

So from my perspective the use of TNT2 M64 (more so Vanta! 😜 ) for a Coppermine 866 was for being relatively cheap. Yet I still respect the M64 and it imo it got more flak than it deserved.
But there's no hiding its limitations which obviously lie in the realm of its performance (or relative lack of when wanting to play newer titles).

TNT2 M64 is kinda what S3 Virge was a few years prior 😜

Well, regarding the Vanta story (been googling about it and I remember having googled Vanta before as it comes up with information I already found in the past but ahd since forgotten), there appears to be a Vanta which uses an AGP 4x connector (with 2 openings in the AGP connector) and a Vanta-LT which comes with just one opening in the AGP connector. I believe mine is the LT variant, but I'm not sure anymore. I'd need to go dig it out if I want to be sure but I believe both are not exactly speeddevils 😜

Vanta-LT might be derived from TNT1 and the regular Vanta from TNT2, but this is just an educated guess. I'm pretty sure the information is out there, somewhere.
It's kinda interesting as a low-end graphics card of its day but iirc I have just the one Vanta.

EDIT: Looks like it's all based on TNt2, but I'm still not sure 🤣

Oh it definitely is a 16MB TNT Vanta first gen, not TNT2. Probably they had too many laying around in some warehouse. And yes, the Intel one is a lot worse. It performs about 1/3 of the TNT Vanta. Or 1/2 with an AIMM paired.

The Vanta and M64 should definitely be appreciated more by the way, they are very compatible. And while they do lack the performance of their bigger brothers, they are ok if you can settle for lower res and FPS. The same goes for Geforce 2MX series.

I recently played with a TNT2 M64 and came away very impressed. Disabling v-sync, toggling the settings to high performance, and using coolbits registry to adjust the clock frequencies all the way up got me pretty decent framerates at 640x480 which is great for me.

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-20, 12:17:

UltimateElectronic wrote on 2022-03-20, 07:17:

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-17, 07:30:

So I don't know how much you're familiar with retro hardware (I can imagine it can be really daunting for anyone who's basically learning from scratch as of 2022), but if you want to know how good one graphics card was compared to some other graphics cards, I've always liked checking this page here https://www.pc-erfahrung.de/grafikkarte/vga-g … krangliste.html
It doesn't give graphics cards a score but it lists cards near cards that are about as good, so you can check how (for instance) GF MX420 compares to TNT2 Ultra or how Radeon9200SE compares to GF3, just to pull some random cards out of this air 😜

It's not definitive because one does not simply jumble all graphics cards into a single list like that and call it definitive, but I think it's a great starting point.

Ahh, I didn't know that existed. Thanks for that!

I've been into retro computers since probably about 2016, but I've always been more focussed on Pentium 1 age hardware. I've got a friend who's wanting to get into DOS gaming (he's more of a retro console gamer), but thankfully there's a group of people that regularly meets who are knowledgeable about retro technology. I was also able to impart some recommendations to him as well, namely a Pentium 133 or 150, 16MB EDO and an S3 card (Trio or ViRGE).

I don't understand why the S3 ViRGE is so highly esteemed in retro-circles today. My older rig had it and it was a terrible, terrible video card. Even just scrolling in Explorer would cause audio stuttering on my system - apparently because the card would somehow bog down the entire PCI bus while it was engaged in drawing operations. Maybe it was a good card for 486 with DOS, but even on a Pentium - I mean good god. Almost anything was better, a 2-4 MB Matrox or ATi (and ATi was notoriously bad with their drivers back then).

Fair enough, I can understand that. I guess I think of it as that from the standpoint of DOS gaming, which I use my P200MMX for. And yeah I've always had problems with ATi drivers, completely putting me off ATi in general.

waterbeesje wrote on 2022-03-21, 20:57:

Oh it definitely is a 16MB TNT Vanta first gen, not TNT2. Probably they had too many laying around in some warehouse. And yes, the Intel one is a lot worse. It performs about 1/3 of the TNT Vanta. Or 1/2 with an AIMM paired.

The Vanta and M64 should definitely be appreciated more by the way, they are very compatible. And while they do lack the performance of their bigger brothers, they are ok if you can settle for lower res and FPS. The same goes for Geforce 2MX series.

Would be interesting to hear more about the origins of Vanta and M64. GF MX has seen more exposure the last years at least.

Yes definitely! At least I appreciate them🙂

People are already appreciating it more than, say, 10 years ago, if only because its better alternatives are becoming harder to find and usually also more expensive.

Tetrium wrote on 2022-03-25, 15:27:

Would be interesting to hear more about the origins of Vanta and M64. GF MX has seen more exposure the last years at least.

From what I remember, the Vanta and M64 models were very popular during the first half of the year 2000. They provided acceptable performance for very little money. But, at the same time, everyone who bought one of those cards knew that they were merely a stopgap.

When the GeForce2 MX400 came into the picture, the situation was a bit different. It delivered pretty solid performance in all but the highest resolutions, and had decent staying power. Even today, it's a pretty good card.

It's the perfect combination - the one at hand.
If that works, you can get to tinkering right away and maybe try out some old games, instead of reading through several pages of self-absorbed musings of a bunch of top nerds.

Speaking of which, if it's the cusl2 with the AGP pro slot, you should use it with one of these puppies, an Elsa Gloria II pro with Quadro (geforce 256) DDR :
download/file.php?id=131883&mode=view

Or give it to me, so I can 😉