swaaye wrote on 2024-12-28, 18:08:

If you want to play games from like 1999 and older, a Voodoo 3 is really nice. Most of those games were developed with a Voodoo card as the primary concern. Some of them render more effects with Glide.

2000 was the turning point. 3dfx was way behind the competition in features. D3D 7 and Quake3 based games aren't so great on a Voodoo 3.

Yeah, I know that glide was king before 2000. But a Voodoo 3 would defeat two of my goals:
1. Play those games at 1024x768 with good framerates;
2. don't pay too much for the GPU.
Unfortunately 3dfx graphic cards sells like they're made of gold (and for good reason), and unles you get a top of the line one, you also won't get great performances at the resolution I'm targetting.

swaaye wrote on 2024-12-28, 18:17:

RTCW should be very playable on a GF2. An 800 MHz CPU might be a problem.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-12-28, 18:18:

I wouldn't put too much stock into minimum requirements that game developers listed in their readme files during the late 90s and early 2000s.

The goal was to sell as many copies of their games as possible, during a time when technology was moving forward at an insane pace. Hence the "optimistic" system requirements.

Yeah, I've noticed that. CPU bottlenecks were very easy to reach back then, even if you had decent CPUs way faster than those listed even in the recommended settings. Hell, I'm not even 100% sure that the reason my PC stutter while there are lots of enemies shooting at me in Max Payne is the GPU. May very well be the Athlon 1400. I recall Digital Foundry did a time capsule video on Max Payne, and Alex played it on a period correct PC with a Pentium 4 that was faster than my Athlon, and the game was still performing not optimally, often going well below 60 fps in action sequences.
And some people complain about CPU optimization of current games... I mean, at least you can get mostly 60 fps from games on the "minimum" requirements. Back then it meant "it will boot, nothing more".

SScorpio wrote on 2024-12-28, 19:43:

You can run DX9 on 9X. But XP with a more recent GPU will still run correctly and at cranked settings and hundreds of FPSes.

The FX cards are also easier to get with DVI if you want to easily convert to HDMI for modern displays.

Ooh, don't worry. I know. Because I tryend 20 years ago, and I didn't even have a dedicated GPU in the PCI slot of that PC, but was using the one installed within the north bridge, a Trident 3D or something. And I still played games on it that "suggested" using Dx9. But the performances where... Let's say it was a slideshow.
But Dx9 is such a long lived API, that remanined relevant even when Dx10 and, IIRC, Dx11 launched, thus is pretty well supported even on current gen GPUs (unles you get an Intel ARC. But even there the situation is improving).
So I wouldn't worry that much about Dx9 support on this 9x machine, I'm alredy thinking about building an XP machine with late era hardware from scratch. I worry much more about older APIs support.

I also have a couple decent CRTs from the period, the one I'm using right now has optimal image quality at 1024x768 and 85hz, so a VGA output is all I need.

But I've noticed that the FX 5500 is dirty cheap and abundant on the used market. It would've been a deal done if it wasn't quite slower than the Ti 4200 (not that would matter that much with a PIII). But still, if I can afford a Ti 4200, I guess it's worth to pick one up. If I get lucky, it's one of those with the higher clocked memory, but I won't tear my clothes off if I can't get one of those.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-28, 23:39:

So I tried tweaking settings in my BIOS. Disabling shadow Video BIOS, changing AGP Apperture from 64Mb to 32Mb, changing AGP speed from x2 to x1. Now RTCW seems to play OK. Even at 1024x768 32 bit. Reverting BIOS to previous settings and it still is working. So not sure what happened. I wouldn't say the framerate is high, but it is playable. I will have to find FRAPs and see what framerate is.

Misteries of PC gaming. Sometimes I just stop asking myself questions and just roll with it.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2024-12-28, 23:52:

But Dx9 is such a long lived API, that remanined relevant even when Dx10 and, IIRC, Dx11 launched, thus is pretty well supported even on current gen GPUs (unles you get an Intel ARC. But even there the situation is improving).
So I wouldn't worry that much about Dx9 support on this 9x machine, I'm alredy thinking about building an XP machine with late era hardware from scratch. I worry much more about older APIs support.

I suggest not waiting too long to do your XP build, LGA1155 motherboards are as low as they'll ever get. And GTX 750ti and GTX 960 cards are also still cheap. Get a 3rd Gen i5, and SB X-Fi and you have a killer XP machine that'll fill the won't run on Win9X fast enough, but also has issues on modern Windows slot.

SScorpio wrote on 2024-12-29, 01:44:

I suggest not waiting too long to do your XP build, LGA1155 motherboards are as low as they'll ever get. And GTX 750ti and GTX 960 cards are also still cheap. Get a 3rd Gen i5, and SB X-Fi and you have a killer XP machine that'll fill the won't run on Win9X fast enough, but also has issues on modern Windows slot.

I actually didn't want to go that late, since that era is still pretty much covered by current windows. LGA 775 and a Core2Quad is my target. I actually have found, on one of those old Me machine, a list of components a friend of mine made for me in late 2008, I actually wanted to stick as close as possible to that one, only using WinXP instead of the OS listed at the time (Vista). But this is OT, I'l make a thread in the right forum if I actually build the dang thing. (My brother also has a GTX 970 in storage, if I ever get tierd of socket 775 and want to go on with early Core i)

swaaye wrote on 2024-12-28, 18:17:

RTCW should be very playable on a GF2. An 800 MHz CPU might be a problem.

Just realised my Geforce 2 GTS is only a 64-bit model..... I guess that will make a difference

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-31, 23:04:

swaaye wrote on 2024-12-28, 18:17:

RTCW should be very playable on a GF2. An 800 MHz CPU might be a problem.

Just realised my Geforce 2 GTS is only a 64-bit model..... I guess that will make a difference

Oh yeah. A 64bit bus becomes a problem with games after a certain period. I have a 9250 PCI with 64but bus in one of my sistems, and to avoid heavy stuttering in games like Max Payne, when lots of enemies and bullets are around, I have to keep much lower settings that what I would be able to achieve with a 128bit bus.

GF2 GTS 64bit?
I've never heard of such a thing before, is it a damaged card or something? if it does exist, it will end up performing mostly like an MX400 since all of those early geforces are badly limited by memory bandwidth
I have an MX400 with my P3 750 atm, it's a nice card at low res.

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?
I've never heard of such a thing before, is it a damaged card or something?

I hadn't heard of it before either. But that's what HWINFO is telling me:

The unpopulated memory pads on the back are a clue I think that it's not 128 bit.

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?

Here's someone selling the same card but the memory chips on the back are populated:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131479681541

I wonder if mine can be turned into a 128-bit card just by adding the memory chips?

Also I Notice that on this motherboard the card was only running at AGP 1.x. I wonder if nVidia drivers detect a VIA AGP slot and slow the GPU to improve stability.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-01, 18:35:

Here's someone selling the same card but the memory chips on the back are populated: […]
Show full quote

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?

Here's someone selling the same card but the memory chips on the back are populated:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131479681541

I wonder if mine can be turned into a 128-bit card just by adding the memory chips?

Also I Notice that on this motherboard the card was only running at AGP 1.x. I wonder if nVidia drivers detect a VIA AGP slot and slow the GPU to improve stability.

No, it's the Via 4 in 1 drivers that do that. I tried forcing 4x AGP on one of my Via Socket 370 boards and all I got for my trouble was instability. Apparently, it would only make a tiny difference anyway. Here is a typical result with this combination.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-01, 18:35:

Here's someone selling the same card but the memory chips on the back are populated: […]
Show full quote

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?

Here's someone selling the same card but the memory chips on the back are populated:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131479681541

I wonder if mine can be turned into a 128-bit card just by adding the memory chips?

Also I Notice that on this motherboard the card was only running at AGP 1.x. I wonder if nVidia drivers detect a VIA AGP slot and slow the GPU to improve stability.

I've seen several cards on ebay that, by hardware info, do not perform as the stock nVidia design should. Like 64mb Ti 4200 with memory that won't clock to 250mhz like it should, but just clock to 200 like the 128mb version.
Seems like all the manufacturer that existed at the time did basically whatever they wanted with overclock/underclock/cooling etc...

Repo Man11 wrote on 2025-01-01, 19:00:

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-01, 18:35:

Here's someone selling the same card but the memory chips on the back are populated: […]
Show full quote

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?

Here's someone selling the same card but the memory chips on the back are populated:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131479681541

I wonder if mine can be turned into a 128-bit card just by adding the memory chips?

Also I Notice that on this motherboard the card was only running at AGP 1.x. I wonder if nVidia drivers detect a VIA AGP slot and slow the GPU to improve stability.

No, it's the Via 4 in 1 drivers that do that. I tried forcing 4x AGP on one of my Via Socket 370 boards and all I got for my trouble was instability. Apparently, it would only make a tiny difference anyway. Here is a typical result with this combination.

I have one of those and, currently, with an offbrand TNT2 that won't work with official nvidia drivers (that will, someday, receive a post of its own), the AGP works fine at 4X speed reported. Maybe the GPU power itself causes instabilities with 4X AGP.

I think the NVidia drivers also force AGP 1x depending on the motherboard chipset.

Most of the 3rd party AGP 4x chipsets had problems. Or most of the motherboards were just junk. There were problems with chipsets, motherboard construction, and BIOS configurations.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-01, 18:27:

I hadn't heard of it before either. But that's what HWINFO is telling me: […]
Show full quote

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?
I've never heard of such a thing before, is it a damaged card or something?

I hadn't heard of it before either. But that's what HWINFO is telling me:

The unpopulated memory pads on the back are a clue I think that it's not 128 bit.

I have that exact same card and its identified as 128 bit and does not have memory ships on the back.

I also have 2 other of the same card that has memory chips front and back, they all have the DS/N CN sticker on the front if not mistaken is found on most Dell cards of that time.

swaaye wrote on 2025-01-01, 22:40:

I think the NVidia drivers also force AGP 1x depending on the motherboard chipset.

Most of the 3rd party AGP 4x chipsets had problems. Or most of the motherboards were just junk. There were problems with chipsets, motherboard construction, and BIOS configurations.

That sounds correct. The procedure I followed was to set it to AGP 4X in the CMOS settings, uninstall and reinstall the 4in1 drivers in Turbo mode, and finally use Rivatuner to force it into AGP 4x. Uninstalling and reinstalling the Nvidia drivers after doing the first two steps left it in 1x mode. The predictable thing happened once I had done so; it couldn't complete a pass of 3D 2001, crashing with a lot of strange artifacts. But you never know until you try - I knew going in that it probably wouldn't work, but I had to know if I had that rare, lucky combo.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-01, 18:27:

I hadn't heard of it before either. But that's what HWINFO is telling me: […]
Show full quote

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?
I've never heard of such a thing before, is it a damaged card or something?

I hadn't heard of it before either. But that's what HWINFO is telling me:

The unpopulated memory pads on the back are a clue I think that it's not 128 bit.

You definitely got scammed on that card. GTS's were never 64-bit. I think you're dealing with an MX 32MB that someone force flashed to a GTS.

Dmetsys wrote on 2025-01-02, 06:16:

You definitely got scammed on that card. GTS's were never 64-bit. I think you're dealing with an MX 32MB that someone force flashed to a GTS.

Maybe they never meant to be 64-bit, but you can bet some creative vendors *looks at Manli* made such cards.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-01, 18:27:

I hadn't heard of it before either. But that's what HWINFO is telling me: […]
Show full quote

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-01, 14:06:

GF2 GTS 64bit?
I've never heard of such a thing before, is it a damaged card or something?

I hadn't heard of it before either. But that's what HWINFO is telling me:

The unpopulated memory pads on the back are a clue I think that it's not 128 bit.

Im not sure what version of HWInfo you are using but it looks different then the one I just tried 5.72

Maybe also double check with Everest Home Edition 2.20 (freeware).

It would be highly unusual to have a 64-bit GeForce 2 GTS, but I wouldn't put it past some OEMs.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-01-02, 08:15:

Maybe also double check with Everest Home Edition 2.20 (freeware).

It would be highly unusual to have a 64-bit GeForce 2 GTS, but I wouldn't put it past some OEMs.

Where would be a safe place to download Everest from?

Grem Five wrote on 2025-01-02, 08:03:

Im not sure what version of HWInfo you are using but it looks different then the one I just tried 5.72

Portable Version 8.16 is the version I have. Downloaded it yesterday from the HWInfo website.