Grem Five wrote on 2025-01-02, 20:13:

The other GTS I have with 8 SGRAM chips on it and it is 32 Mb but instead of Samsung chips they are Infineon, it looks exactly l […]
Show full quote

The other GTS I have with 8 SGRAM chips on it and it is 32 Mb but instead of Samsung chips they are Infineon, it looks exactly like the reference PCB but is VisionTek branded.

The attachment memorygts2.jpg is no longer available

The attachment frontgts2.jpg is no longer available

The attachment backgts2.jpg is no longer available

The attachment gts2.jpg is no longer available

I also have another GTS with the same 8 Infineon chips that looks identical (also appears Dell branded - stickers and such) to the one with 4 chips (Samsung 32 Mb) but its artifacting so bad I cant get a read from it. When I got it the HS was missing with a few remnants of epoxy on it, so I wonder if the solder balls under the chip are damaged or if its a memory issue.

The video card industry is tough to keep track of. The same named product can have many variations. Even now nVidia does sneaky things like changing VRAM type or bus bandwidth without making it clear that they did so.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-02, 21:17:

The video card industry is tough to keep track of. The same named product can have many variations. Even now nVidia does sneaky things like changing VRAM type or bus bandwidth without making it clear that they did so.

Yes I have some examples of LeadTek doing that, I got 2 Geforce2 Pros... one with 366 Mhz memory and one with 400 Mhz memory but both with gpu chips labeled 'Geforce2 GTS Pro'

Re: Hybrid Leadtek GeForce2 GTS/PRO?

Quick update on that nVidia TNT2/Vanta/idunnow I have in the PC that will host the Ti 4200.
I finally got it working with official drivers. I just had to download older versions from phil lab instead of those on nVidia website. Uninstalled the GPU and performed a clean hardware installation, the nVidia installer didn't make a fuss and just installed itself, and after reebot I was greetd by the nVidia software and by it officially recognizing the GPU as an nVidia Vanta/Vanta LT.

I opened everest and, to my surprise, now the GPU runs on 2x AGP, instead of the 4x with Microsoft drivers. I have enabled 4X AGP in the BIOS.
Now, I thought it was becase my GPU must be a Vanta LT, that supports only 2X AGP, but... Instead of the 80mhz core clock and 100mhz memory clock of a Vanta LT, Everest shows me a core clock of 125hz and a memory clock of 150hz, thus those of a TNT2 M64 (that name actually shows up, for a split second, right after sistem POST).
Here's the thing: The TNT2 M64 should support 4X AGP.

May it be a weird OEM version that doesn't support 2x AGP and is reported as a Vanta/VantaLT, or is truly a TNT2 M64 and the nVidia driver/VIA Chipset is *ucking things up?

I don't even know why am I bothering, since this GPU is gonna end up in storage soon enough. Maybe just curiosity for the sake of it?

Anyway, now I'll try installing DirectX and see if I can make some benchmarks/games works.

Grem Five wrote on 2025-01-02, 21:37:

Yes I have some examples of LeadTek doing that, I got 2 Geforce2 Pros... one with 366 Mhz memory and one with 400 Mhz memory but both with gpu chips labeled 'Geforce2 GTS Pro'

To be fair, the difference between GTS and Pro chips is literally just the markings on packaging. Both were rated to work on 200 MHz, so late GTS cards most likely had Pro chips to simplify manufacturing, just like late GeForce 256 SDR cards that had DDR GPU chips.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-01-02, 23:44:

Quick update on that nVidia TNT2/Vanta/idunnow I have in the PC that will host the Ti 4200. I finally got it working with offici […]
Show full quote

Quick update on that nVidia TNT2/Vanta/idunnow I have in the PC that will host the Ti 4200.
I finally got it working with official drivers. I just had to download older versions from phil lab instead of those on nVidia website. Uninstalled the GPU and performed a clean hardware installation, the nVidia installer didn't make a fuss and just installed itself, and after reebot I was greetd by the nVidia software and by it officially recognizing the GPU as an nVidia Vanta/Vanta LT.

I opened everest and, to my surprise, now the GPU runs on 2x AGP, instead of the 4x with Microsoft drivers. I have enabled 4X AGP in the BIOS.
Now, I thought it was becase my GPU must be a Vanta LT, that supports only 2X AGP, but... Instead of the 80mhz core clock and 100mhz memory clock of a Vanta LT, Everest shows me a core clock of 125hz and a memory clock of 150hz, thus those of a TNT2 M64 (that name actually shows up, for a split second, right after sistem POST).
Here's the thing: The TNT2 M64 should support 4X AGP.

May it be a weird OEM version that doesn't support 2x AGP and is reported as a Vanta/VantaLT, or is truly a TNT2 M64 and the nVidia driver/VIA Chipset is *ucking things up?

I don't even know why am I bothering, since this GPU is gonna end up in storage soon enough. Maybe just curiosity for the sake of it?

Anyway, now I'll try installing DirectX and see if I can make some benchmarks/games works.

This card (TNT2 M64) has a jumper (j5 - but the jumper is permanently soldered on ) for setting AGP mode 2x/4x. So probably there is bootstrap resistor for this function also on your card.

I was only able to find a diagram for the Geforce 2MX on the web, unfortunately for the TNT2 M64 I could not find one....

BTW. Usually Vanta LT chip is in smaller package than Vanta or M64. And its edge connector has only one notch instead of two...

havli wrote on 2025-01-02, 09:00:

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.

Such cards really exist. Many years ago I had 64-bit GeForce2 Ti and it performned rather poorly.

I sincerely doubt that. The MX200 was 64-bit. The MX/MX400 SDRAM variant was 128-bit. The MX400 DDR variant was 64-bit. All NV15/16 cards were 128-bit DDR.

the funny thing is that the MX400 was AFAIK artificially limited,
like Nvidia allowed DDR 64bits or 128bits SDRAM for the MX400 (which works out at around the same bandwidth), but afaik, technically it could run 128bits DDR, but since the card was almost entirely ram bottlenecked that would've made it uncomfortably close to a GF2 GTS, like the MX440 is., even if it had double the pipelines, those cards were so badly limited by memory bandwidth.

I can only see a GF2 GTS or higher being 64bits in some very weird situation perhaps a very limited OEM version? idk, it makes no sense, because as I said I think it will drop it within MX400 territory and the name becomes extremely misleading.
this is the first time I hear about such a monster,

but, I do have some nasty out of spec cards like a 32bits MX4000 or a 32bits x1550

the 32bits MX4000 ends up being slower than a MX400, even running the core a 275MHz and memory at 460 compared to the MX400 at 200/180

zyga64 wrote on 2025-01-03, 07:04:

This card (TNT2 M64) has a jumper (j5 - but the jumper is permanently soldered on ) for setting AGP mode 2x/4x. So probably there is bootstrap resistor for this function also on your card.

I was only able to find a diagram for the Geforce 2MX on the web, unfortunately for the TNT2 M64 I could not find one....

BTW. Usually Vanta LT chip is in smaller package than Vanta or M64. And its edge connector has only one notch instead of two...

Guess I'll try and make a thread about it in the future, cause now I'm not that into pulling it out of the system to check out the jumpers on it.
But I also managed to run both a benchmark and a game. 3dMark99 still refuses to run cause it can't finde "directx 6", even if it sees them at installation, but 3dmark2000 works without issues and, at 1024*768 16bit, I get an overall score of 1900. I dunnow if it's bad or good, but the demos ran pretty fine at lowest settings, and Half Life Uplink also ran in a "overall playable" state with OpenGL at 640x480. So... Yay?

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-01-02, 23:44:

Quick update on that nVidia TNT2/Vanta/idunnow I have in the PC that will host the Ti 4200. I finally got it working with offici […]
Show full quote

Quick update on that nVidia TNT2/Vanta/idunnow I have in the PC that will host the Ti 4200.
I finally got it working with official drivers. I just had to download older versions from phil lab instead of those on nVidia website. Uninstalled the GPU and performed a clean hardware installation, the nVidia installer didn't make a fuss and just installed itself, and after reebot I was greetd by the nVidia software and by it officially recognizing the GPU as an nVidia Vanta/Vanta LT.

I opened everest and, to my surprise, now the GPU runs on 2x AGP, instead of the 4x with Microsoft drivers. I have enabled 4X AGP in the BIOS.
Now, I thought it was becase my GPU must be a Vanta LT, that supports only 2X AGP, but... Instead of the 80mhz core clock and 100mhz memory clock of a Vanta LT, Everest shows me a core clock of 125hz and a memory clock of 150hz, thus those of a TNT2 M64 (that name actually shows up, for a split second, right after sistem POST).
Here's the thing: The TNT2 M64 should support 4X AGP.

May it be a weird OEM version that doesn't support 2x AGP and is reported as a Vanta/VantaLT, or is truly a TNT2 M64 and the nVidia driver/VIA Chipset is *ucking things up?

I don't even know why am I bothering, since this GPU is gonna end up in storage soon enough. Maybe just curiosity for the sake of it?

Anyway, now I'll try installing DirectX and see if I can make some benchmarks/games works.

I have never had issues with my Via boards and Nvidia but then I mostly use ATI cards with my Via boards but... What is that? ... Only agpx2

I know it effected VT82C693A more... VIA Apollo Pro bad AGP performance?

I was going to try to find more links and suggestions but this is all I got for now.

Grem Five wrote on 2025-01-03, 19:39:

I have never had issues with my Via boards and Nvidia but then I mostly use ATI cards with my Via boards but... What is that? ... Only agpx2

I know it effected VT82C693A more... VIA Apollo Pro bad AGP performance?

I was going to try to find more links and suggestions but this is all I got for now.

That's exactly the chipset of the board I was testing on. I will be swapping to an Intel 815 board and see if scores improve.

SPBHM wrote on 2025-01-03, 16:07:

the funny thing is that the MX400 was AFAIK artificially limited, like Nvidia allowed DDR 64bits or 128bits SDRAM for the MX400 […]
Show full quote

the funny thing is that the MX400 was AFAIK artificially limited,
like Nvidia allowed DDR 64bits or 128bits SDRAM for the MX400 (which works out at around the same bandwidth), but afaik, technically it could run 128bits DDR, but since the card was almost entirely ram bottlenecked that would've made it uncomfortably close to a GF2 GTS, like the MX440 is., even if it had double the pipelines, those cards were so badly limited by memory bandwidth.

I can only see a GF2 GTS or higher being 64bits in some very weird situation perhaps a very limited OEM version? idk, it makes no sense, because as I said I think it will drop it within MX400 territory and the name becomes extremely misleading.
this is the first time I hear about such a monster,

but, I do have some nasty out of spec cards like a 32bits MX4000 or a 32bits x1550

the 32bits MX4000 ends up being slower than a MX400, even running the core a 275MHz and memory at 460 compared to the MX400 at 200/180

The particular card that he has is an ELSA Dell OEM variant, given the DP/N stickers all over it. But even Dell didn't go out of their way to gimp graphics cards.

Grem Five wrote on 2025-01-03, 19:39:

I have never had issues with my Via boards and Nvidia but then I mostly use ATI cards with my Via boards but... What is that? ... Only agpx2

I know it effected VT82C693A more... VIA Apollo Pro bad AGP performance?

I was going to try to find more links and suggestions but this is all I got for now.

I mean, for working it works, even at 2X AGP, and I don't even know how much would be the performance difference between 2X and 4X, because the performances I see form 3dmark2000 seems like fair for a 64bit TNT2 at 1024x768 16bit.
But, since I'll have to pull that TNT2 out of the sistem soon, I'll just make a nice photo op of it and make a dedicated thread about it, since it seems like I'm not the only one that has had this conundrum with nvidia cards and VIA boards. Who knows, maybe I could even find some use for it in an eventual older sistem?

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-01-04, 14:22:

I mean, for working it works, even at 2X AGP, and I don't even know how much would be the performance difference between 2X and 4X, because the performances I see form 3dmark2000 seems like fair for a 64bit TNT2 at 1024x768 16bit.

I just scored 6431 on my Geforce 2 GTS 32Mb in 3DMARK 2000 on an Intel 815 chipset system with PIII 933Mhz. This GF2 GTS card is 20-25% faster in this system than it was in my Via Chipset system with 800Mhz PIII. But CPU is faster in the 815 chipset system, so probably is affecting the result.

Edit: corrected typo where I said I tested 3dmark 2001 instead of 2000

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-04, 18:43:

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-01-04, 14:22:

I mean, for working it works, even at 2X AGP, and I don't even know how much would be the performance difference between 2X and 4X, because the performances I see form 3dmark2000 seems like fair for a 64bit TNT2 at 1024x768 16bit.

I just scored 6431 on my Geforce 2 GTS 32Mb in 3DMARK 2001 on an Intel 815 chipset system with PIII 933Mhz. This GF2 GTS card is 20-25% faster in this system than it was in my Via Chipset system with 800Mhz PIII. But CPU is faster in the 815 chipset system, so probably is affecting the result.

I have tested only on 3DMark2000, getting 1900 points in the full test at 1024x768 16bit.
The CPU is still a Celeron 700 (a PIII 1000 is on its way).
I think your gF2 GTS should be much faster than my TNT2 M64, and I even doubt there would be much point in testing it on 3DMark2001. I thought it was a stretch alredy testing it in 3DMark2000, since that's a DX7 benchmark, and the TNT2 M64 supports only up to DX 6.0, and was actually surprised the lowest setting demo ran on "playable" level even at 1024x768 16bit.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-01-04, 19:03:

I have tested only on 3DMark2000, getting 1900 points in the full test at 1024x768 16bit.
The CPU is still a Celeron 700 (a PIII 1000 is on its way).
I think your gF2 GTS should be much faster than my TNT2 M64, and I even doubt there would be much point in testing it on 3DMark2001. I thought it was a stretch alredy testing it in 3DMark2000, since that's a DX7 benchmark, and the TNT2 M64 supports only up to DX 6.0, and was actually surprised the lowest setting demo ran on "playable" level even at 1024x768 16bit.

Sorry that was a typo on my part. I tested 3DMark 2000. Not 2001.

Dmetsys wrote on 2025-01-03, 15:17:

havli wrote on 2025-01-02, 09:00:

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.

Such cards really exist. Many years ago I had 64-bit GeForce2 Ti and it performned rather poorly.

I sincerely doubt that. The MX200 was 64-bit. The MX/MX400 SDRAM variant was 128-bit. The MX400 DDR variant was 64-bit. All NV15/16 cards were 128-bit DDR.

It was weird card, sure - but I clearly remember it had only 64-bit memory bus and because of that it was slower than Voodoo5 in many games... which wouldn't be possible otherwise.
Unfortunately all the test results and screenshots are long gone - I made the test in 2007. And the card itself is gone too, no idea where it ended up.
The only info I found is in my old forum post - it was AOpen GeForce2 Ti 32 MB. 64-bit bus was detected in some application, probably Riva Tuner.

Either it was some super-gimped card or it was regular 64MB 128-bit GF2 Ti.... where half of the memory died or was not detected and running for some reason (bios mod? who knows).

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-04, 19:45:

Sorry that was a typo on my part. I tested 3DMark 2000. Not 2001.

So, more than three times the score, right? Does it make sense, right?

Anyway, I remembered I had to pull apart that system today because I needed to practice in removing the CPU, and thank god I did, since that intel stock cooler for socket 370 is a pain in the ass. Slipped a couple of times when prying the latch open, thinking I had killed the MOBO and in the end, when it finally came loose, even if I was pushing sideways, the cooler just yeeted itself up and landed on a line of capacitors close to the socket. Thank god nothing was broken on the mobo, but I replaced it with an aftermakert dynatron coler that yes, it's much noisier, but at least it has a plastic extention on the latch to make a leever movement easier.

Still, I removed everything from the system for clearance during the delicate maneuver, and I ended up taking a couple of decent photos of the TNT2 currently in the system.

Here it is (bigger under spoiler): Is it worth a thread on its own for suggestions and possible uses it could have? Or is it just nothing that special for retro hardware enthusiasts?

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-01-05, 15:13:

So, more than three times the score, right? Does it make sense, right?

According to this review the Geforce 2 GTS is more than triple the speed of a TNT 2 in Quake III:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/537/16

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-01-05, 15:13:

So, more than three times the score, right? Does it make sense, right? […]
Show full quote

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-01-04, 19:45:

Sorry that was a typo on my part. I tested 3DMark 2000. Not 2001.

So, more than three times the score, right? Does it make sense, right?

Anyway, I remembered I had to pull apart that system today because I needed to practice in removing the CPU, and thank god I did, since that intel stock cooler for socket 370 is a pain in the ass. Slipped a couple of times when prying the latch open, thinking I had killed the MOBO and in the end, when it finally came loose, even if I was pushing sideways, the cooler just yeeted itself up and landed on a line of capacitors close to the socket. Thank god nothing was broken on the mobo, but I replaced it with an aftermakert dynatron coler that yes, it's much noisier, but at least it has a plastic extention on the latch to make a leever movement easier.

Still, I removed everything from the system for clearance during the delicate maneuver, and I ended up taking a couple of decent photos of the TNT2 currently in the system.

Here it is (bigger under spoiler): Is it worth a thread on its own for suggestions and possible uses it could have? Or is it just nothing that special for retro hardware enthusiasts?

Spoiler

It's a TNT2-M64, nothing spectacular. The Chaintech M101 300 is a full on TNT2 variant.

Soooo... Got today the Ti 4200 I ordered off Ebay. This is all I get, with or without driver, tested with a couple of original drivers from phil lab. (Under spoiler)

The PC is barely usable, but I manage to run 3d applications. They go fast but still artifact appears like crazy. Everest does report that's a Ti 4200, with specs from a Ti 4200 (except the 2X AGP, but that's probably VIA Chipset being VIA). Then, after updating to an even more recent driver, the OS just went like you see in the picture, completely unusable and had to hard shut down.
Installing again the TNT2, of course, fixes everything.

From 99% to 100%, how sure it is this is a fried GPU?

Also, I noticed the slim packaging got a slight bump on it, and to that bump corresponds this poor capacitor.
I doubt it's the responsible for the artifacting, but still need to poin this out: