Quadro 4 NVS 100.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-12-23, 21:43:

Quadro 4 NVS 100.

Pic? 😀

Out of curiosity how does the PCI 7500 compare to its AGP counter part .. does the slower bus affect it at all for performance ?

I have a PCI 7500 coming but dont have a AGP version to compare.

TrashPanda wrote on 2021-12-24, 00:54:

Out of curiosity how does the PCI 7500 compare to its AGP counter part .. does the slower bus affect it at all for performance ?

I have a PCI 7500 coming but dont have a AGP version to compare.

🤷‍♂️ I can say on a dual pentium 233 mmx overclocking it doesn’t seem to make much difference might be the 233mmx though

Pic?

GoogleDuckduckgo!

does the slower bus affect it at all for performance ?

It does, but mostly on stuff that have T&L support. For example, Unreal Tournament 2004 or Painkiller will nosedive to unplayable levels on pretty much any PCI video card. But more modern DX9+ games may run fine, due to more efficient ways of rendering (vertex shaders, geometry instancing, etc). Games which have pure rasterisation engine (basically any pre-DX7 or DX7 with T&L off switch) suffer minimal performance impact.

My NVS 280 is the fastest card that I've found that will work with my TXP4. You can install a slightly earlier Win98 driver by force installing an FX5200 driver (same core), and I added a heatsink with a fan which allowed me to overclock it a little. Pixel Pipes made a video featuring a 128 bit PCI FX5200, but just try and find one on Ebay! I did buy one that was advertised as such, but I didn't discover until after I'd left positive feedback that it was just another 64 bit card.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-12-24, 02:52:

GoogleDuckduckgo! […]
Show full quote

Pic?

GoogleDuckduckgo!

does the slower bus affect it at all for performance ?

It does, but mostly on stuff that have T&L support. For example, Unreal Tournament 2004 or Painkiller will nosedive to unplayable levels on pretty much any PCI video card. But more modern DX9+ games may run fine, due to more efficient ways of rendering (vertex shaders, geometry instancing, etc). Games which have pure rasterisation engine (basically any pre-DX7 or DX7 with T&L off switch) suffer minimal performance impact.

The point in my asking was I want to see which particular PCB you have since some within the same model will work while others don’t

Repo Man11 wrote on 2021-12-24, 03:07:

My NVS 280 is the fastest card that I've found that will work with my TXP4. You can install a slightly earlier Win98 driver by force installing an FX5200 driver (same core), and I added a heatsink with a fan which allowed me to overclock it a little. Pixel Pipes made a video featuring a 128 bit PCI FX5200, but just try and find one on Ebay! I did buy one that was advertised as such, but I didn't discover until after I'd left positive feedback that it was just another 64 bit card.

I actually bought one on your recommendation and it won’t post if I recall correctly.

Can you post a pic of the particular pcb you have on yours?

The point in my asking was I want to see which particular PCB

Quadro is Quadro.

My Saphire Radeon 9250 worked surprisingly well in my M919 last time I tested it.

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-12-24, 07:24:

Repo Man11 wrote on 2021-12-24, 03:07:

My NVS 280 is the fastest card that I've found that will work with my TXP4. You can install a slightly earlier Win98 driver by force installing an FX5200 driver (same core), and I added a heatsink with a fan which allowed me to overclock it a little. Pixel Pipes made a video featuring a 128 bit PCI FX5200, but just try and find one on Ebay! I did buy one that was advertised as such, but I didn't discover until after I'd left positive feedback that it was just another 64 bit card.

I actually bought one on your recommendation and it won’t post if I recall correctly.

Can you post a pic of the particular pcb you have on yours?

I just lifted these from an Ebay listing, but mine's identical right down to the BIOS.

schlomoe99 wrote on 2021-12-24, 13:11:

My Saphire Radeon 9250 worked surprisingly well in my M919 last time I tested it.

Which pcb do you have?

Repo Man11 wrote on 2021-12-24, 13:20:

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-12-24, 07:24:

Repo Man11 wrote on 2021-12-24, 03:07:

My NVS 280 is the fastest card that I've found that will work with my TXP4. You can install a slightly earlier Win98 driver by force installing an FX5200 driver (same core), and I added a heatsink with a fan which allowed me to overclock it a little. Pixel Pipes made a video featuring a 128 bit PCI FX5200, but just try and find one on Ebay! I did buy one that was advertised as such, but I didn't discover until after I'd left positive feedback that it was just another 64 bit card.

I actually bought one on your recommendation and it won’t post if I recall correctly.

Can you post a pic of the particular pcb you have on yours?

I just lifted these from an Ebay listing, but mine's identical right down to the BIOS.

🧐 looks like the one I got.. will have to check closer later.

What drivers are you using with it? Windows XP?

Using Win98, you can force install the 43.45 which is the earliest driver that supports the FX series that I'm aware of. Official support for the NVS 280 doesn't begin until the 56.64.

Repo Man11 wrote on 2021-12-24, 13:30:

Using Win98, you can force install the 43.45 which is the earliest driver that supports the FX series that I'm aware of. Official support for the NVS 280 doesn't begin until the 56.64.

Might pull it out of the storage cabinet and give it another try. It seems like the perfect card for my build if I can just get it to work... Thanks!

I don't know about compatibility but my fastest PCI cards are the Geforce FX 5200 PCI (I don't remember the ram/bandwidth), the Geforce 210 PCI, the Geforce GT610 PCI. I don't have unfortunately ATi cards on this bus. I didn't try these on old mainboards, I never thought a Socket 7 might ever need even the FX 5200 in any situation anyway. It's more about having a choice for those mini-itx boards that had only PCI bus (through a PCI-EX chipset bridge, that wasn't the best design choice considering there's another bridge on the vga itself to make the opposite). In fact some other mini-itx low power boards had PCI-EX connections. And in my own board I tested a lot the mini pci-ex connector was desoldered by factory.. 😁

386SX wrote on 2021-12-24, 15:22:

I don't know about compatibility but my fastest PCI cards are the Geforce FX 5200 PCI (I don't remember the ram/bandwidth), the Geforce 210 PCI, the Geforce GT610 PCI. I don't have unfortunately ATi cards on this bus. I didn't try these on old mainboards, I never thought a Socket 7 might ever need even the FX 5200 in any situation anyway. It's more about having a choice for those mini-itx boards that had only PCI bus (through a PCI-EX chipset bridge, that wasn't the best design choice considering there's another bridge on the vga itself to make the opposite). In fact some other mini-itx low power boards had PCI-EX connections. And in my own board I tested a lot the mini pci-ex connector was desoldered by factory.. 😁

Guys I appreciate the replies but the point of the thread was to know the model and pic of the cards that are working on 5v pci and 586

Was really hoping to see the actual pcb and components installed on these pcbs because I have noticed that some cards of same model do and some don’t work

This 5500 also works in my TXp4, but I can't set the clocks as fast as I can with the 280, so my benchmark scores are a bit lower across the board.

I will refresh it here a bit.
Currently I use Quadro4 200 NVS 64MB PCI on my P200 MMX build (based on PC Partner VIB804DS; VIA VPX chipset). However, the card has an issue with VESA modes (unrelated to platform):
Quadro4 200 NVS 64MB PCI (NV17 based) - poor VESA compatibility

Practically it's not a big deal as this build is focused on earlier DOS games, for later VESA games I can use my SS7 or P4 build. OpenGL and Direct3D works without any problems under Win98.

The second video card that works on this build is EVGA GeForce 6200A 256MB PCI:

It has an impeccable DOS support, but I was unable to get it working under Win98. After driver installation I'm getting protection errors upon start. Again, I could be satisfied for a DOS only machine, but it would be interesting to know what is the problem. I did some testing and the card works in Win98 without any issues on a more modern platform (Apollo Pro 133T/Celeron 900 with the same amount of RAM and driver version as P1 build). This leads me to think it's a chipset issue, something with memory allocation/resource conflicts. I wonder how it would behave with a lower amount of VRAM. I also want to test it on VIA MVP3 (successor to VPX) board + the same P1 CPU, to rule out CPU issue (e.g. lack of instructions).

Interesting development. Additionally I tested this PCI 6200 GeForce on three VIA MVP3 motherboards I have and none was able to post with it - mostly 1 long, 3 short beeps. Since I used ATX PSU this time and more modern motherboards, I was expecting better results. It seemed one of the motherboards (FIC VA-503+) was struggling to power up the card, because CPU fan was slowing down during POST, but in the end it gave up and announced a missing video card. Looks like the originally tested VIA VPX motherboard has a better power supply to PCI slots, albeit powered by a weaker AT PSU. While I was at it I tested also BX chipset motherboard and here I was able to run 3D acceleration under Win98 after some BIOS tweaking.

On the other hand I was able to get this video card:

It's a Gainward FX5200 64MB PCI (with only one 5V notch!). As I was hoping it simply works everywhere and I was finally able to replace Quadro4 200 NVS in my P1 build. It has a perfect DOS compatibility (no VESA issues like Quadro), Win98 3D acceleration works (tested with drivers 45.23), passive cooling and most importantly it has a DVI output - exactly what I was looking for in one package. I believe this is as far as we can go on 586.