BSA Starfire wrote on 2020-06-26, 05:29:

NautilusComputer wrote on 2020-06-24, 17:13:

I meant to mention that in my post - edited. Amazing the difference that even 2.5 years made when we were near "peak advancement […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote on 2020-06-24, 14:36:

The 2 chips were some years apart. Btw you have any pics of the cards and are you planning on testing more cards?
Tbf, TNT1 doesn't seem like a very useful retro card to me, but at least your had less of the weird artefacting you are decribing 😜

I meant to mention that in my post - edited. Amazing the difference that even 2.5 years made when we were near "peak advancement rate" for graphics improvements.

Top card is the MX400, bottom is the TNT1. I had a spare 80mm fan blowing right at the heatsink of both cards for the tests. The MX400 looks like it might need re-capped; that could be the source of the artifacting?

I did this test on a whim; I'd add more into it if I have what people want to see tested. I've got some less common cards at the moment - NVS280 PCI, Quadro4 XGL, Voodoo3 2000 (common), SiS 305 AGP, Savage4 AGP, a leftover Radeon 7000 VE with a VESA P&D (Plug & Display) connector (I think AKA M1?).

I'd like to see the SiS 305 and the Savage 4, nice to visit some less usual cards.

This motherboard HATES the Savage4; beeps at power up and won't post. Will verify if card is good in a different motherboard. Definitely not running the OLDEST drivers for the TNT. I'll have to get back to it next week.

How about how does Geforce 2 MX compare? I have one without 400 after the MX on the chip.
I also have MX4000 card that I think is suppose to be similar performance as MX400 at least based on some forum conversation online.

Baoran wrote on 2020-06-28, 18:43:

How about how does Geforce 2 MX compare? I have one without 400 after the MX on the chip.
I also have MX4000 card that I think is suppose to be similar performance as MX400 at least based on some forum conversation online.

That depends.... The MX4000 is the latest iteration of the GF4MX440 revision, which in itself is an MX2 on steroids...
In terms of performance it really depends on the card in question as most MX4000s were of the 64bit variety, and there even exist 32bit versions, as well as PCI variants...

The AGP/PCI variant 64bit versions are between GF2MX400 and GF4MX440 performance, whereas the 32bit version is obv. quite a tad slower.

jaZz_KCS wrote on 2020-06-29, 09:23:

That depends.... The MX4000 is the latest iteration of the GF4MX440 revision, which in itself is an MX2 on steroids... In terms […]
Show full quote

Baoran wrote on 2020-06-28, 18:43:

How about how does Geforce 2 MX compare? I have one without 400 after the MX on the chip.
I also have MX4000 card that I think is suppose to be similar performance as MX400 at least based on some forum conversation online.

That depends.... The MX4000 is the latest iteration of the GF4MX440 revision, which in itself is an MX2 on steroids...
In terms of performance it really depends on the card in question as most MX4000s were of the 64bit variety, and there even exist 32bit versions, as well as PCI variants...

The AGP/PCI variant 64bit versions are between GF2MX400 and GF4MX440 performance, whereas the 32bit version is obv. quite a tad slower.

Is it possible to see from the card itself without installing it to a pc if my mx4000 is 64 or 32 bit?

Edit: it is an AGP card made by gainward and 128Mb of video ram with dvi, vga and tv-out

you also have to check if the MX400 is a half decent model (128bits SDR) or something worse (64bits SDR MX400 which was supposed to be the MX200 was not uncommon)
there was a very large difference in performance.

I have an MX440 I can test against, but I'm waiting on caps to show up. I have 3-4 cards to be recapped but I've been maaad busy (day job + personal business + 7 month old) and haven't gotten back to anything 'relaxing' in a while. 😀

Baoran wrote on 2020-06-29, 23:30:

jaZz_KCS wrote on 2020-06-29, 09:23:

That depends.... The MX4000 is the latest iteration of the GF4MX440 revision, which in itself is an MX2 on steroids... In terms […]
Show full quote

Baoran wrote on 2020-06-28, 18:43:

How about how does Geforce 2 MX compare? I have one without 400 after the MX on the chip.
I also have MX4000 card that I think is suppose to be similar performance as MX400 at least based on some forum conversation online.

That depends.... The MX4000 is the latest iteration of the GF4MX440 revision, which in itself is an MX2 on steroids...
In terms of performance it really depends on the card in question as most MX4000s were of the 64bit variety, and there even exist 32bit versions, as well as PCI variants...

The AGP/PCI variant 64bit versions are between GF2MX400 and GF4MX440 performance, whereas the 32bit version is obv. quite a tad slower.

Is it possible to see from the card itself without installing it to a pc if my mx4000 is 64 or 32 bit?

Edit: it is an AGP card made by gainward and 128Mb of video ram with dvi, vga and tv-out

Supposedly 64bit cards always have both/all memory locations populated on both sides. Whereas 32bit cards only populate one/half of the memory locations per side.

jaZz_KCS wrote on 2020-06-30, 17:02:

Baoran wrote on 2020-06-29, 23:30:

jaZz_KCS wrote on 2020-06-29, 09:23:

That depends.... The MX4000 is the latest iteration of the GF4MX440 revision, which in itself is an MX2 on steroids...
In terms of performance it really depends on the card in question as most MX4000s were of the 64bit variety, and there even exist 32bit versions, as well as PCI variants...

The AGP/PCI variant 64bit versions are between GF2MX400 and GF4MX440 performance, whereas the 32bit version is obv. quite a tad slower.

Is it possible to see from the card itself without installing it to a pc if my mx4000 is 64 or 32 bit?

Edit: it is an AGP card made by gainward and 128Mb of video ram with dvi, vga and tv-out

Supposedly 64bit cards always have both/all memory locations populated on both sides. Whereas 32bit cards only populate one/half of the memory locations per side.

Mine is bit strange then. It only has 4 memory chips on front side and no chips on back side. Can't see the markings on the chips because they are half covered by the heatsink. No fan on the card.

Baoran wrote on 2020-07-01, 00:28:

jaZz_KCS wrote on 2020-06-30, 17:02:

Baoran wrote on 2020-06-29, 23:30:

Is it possible to see from the card itself without installing it to a pc if my mx4000 is 64 or 32 bit?

Edit: it is an AGP card made by gainward and 128Mb of video ram with dvi, vga and tv-out

Supposedly 64bit cards always have both/all memory locations populated on both sides. Whereas 32bit cards only populate one/half of the memory locations per side.

Mine is bit strange then. It only has 4 memory chips on front side and no chips on back side. Can't see the markings on the chips because they are half covered by the heatsink. No fan on the card.

4 chips usually mean 64bit, not always but usually for this generation.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-07-01, 12:05:

Baoran wrote on 2020-07-01, 00:28:

jaZz_KCS wrote on 2020-06-30, 17:02:

Supposedly 64bit cards always have both/all memory locations populated on both sides. Whereas 32bit cards only populate one/half of the memory locations per side.

Mine is bit strange then. It only has 4 memory chips on front side and no chips on back side. Can't see the markings on the chips because they are half covered by the heatsink. No fan on the card.

4 chips usually mean 64bit, not always but usually for this generation.

I removed the heatsink. The 4 memory chips on the card are labeled as ELIXIR N2DS25616CT-5T

Can you tell based on that if the card is 64bit? It seems to be ddr400 memory.

According to the datasheet, ELIXIR N2DS25616CT-5T are 64Mx16 , which means that 4 of them would a 64-bit total bus width .

Makes sense, 32bit tsop would be to large and to many pins, VGA chips is where you start to see 32,bit chips though sgram could have the pins for 32bit because it has pins on all 4 sides where as normal DDR only has pins on the long sides.

Re of thumb for normal tsop DDR is only 4 likely 16bit chips so you need 8 for 128bit.