Aebtdom wrote on 2022-02-03, 16:46:

Nice, but do you have any more cpu appropiate benchmarks?

Can’t seem to get 99 to run, I may be able to run 2001,

I’m having issues with winME under this card as I was saying. So can’t run the nvs under 9x/me on this setup it seems perhaps a different board would run it. But I’m trying to optimize this board.

I have super pi..
Phils computer benchmark suite?

I’m mainly trying to find a faster card than the 7500, I wonder, would a gf2 mx400 be faster?
Because of low driver overhead?

Gimme some benchmark names and I’ll try to run them.

A geforce2 mx would have a bit less driver overhead and still t&l, so that could be an improvement.

But just to get things straight, you run a mmx233 anf this cpu isn't anywhere near fast enough to run a game which has T&L.
So in my own perspective it would be less then usefull to try even 3dm99, since even that benchmark is cripling the mmx233.

I tried to run games too that were stupid for this cpu. Like battlezone, quake3, medal of honor allied assault.
Half life is about as good as it gets for this cpu, even there it sometimes causes framedrops back to 14fps. You wouldn't notice a lot of gain in hw improvements in anything newer or heavier than this game.

If you would be able to run games as the first unreal or quake2 you can benchmark it and really find out if more or faster memory can improve things, heck even a super socket 7 with for example an ALi chipset could be a positive change because of faster mem support and better pata speeds. On this you could even go agp. And installing only the graphics driver without the tools and other software.
That would be in my opinion be aiming for the stars for a mmx233.

And having a dual cpu is actually an opportunity to see what it really can do as a single core.
Install win2k which is (correct me if i'm wrong) less demanding but supports multiple cpu's.
And then you put all the tasks on one cpu and run the benchmark on the other one so it has more computing power availlable.

I ran my rig with the voodoo2 sli setup and noticed that that there is some performance increase, but the cards are bottlenecked so heavily that it doesn't matter on what res I start a game, the performance is the same. Hence a great 1024x768 gaming setup. But it is a pain to get some 3dfx games running in msdos. So I switched back to my voodoo 1 on orchid drivers (because mechwarrior 2 3Dfx demands it). So everything the cpu can handle, the card can handle too in msdos etc. without any hassle.

Here is the 7500 vs the nvs 400 side by side on two basically identical systems.

Interesting idea with the affinity tweaks.

Gonna try a new run with that and priority set to realtime with as many tasks as possible on the other cpu.

It’s funny, my 9800 pro on my k63+ is like that, I can do halo at the same fps at 1024x1280 as 640x480 🤣

I also have a k6 3+ As mentioned above^ Setup that I am trying to make go faster also. I can pop a 233 or a tillamook in it when it get it all tweaked and share results here.
If you want to follow it you can here:
Re: The coolest socket 7 motherboard that you’ve never heard of

Edit: results are in, the task manager tweaking made no difference.

I could try the opposite , where I try to force everything onto one cpu but to truly try it I would need to reinstall or reboot to ME as task manager doesn’t like changing affinity on some processes and if I disable a cpu the os won’t boot without reinstalling to single cpu kernel.

So you lost 7% performance because of winXP?
Thats a big step back from the stars.

Yeah, the idea is cool, also that 9800 is wasted on that cpu and mainboard it's such a shame of that beautiful card, even a 2ghz cpu doesnt do it right. But for the idea, because we can, sure put on even am x800xt..

To bad that changing affinity didn't do anything.

The cpu plugged into that supersocket 7 mainboard would increase your options of more overkill gpu's and have more card option to compare with. Too bad it doesnt have isa.

On operating systems tbh, stick to 98 for this cpu. Even for the k6-III.

Aebtdom wrote on 2022-02-03, 22:10:

So you lost 7% performance because of winXP? Thats a big step back from the stars. […]
Show full quote

So you lost 7% performance because of winXP?
Thats a big step back from the stars.

Yeah, the idea is cool, also that 9800 is wasted on that cpu and mainboard it's such a shame of that beautiful card, even a 2ghz cpu doesnt do it right. But for the idea, because we can, sure put on even am x800xt..

To bad that changing affinity didn't do anything.

The cpu plugged into that supersocket 7 mainboard would increase your options of more overkill gpu's and have more card option to compare with. Too bad it doesnt have isa.

On operating systems tbh, stick to 98 for this cpu. Even for the k6-III.

Maybe I should rename this thread to Tyan S2564D Aiming For The Stars

I wanted others to be able to participate in the fun though 🤣

That 7% could just be a difference between driver versions I might actually be able to tweak that down a little bit by changing windows registry settings and driver versions etc. right now I’m really just trying to find a faster card problem is this motherboard is so picky about what cards will work in it it’s kind of difficult

But also yeah totally windows XP is slower than windows 9X with many benchmarks I’m sure whatever gains that I could tweak on windows XP I could exceed be tweaking windows 9X

I like using windows XP on this machine though because of its compatibility with the software that I am running and games and dual CPU support

Geforce 2 mx400 pci, dvi, vga, 128-bit?, xxmb?

I am hoping that this may be the answer to beating the performance of my 64mb radeon 7500 pci, dvi, vga 64-bit mem

I have two on the way. 😬 hopefully not money wasted!

It’s basically the same card from my understanding as a quadro2 except in pci form. And people are getting veeeerrry good numbers with quadro2s, geforce2s, geforce 3s, (and presumably though no one has tried) quadro DCCs on the k6 thread.

Btw for documentation purposes, I did a run with my radeon 7000, with basically the same setup as the last run. Got like 400 points.

The radeon 7000 works very well in this mobo but is nowhere near as fast even with a slow pentium 1 holding it back.in fact it’s slightly less than half the performance of a 7500.

Well, you dont know if the 7000 is half as fast as the 7500, since you are testing only t&l performance programs and the 7000 doesnt support it. On t&l it is slower yes, but is it on older non t&l programs? Is the 7500 producing playable framerates on the 233?

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-02-04, 10:14:

Geforce 2 mx400 pci, dvi, vga, 128-bit?, xxmb? 41251094-0FB0-4942-BC84-30E0341E2346.jpegC806736F-447E-4CD1-83B0-9D5FDE95B08A.jpe […]
Show full quote

Geforce 2 mx400 pci, dvi, vga, 128-bit?, xxmb?
41251094-0FB0-4942-BC84-30E0341E2346.jpegC806736F-447E-4CD1-83B0-9D5FDE95B08A.jpeg
I am hoping that this may be the answer to beating the performance of my 64mb radeon 7500 pci, dvi, vga 64-bit mem

I have two on the way. 😬 hopefully not money wasted!

It’s basically the same card from my understanding as a quadro2 except in pci form. And people are getting veeeerrry good numbers with quadro2s, geforce2s, geforce 3s, (and presumably though no one has tried) quadro DCCs on the k6 thread.

There are three cards with "Quadro 2" in their name: 'Quadro 2 MXR', 'Quadro 2 EX' and 'Quadro 2 PRO'. Only the Quadro 2 PRO uses the NV15(GL) that is also used in GeForce 2 GTS/Ti/PRO/Ultra. The first two cards use the same chip as the GeForce 2 MX400 PCI, the NV11(GL), that you bought. You're getting all GF2 features like DX7 with T&L but only SDR memory and half the pipes and TMUs compared to "true" GeForce 2 cards.
This is going to be a good performer for a Socket 7 PCI build but it will not perform on par with "true" GeForce 2 cards or even GeForce 3s. For benchmark records I'd be on the lookout for a GeForce 4 MX 440 PCI. DVI is a handy feature though. 😀 Plus multi monitor on multi CPU! 😁

Aebtdom wrote on 2022-02-04, 11:10:

Well, you dont know if the 7000 is half as fast as the 7500, since you are testing only t&l performance programs and the 7000 doesnt support it. On t&l it is slower yes, but is it on older non t&l programs? Is the 7500 producing playable framerates on the 233?

Depends what I try to play of course, stratosphere: ~eh~, sim city 2k: yeah, halo: no 🤣, bridge builder: no, ra2: no, ra2 is kinda surprising, apparently there is a patch to make it better?

Idk, anyway there are more games I have yet to try.

I tried to get quake 2 working but the link I downloaded doesn’t appear to have a working program in it…?

Link me to something else you want me to try. I can’t get 3dm99 to work.

Doornkaat wrote on 2022-02-04, 15:32:

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-02-04, 10:14:

Geforce 2 mx400 pci, dvi, vga, 128-bit?, xxmb? 41251094-0FB0-4942-BC84-30E0341E2346.jpegC806736F-447E-4CD1-83B0-9D5FDE95B08A.jpe […]
Show full quote

Geforce 2 mx400 pci, dvi, vga, 128-bit?, xxmb?
41251094-0FB0-4942-BC84-30E0341E2346.jpegC806736F-447E-4CD1-83B0-9D5FDE95B08A.jpeg
I am hoping that this may be the answer to beating the performance of my 64mb radeon 7500 pci, dvi, vga 64-bit mem

I have two on the way. 😬 hopefully not money wasted!

It’s basically the same card from my understanding as a quadro2 except in pci form. And people are getting veeeerrry good numbers with quadro2s, geforce2s, geforce 3s, (and presumably though no one has tried) quadro DCCs on the k6 thread.

There are three cards with "Quadro 2" in their name: 'Quadro 2 MXR', 'Quadro 2 EX' and 'Quadro 2 PRO'. Only the Quadro 2 PRO uses the NV15(GL) that is also used in GeForce 2 GTS/Ti/PRO/Ultra. The first two cards use the same chip as the GeForce 2 MX400 PCI, the NV11(GL), that you bought. You're getting all GF2 features like DX7 with T&L but only SDR memory and half the pipes and TMUs compared to "true" GeForce 2 cards.
This is going to be a good performer for a Socket 7 PCI build but it will not perform on par with "true" GeForce 2 cards or even GeForce 3s. For benchmark records I'd be on the lookout for a GeForce 4 MX 440 PCI. DVI is a handy feature though. 😀 Plus multi monitor on multi CPU! 😁

Crap…
I can keep an eye out for the mx440. You are sure that it will be better than my quadro nvs 400🤔 speaking of, maybe I will try to overclock that. One sec.

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-02-04, 15:58:

Crap…
I can keep an eye out for the mx440. You are sure that it will be better than my quadro nvs 400🤔 speaking of, maybe I will try to overclock that. One sec.

Sorry, didn't mean to bum you out! Try the GF2 MX 400 cards you ordered, there's a chance that on PCI and with a Pentium MMX 233 GF2 cards are all bottlenecked so much that there's hardly any difference.
I'm not sure about Quadro NVS 400 vs. MX 440 but if you're not using DX8/9 features there's a chance the GF4 MX 440 running older drivers may have an advantage on an old CPU like that. Only a theory though, nothing proven. Edit: Sorry, got my wires crossed here and confused Quadro NVS 400 with Quadro FX 600.

Doornkaat wrote on 2022-02-04, 16:34:

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-02-04, 15:58:

Crap…
I can keep an eye out for the mx440. You are sure that it will be better than my quadro nvs 400🤔 speaking of, maybe I will try to overclock that. One sec.

Sorry, didn't mean to bum you out! Try the GF2 MX 400 cards you ordered, there's a chance that on PCI and with a Pentium MMX 233 GF2 cards are all bottlenecked so much that there's hardly any difference.
I'm not sure about Quadro NVS 400 vs. MX 440 but if you're not using DX8/9 features there's a chance the GF4 MX 440 running older drivers may have an advantage on an old CPU like that. Only a theory though, nothing proven.

Okay, I am running 3dmark 2k again with riva tuner overclocking the nvs 400

I got to 610 memory 330 core (core maxed out the slider) unsure if settings are actually applied on core because that’s like a 100mhz increase

The memory is also a significant overclock, but at 620 I do get artifacts so am inclined to think that it actually is doing something.

Edit: got to test 10 and crashed trying 600 mem

Ugh,

It’s gotta be the drivers.

What

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-02-04, 17:00:

Okay, I am running 3dmark 2k again with riva tuner overclocking the nvs 400 […]
Show full quote

Doornkaat wrote on 2022-02-04, 16:34:

Sphere478 wrote on 2022-02-04, 15:58:

Crap…
I can keep an eye out for the mx440. You are sure that it will be better than my quadro nvs 400🤔 speaking of, maybe I will try to overclock that. One sec.

Sorry, didn't mean to bum you out! Try the GF2 MX 400 cards you ordered, there's a chance that on PCI and with a Pentium MMX 233 GF2 cards are all bottlenecked so much that there's hardly any difference.
I'm not sure about Quadro NVS 400 vs. MX 440 but if you're not using DX8/9 features there's a chance the GF4 MX 440 running older drivers may have an advantage on an old CPU like that. Only a theory though, nothing proven.

Okay, I am running 3dmark 2k again with riva tuner overclocking the nvs 400

I got to 610 memory 330 core (core maxed out the slider) unsure if settings are actually applied on core because that’s like a 100mhz increase

The memory is also a significant overclock, but at 620 I do get artifacts so am inclined to think that it actually is doing something.

Edit: got to test 10 and crashed trying 600 mem

First: Got my wires crossed in the previous post, no idea about the difference in performance/drivers between GF4 MX 440 and Quadro NVS 400.
I believe (Hearsay, your honour!) Quadro GPUs were usually higher binned than their GeForce counterparts. Since MX 460 runs @300MHz I guess 330MHz is realistic on a good chip? But how are you getting even close to 600MHz on memory? Ô.ÔEdit: Failed again, effective clock on DDR obviously! 😁

Quadros sometimes might have been higher binned chips, but they may have been binned for heat/voltage, such that you get a 512 core Geforce and it needs a 6 pin connector and sucks 120W whereas the Quadro is clocked slightly less, no power connector and draws 74W off the PCIe and is single slot where the cooler overhangs the second in the geforce....

So such situations you might have a "better" GPU but trying to overclock it is a bit futile unless you can give it more power.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/114227547079

Idk who else is looking for a gf2 pci but I ran across this. Price sucks but pci and dvi and gf2 don’t come together often.

Garrett W wrote on 2022-01-29, 09:17:

Here's mine: […]
Show full quote

Here's mine:

MMX 233
3Dfx Voodoo Banshee PCI
OEM 430TX based board
64MB RAM
Win95 OSR2.5

3DMark2000 - 640x480 16bit - 436 3Dmarks

I might give it a go at 1024x768 just to see that Banshee way out of its league. I have a GeForce4 MX440 PCI that will really help out in this situation with TnL, but I'm somewhat unwilling to mess with my setup right now. Is CPU overclocking allowed for the results to be valid?

I ran a few more tests with the Banshee.

3DMark99 MAX - 800x600 16bit - 1246 3DMarks / 1609 CPU 3DMarks
3DMark2000 - 1024x768 16bit - 441 3DMarks

I found it very interesting that the MMX 233 is such a bottleneck in 3DMark2000 that even the poor old Banshee can do 1024x768 and score identically to 640x480. Anyway, I decided to test my GF4 MX440 PCI that I mentioned before. I used the earliest driver I had on hand that would support it, 43.45. The card is identified as the GF4 MX440 with AGP8x, but it is indeed a PCI card which I find somewhat amusing. The results speak for themselves:

3DMark99 MAX - 800x600 16bit - 1206 3DMarks / 1582 CPU 3DMarks
3DMark2000 - 1024x768 16bit - 1046 3DMarks

These scores demonstrate two things :

a) 3DMark99 MAX does not take advantage of T&L and as such scores ever so slightly lower than the 3Dfx card I had previously. I believe the slightly lower score (it was repeatable) to be a side-effect of driver overhead.

b) 3DMark2000 sees a massive boost, as was to be expected. In fact, unless I missed someone's score, I believe I'm on top for the time being! For proof, I have two blurry photos with CRT artifacts because I didn't bother to adjust the shutter speed.

There's definitely room for improvement here. My particular OEM 430TX board comes equipped with 256K L2 Cache, so I suppose 512K could make a small difference, as would tighter memory timings such as CL2, which my board reluctantly does not allow me to modify. There's also the possibility of overclocking the CPU by using a 75MHz bus on this chipset (my board, once again, does not, regrettably, offer such an option) or even 100MHz on a Super7 board. Considering this PCI variant of the AGP8x version of MX440 probably came out rather late, I don't think I can really go much farther back when it comes to using older drivers, 43.45 are already from early 2003. A PCI variant of the GeForce2 MX using drivers from 2000 would probably perform a bit better.

I did a retest on win98, 9 pts shy of 1300pts in 3dmark99. I blame it to the minor differences in tests.
Making the voodoo2 still the fastest.
This one is done with a single card.

OK Yes this is total cheating, but I bet a few were wondering.
Motherboard is Epox EP-MVP3G5.

Garrett W wrote on 2022-02-11, 21:22:

Considering this PCI variant of the AGP8x version of MX440 probably came out rather late, I don't think I can really go much farther back when it comes to using older drivers, 43.45 are already from early 2003.

I use 40.72 WHQL drivers on my AGP8x MX440 and they work just fine.

This is with an actual AGP card mind you, so I'm not sure if it applies to your PCI version as well. Might still be worth trying it out.