Well k6 500mhz might be a reason of bad performance .

tony359 wrote on 2024-01-22, 12:14:

FX5200 under W98SE and XP

Dunno about Win XP, but Detonator/FW Driver v45.23 (http://vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=1408&menustate=0) is usually recommended for Win98 when it comes to the FX5200.

ciornyi wrote on 2024-01-22, 14:09:

Well k6 500mhz might be a reason of bad performance .

No, "downgrading" to an earlier release makes UT99 playable. 0.25FPS (one frame every 4 seconds) wasn't an exaggeration. Clearly a driver issue.

Thanks @Detonator, that's really helpful. I think it's what I ended up using with the MX400 as well under XP as the latest were causing that issue with UT99.

Can confirm, and add that this usually worked well for me. 45.23 seems to work universally across many cards from the pre-GF6 era.

MX4000 - 45.23 for 9x, 71.84 for 2k and I suppose XP works as well
FX5200 - same for 9x, 93.71 for 2k/XP

Interesting. Thank you!

The drivers which failed to work with XP and UT99 were 93.71. I went back to 45.23 and it worked ok.

3DMark2000 worked fine with 93.71 though. How bizarre.

In general the older drivers are faster (less CPU processing overhead). And since an FX5200 will need much newer drivers, it will almost certainly perform worse on a weaker CPU like that. As an example, on my P3-500 system I found almost no difference between my GF2 Pro and GF4 Ti 4200 because of the need for newer drivers. So I just stuck with the GF2 Pro for that system.

Anyway, I can't speak to XP, but I just so happened to do a few tests of drivers with an MVP3 board and a GF2 MX 400 a while back. My best result was using driver version 8.05. But I found that the VIA chipset drivers could cause problems. Choosing Turbo AGP would cause graphics corruption, but Standard worked fine, and that was my best result overall.

Hopefully that's helpful. And keep up the good work on the videos, I really enjoy them.

danieljm wrote on 2024-01-23, 06:45:

As an example, on my P3-500 system I found almost no difference between my GF2 Pro and GF4 Ti 4200 because of the need for newer drivers.

The Ti4200 is already CPU limited on a twice as fast CPU. I don't doubt the driver overhead reduced the performance even further, but your system was never balanced in a way where the performance difference between the GF2 Pro and the Ti4200 can come out.

Thank you both

Yes, I am aware you don't want Turbo AGP on an MVP3, the AGP implementation is flaky. I also found I need AGP aperture at 8MB - could be a coincidence though, but I think I'm happy to leave that where it is, this project has taken WEEKS! 😀
I never thought the issue here could be the CPU. Good point. I thought it was more a driver issue. Fair enough, it makes sense to have the FX5200 on my Pentium 4 then 😀

Why would newer driver require more CPU to work?

I think I am on 7.76 on Windows 98 at the moment. I can try 8.05 as well. And I will test the FX5200 with 45.23

Thank you, wish me luck 😁

Update.

It's true, both MX400 and FX5200 performs identically under 3Dmark2001. Same score. I used 7.76 for the MX400 and 45.23 for the FX5200.

This is a K6-2 500 with 128MB PC100, 2-2-2, interleaved. I guess the 5200 will go to the P4, it's wasted on the socket 7 😀

tony359 wrote on 2024-01-23, 21:32:

Update.

It's true, both MX400 and FX5200 performs identically under 3Dmark2001. Same score. I used 7.76 for the MX400 and 45.23 for the FX5200.

This is a K6-2 500 with 128MB PC100, 2-2-2, interleaved. I guess the 5200 will go to the P4, it's wasted on the socket 7 😀

No. It's just that slow. Well, to be precise, I'd expect i to outperform an MX400, it's roughly on the level of the MX440/460. Unless it's a 64bit FX5200 with slow RAM. Then it can legit get as slow as an MX400.

Either way, it's slow for a P4.

I’ll test both on the P4 out of curiosity!

Best graphics card for AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor.

Best performance in D3D for K6-2 system - RivaTNT2 (driver v2.xx), OpenGL - Geforce 2/3.

wow that's a test!

Too bad the 5200 is not there.

How do I check whether my FX5200 is 128bit or 64bit?

tony359 wrote on 2024-01-24, 14:50:

wow that's a test!

Too bad the 5200 is not there.

How do I check whether my FX5200 is 128bit or 64bit?

GF FX5200 and FX5500 it's practically the same thing. (250/400Mhz vs 270/400Mhz)

You can check it in RivaTuner and aida64

tony359 wrote on 2024-01-24, 14:50:

wow that's a test!

Too bad the 5200 is not there.

How do I check whether my FX5200 is 128bit or 64bit?

HWiNFO
The FX5200 can come in many flavours. Any combination of 64/128bit and 133(266)/166(333)/200(400)MHz RAM. Unless it's a 128bit 400MHz model, it won't consistently beat the Geforce MX models. Most common are the 64bit 400MHz models.

It's a 64bit unfortunately, 166(333)MHz clock

The MX400 runs FASTER on my P4, 3DMARK 4398 of the MX400 vs 4139 of the FX5200.

Unexpected! 😀

The 5200 though supports more stuff than the MX400? What would you use on your P4?

They are both weak for P4.

If you choose between these two, the FX5200

Personally, I love the 9800 Pro. But you need to be careful with them because they seem to be prone to failure. Maybe I'm just a moth drawn to a flame. 😀

tony359 wrote on 2024-01-24, 17:40:

It's a 64bit unfortunately, 166(333)MHz clock […]
Show full quote

It's a 64bit unfortunately, 166(333)MHz clock

The MX400 runs FASTER on my P4, 3DMARK 4398 of the MX400 vs 4139 of the FX5200.

Unexpected! 😀

The 5200 though supports more stuff than the MX400? What would you use on your P4?

With those specs it's not unexpected at all. The FX has half the bandwidth compared to the MX400. That 5200 is only good for testing uncertain hardware or experimenting with overclocks and BIOS flashing.