Kahenraz wrote on 2022-06-12, 15:50:

canthearu wrote on 2022-06-12, 15:46:

I vote Geforce 4 MX-SE version.

The GeForce 4 MX series is actually quite good for anything that uses DirectX 7. What's criminal is the OEMs that butchered these budget cards with a 64-bit memory bus.

I have one of these GeForce 4 MX440 SE but it came with 128-bit memory bus and it wasn't bad except that mine had a unusually high memory clock that caused artifacts in certain video modes. In addition to this, the GeForce 4 MX can run Far Cry and HL2 which both only uses DirectX 9 runtime libraries but they don't require a card with DX9 capabilities.

Tetrium wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:11:

But I could suggest you take a look at a Geforce4 MX 420 so that you can ask yourself what the heck you have been smoking 😋

That's too generous. A GeForce FX 5200 is even slower. Try and find a 64-bit one, if you are a true masochist. A GeForce 2 MX would probably be faster.

Gmlb256 wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:28:

I have one of these GeForce 4 MX440 SE but it came with 128-bit memory bus and it wasn't bad except that mine had a unusually high memory clock that caused artifacts in certain video modes.

I had this issue as well with a used one that I bought recently. I was certain that it was bad memory (it was an issue with the memory, for sure), but the cause of the problem was actually bad capacitors.

Repair shops hate me. I fixed defective memory on my video card with this one neat trick.

I have tested the GeForce 4 MX series against the GeForce 2 Ultra and they are very competitive. I think a lot of the hate for these cards comes from someone having a crippled OEM version, the system they paired it with actually had a CPU that held it back or their system was low on memory and swapped too much during gameplay, or they just got one very late in the DirectX 8/early DirectX 9 era and tried to compare it with a GeForce 4 Ti or Radeon 8000 series.

For Windows 98 and anything DirectX 7, it is an excellent card.

Just a suggestion, to keep my systems all complete, rather than seek out a GPU for the sake of it...

Pick a GPU that you'd like to add to your collection and stick that in there, whether you deem it bottlenecked or not - "period correct" or not etc

For example, it was quite important to me to have a 2.0GHz Willamette 423 system and athlon xp 3200+ system - it was also important to me to own both a fx5900 ultra aswell as fx5950 ultra

So I stuck the 5900 in the p4 machine and the 5950 in the xp 3200+

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:30:

That's too generous. A GeForce FX 5200 is even slower. Try and find a 64-bit one, if you are a true masochist. A GeForce 2 MX would probably be faster.

Wait for real? I have a FX 5200 Ultra in the PC and a MX440 in a box, should I switch them?

The short answer is: it depends. The longer answer is: it depends on what you want to play, what and whether it is compatible with your chipset and CPU. FX series cards also require newer drivers that may not play nicely with older hardware.

See here:

NVIDIA GeForce FX driver testing on an Intel 440EX summary and report

There are also some bizarre examples, like when I was testing a GeForce 5200 256MB vs a GeForce 4 MX 420 64MB (both 128-bit). The GeForce 4 MX tripled my frame rate in Morrowind (close to 30 fps), but had only about 10 fps or less in Unreal. Whereas the GeForce FX was buttery smooth in Unreal but gave maybe 12 fps in Morrowind.

Take these numbers as a grain of salt, however, as both were PCI cards, so expect wildly different results for AGP. But I still expect the GeForce 4 MX to be faster.

mrfusion92 wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:42:

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:30:

That's too generous. A GeForce FX 5200 is even slower. Try and find a 64-bit one, if you are a true masochist. A GeForce 2 MX would probably be faster.

Wait for real? I have a FX 5200 Ultra in the PC and a MX440 in a box, should I switch them?

The FX5200 Ultra is basically the same as the FX5600.

Nothing like the regular FX5200/FX5500.

Weird crap from the thrift... episode 14 or whatever I haven't been counting. Snagged a Thermaltake Volcano 9 in box, lightly used, with control knob, and thermal probe... also unused white grease, woohoo. Didn't snap a pic, figured most who are into socket A will have seen them on pages such as https://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/ther … volcano9review/ Will be a nice period cooler for a socket A rig.

tunertom wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:39:

Just a suggestion, to keep my systems all complete, rather than seek out a GPU for the sake of it... […]
Show full quote

Just a suggestion, to keep my systems all complete, rather than seek out a GPU for the sake of it...

Pick a GPU that you'd like to add to your collection and stick that in there, whether you deem it bottlenecked or not - "period correct" or not etc

For example, it was quite important to me to have a 2.0GHz Willamette 423 system and athlon xp 3200+ system - it was also important to me to own both a fx5900 ultra aswell as fx5950 ultra

So I stuck the 5900 in the p4 machine and the 5950 in the xp 3200+

My post was more a conversation starter 😁 I very likely won’t be keeping the RDimm P4 as a working box so no need for a period correct GPU.

Just a need for an equally terrible GPU to match it.

Sis 305, Pine Tech did a discrete one in AGP.

cyclone3d wrote on 2022-06-12, 21:28:

The FX5200 Ultra is basically the same as the FX5600.

Nothing like the regular FX5200/FX5500.

I missed the "Ultra". This should be faster than the GeForce 4 MX. There are some hardware combinations where the FX series can actually be slower than older generation GPUs. For example, if you pair it with a CPU that does not have SSE (pre-Coppermine).

It's always worth comparing. A good test is the flyby intro of Unreal. If it lags to hell then the FX card is running on the unoptimized code path.

BitWrangler wrote on 2022-06-13, 00:14:

Sis 305, Pine Tech did a discrete one in AGP.

Is it 4x/8x ?

Board won’t work with 2x cards.

Why won't it work with 2x cards?

cyclone3d wrote on 2022-06-12, 21:28:

mrfusion92 wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:42:

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:30:

That's too generous. A GeForce FX 5200 is even slower. Try and find a 64-bit one, if you are a true masochist. A GeForce 2 MX would probably be faster.

Wait for real? I have a FX 5200 Ultra in the PC and a MX440 in a box, should I switch them?

The FX5200 Ultra is basically the same as the FX5600.

Nothing like the regular FX5200/FX5500.

It's a little generous to say that. The FX5200 Ultra is an overclocked FX5200 with higher clocks. It improves performance to the point where it reliably beats the GF4 MX cards, but it was still the same heavily mutilated GPU.
https://youtu.be/09qvRCv7ThE

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-06-13, 03:21:

Why won't it work with 2x cards?

Tetrium pointed out my board the Intel D850BG doesn’t work with 2x cards in one of their earlier posts.

I’m guessing voltage incompatibility along with slot type.

RandomStranger wrote on 2022-06-13, 04:09:

cyclone3d wrote on 2022-06-12, 21:28:

mrfusion92 wrote on 2022-06-12, 19:42:

Wait for real? I have a FX 5200 Ultra in the PC and a MX440 in a box, should I switch them?

The FX5200 Ultra is basically the same as the FX5600.

Nothing like the regular FX5200/FX5500.

It's a little generous to say that. The FX5200 Ultra is an overclocked FX5200 with higher clocks. It improves performance to the point where it reliably beats the GF4 MX cards, but it was still the same heavily mutilated GPU.
https://youtu.be/09qvRCv7ThE

I have a Gainward Gold Sample 5200 ultra I could use.

I've wanted a 5200 Ultra die my collection for some time, but I already know what kind of performance numbers to expect, and have no intention of paying the price that these have been selling for lately.

I already have a 5600, 5900, and 5959 Ultra. I'm only missing the 5200 and 5700 Ultra. They would be nice to have, if only to complete the set.

TrashPanda wrote on 2022-06-13, 04:16:

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-06-13, 03:21:

Why won't it work with 2x cards?

Tetrium pointed out my board the Intel D850BG doesn’t work with 2x cards in one of their earlier posts.

I’m guessing voltage incompatibility along with slot type.

^This.

Intel decided that it was a good idea to make their AGP4x slot incompatible with AGP cards that needed 3.3v to run, even though mechanically speaking a 3.3v AGP card will fit. It's one if the reasons a netburst 3dfx rig is more of a challenge now. Afaicr the non-Intel netburst chipsets did not have this issue.

Kahenraz wrote on 2022-06-13, 04:45:

I've wanted a 5200 Ultra die my collection for some time, but I already know what kind of performance numbers to expect, and have no intention of paying the price that these have been selling for lately.

I already have a 5600, 5900, and 5959 Ultra. I'm only missing the 5200 and 5700 Ultra. They would be nice to have, if only to complete the set.

I have both the ultras but none of the others, the 5200 ultra I got fairly cheap considering their recent prices and the 5700 I got from the seller in Ukraine before the war.

The 5950 ultra has always been priced more than I am willing to drop on a FX GPU.

Some cards I bought through the last month. ESS Maestro-1 is especially cool. I owned one back in the 90s (and I still have it). These were among first PCI sound cards.

part 2/2
Not something I didn't had before, but spares are always welcome...