Studiostriver wrote on 2025-07-03, 21:51:

shevalier wrote on 2025-06-13, 04:10:

Halofiber86 wrote on 2025-06-12, 22:37:

Well, this Sapphire is indeed tricky.

P.S. Get Radeon 9600 pro/xt from a good brand. For Pentium 3 - about the best option.

I used 9600 pro and xt as well on my Tualatin P3 1.4 ghz *overclocked to 1.5, for some reason it ran very poorly on my computer, plus drivers for 98 se were terrible. I tried to love it, but 6600 GT for XP system destroyed it in every possible way, even 98 drivers are in similar leage, not very good, not terrible either.

In the days of Windows XP itself, the 6600 was a great choice, I used one myself.
But in the 6x00 series, something changed in the driver model, so some games from the late 98 Windows era just have a black screen.
Therefore, if I were to choose between 6600 and 4mx440 now, I would choose the latter.
P.S. 4mx440 is considered almost the best choice for super socket 7 here. Although, at the time of relevance, who paid attention to this video card?

shevalier wrote on 2025-07-04, 05:19:

In the days of Windows XP itself, the 6600 was a great choice, I used one myself. But in the 6x00 series, something changed in t […]
Show full quote

Studiostriver wrote on 2025-07-03, 21:51:

shevalier wrote on 2025-06-13, 04:10:

P.S. Get Radeon 9600 pro/xt from a good brand. For Pentium 3 - about the best option.

I used 9600 pro and xt as well on my Tualatin P3 1.4 ghz *overclocked to 1.5, for some reason it ran very poorly on my computer, plus drivers for 98 se were terrible. I tried to love it, but 6600 GT for XP system destroyed it in every possible way, even 98 drivers are in similar leage, not very good, not terrible either.

In the days of Windows XP itself, the 6600 was a great choice, I used one myself.
But in the 6x00 series, something changed in the driver model, so some games from the late 98 Windows era just have a black screen.
Therefore, if I were to choose between 6600 and 4mx440 now, I would choose the latter.
P.S. 4mx440 is considered almost the best choice for super socket 7 here. Although, at the time of relevance, who paid attention to this video card?

I use omega drivers which have great boost in performance compare to regular on my dual boot system for XP. For 98 SE i agree its not the best possible solutin, but late 98 3D games (im` mostly in rpgs ,strategies and rts) runs pretty good with amazing clean big resolution via dvi on my big tv screen.
I`m old dude and i cant back to those small monitors again, thats the reason its my only option right know to enjoy old games, or to get in future uspcale for vga but things costs a fortune.

So you think 4mx440 would be great choice for older systems? I can get if very cheap , but i only have this motherboard https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/fic-vl-601-rev-1-1
Do you think it would be good fit for Pentium 2 configuration?
And sorry for offtopic at the end.

Studiostriver wrote on 2025-07-04, 11:17:

I use omega drivers which have great boost in performance compare to regular on my dual boot system for XP. For 98 SE i agree it […]
Show full quote

shevalier wrote on 2025-07-04, 05:19:

In the days of Windows XP itself, the 6600 was a great choice, I used one myself. But in the 6x00 series, something changed in t […]
Show full quote

Studiostriver wrote on 2025-07-03, 21:51:

I used 9600 pro and xt as well on my Tualatin P3 1.4 ghz *overclocked to 1.5, for some reason it ran very poorly on my computer, plus drivers for 98 se were terrible. I tried to love it, but 6600 GT for XP system destroyed it in every possible way, even 98 drivers are in similar leage, not very good, not terrible either.

In the days of Windows XP itself, the 6600 was a great choice, I used one myself.
But in the 6x00 series, something changed in the driver model, so some games from the late 98 Windows era just have a black screen.
Therefore, if I were to choose between 6600 and 4mx440 now, I would choose the latter.
P.S. 4mx440 is considered almost the best choice for super socket 7 here. Although, at the time of relevance, who paid attention to this video card?

I use omega drivers which have great boost in performance compare to regular on my dual boot system for XP. For 98 SE i agree its not the best possible solutin, but late 98 3D games (im` mostly in rpgs ,strategies and rts) runs pretty good with amazing clean big resolution via dvi on my big tv screen.
I`m old dude and i cant back to those small monitors again, thats the reason its my only option right know to enjoy old games, or to get in future uspcale for vga but things costs a fortune.

So you think 4mx440 would be great choice for older systems? I can get if very cheap , but i only have this motherboard https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/fic-vl-601-rev-1-1
Do you think it would be good fit for Pentium 2 configuration?
And sorry for offtopic at the end.

Sorry for offtopic at the start 😀
Can you run Dungeon Keeper 2 patch 1.71 with these parameters?
With Hardware Acceleration?
"C:\games\dk 2\DKII.exe" -32BITEVERYTHING -ENABLEBUMPMAPPING -ENABLEBUMPLUMINANCE
-32biteverything = Enables 32Bit Textures, ZBuffer and Display.
-enablebumpmapping = Enables BumpLuminance.
-enablebumpluminance = Enables BumpMapping.

About Pentium 2 and 4mx440.
I have a strong suspicion that 4MX440 is more than enough for a Pentium 3, even a Tualatin.
But that's an unpopular opinion.
Everyone wants a 5950Ultra.
(I wasn`t wants, I got RAdeon 9800 😀)
P.S. Not all MX440-8X start on AGP2X, for example the low-profile one from Sparkle.
In the low-end, everyone saved, but some saved too much.

shevalier wrote on 2025-06-13, 04:10:

Objective opinion about HD2600/3650AGP - This video card is the top of the top. Third in performance on the AGP bus, only 3850 a […]
Show full quote

Objective opinion about HD2600/3650AGP
- This video card is the top of the top.
Third in performance on the AGP bus, only 3850 and 4670 are better

-When this video card was relevant, there were problems with drivers. Now - it doesn't matter, they haven't been released for a long time. One working version is enough

2600 XT GDDR3 AGP isn't faster than X1950 Pro GDDR3 AGP (or 7900 GS AGP).
Driver problems still persist since AMD isn't hosting best drivers for it - only latest ones (which aren't optimal for older titles/tests).

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-04, 20:46:

shevalier wrote on 2025-06-13, 04:10:

Objective opinion about HD2600/3650AGP - This video card is the top of the top. Third in performance on the AGP bus, only 3850 a […]
Show full quote

Objective opinion about HD2600/3650AGP
- This video card is the top of the top.
Third in performance on the AGP bus, only 3850 and 4670 are better

-When this video card was relevant, there were problems with drivers. Now - it doesn't matter, they haven't been released for a long time. One working version is enough

2600 XT GDDR3 AGP isn't faster than X1950 Pro GDDR3 AGP (or 7900 GS AGP).
Driver problems still persist since AMD isn't hosting best drivers for it - only latest ones (which aren't optimal for older titles/tests).

Formally, in 3Dmark2003 x800GSO 16 pipe scores a hundred points more than HD2600 pro AGP. In real use it depends on the code style of the game, the newer, the more saturated with DirectX-trinkets.

There are definitely much better options for AGP slot than HD2600/3650.

I think, then something better then 9800 for agp system is overkill
But sometimes we all need do something strange

shevalier wrote on 2025-07-06, 05:22:

Formally, in 3Dmark2003 x800GSO 16 pipe scores a hundred points more than HD2600 pro AGP. In real use it depends on the code style of the game, the newer, the more saturated with DirectX-trinkets.

From what tested, HD 2600 XT AGP is roughly between X800 Pro and X850 XT PE in 3DMark 03.
X800 GTO "16-pipe" should be closer X850 XT score (depending on core/vram clocks), assuming platform isn't limiting it's performance.

HD 2600 XT AGP :

X800 Pro AGP :

X850 XT (PE) AGP :

Keep in mind that HD 2000/3000 cards also suck at MSAA and take much bigger performance hit.

No, on comparable processors I have the opposite situation - 2600 is a bit faster.
On Core2Duo E8300 x800GTO gives out somewhere around 11200.
But the rig on it was considered unpromising.
It is because of "Duo" that the second core creates problems for my use.
But still, if HD2600 is there and works fine, then let it be.
But in principle, it's a pretty pointless card for a retro.

You are testing HD 2600 Pro DDR2 vs. X800 GTO (DDR1) - which is fine.
However, based on screenshots you provided :
1) Your Turion platform frequency is all over the place (based on CPUz) - you could have overclocked it or BIOS locked multiplier to minimum decreasing it's performance - we can't know. We just see CPU-z getting confused for whatever reason... not a great test/comparison point.
2) You are comparing Windows XP score of HD 2600 Pro, to Windows 2000 (Win2k) score of X800 GTO...
Compare on a bit different platform... AND using different OS ?
How is this fair to both cards ?
What makes this comparison valid from your point of view ?

Lastly, I wanted to clarify that I don't think HD 2600 is a bad card - it's an "OK" one.
Just has limits on what it can do from legacy/DOS standpoint (lack of Win98 support for example, and possible driver issues with oldest games).
I simply not agree with this statement in previous post :

shevalier wrote on 2025-06-13, 04:10:

Objective opinion about HD2600/3650AGP
- This video card is the top of the top.
Third in performance on the AGP bus, only 3850 and 4670 are better

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-06, 13:34:

1) Your Turion platform frequency is all over the place (based on CPUz) - you could have overclocked it or BIOS locked multiplier to minimum decreasing it's performance - we can't know. We just see CPU-z getting confused for whatever reason...

ML-30 2.2Ghz @ 275FSB
Cool-n-Quite just works correctly on Gigabyte.
And Jetway - all processors on the Venice DH-E6 core, Semprons believes.
It is unlikely that you should expect a fixed BIOS.

What makes this comparison valid from your point of view ?

HD2600 - release date 2007
Year of release
Witcher, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, BioShock, Mass Effect,Assassin's Creed ,Portal, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Crysis.
X800 with DirectX9B (shader model 2) support won't be very good in them.
Therefore, I still stand by my opinion that the direct competitor of the 8600GTS on the AGP bus was better at that time.
The unified shader architecture (Shader Model 4.0) won over both GPU manufacturers.

shevalier wrote on 2025-06-13, 04:10:

Objective opinion about HD2600/3650AGP
- This video card is the top of the top.
Third in performance on the AGP bus, only 3850 and 4670 are better

PS.

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-06, 13:34:

Lastly, I wanted to clarify that I don't think HD 2600 is a bad card - it's an "OK" one.

Objectively - bad.
Precisely because the competitor is 8600.
And they were equally severely cut down to 1/3-1/4 of the top chip.
As a result, they lack raw performance.
But on AGP - third place of perfomance.

What I meant with "What makes this comparison valid from your point of view ?", was to ask for an answer why those two scores You provided are valid from Your point of view. You didn't provided any thought on those, so let's skip to next part.

Shader support point of view has some merit, but that depends on what you want to play on AGP machine.
Why would you run Crysis or Assassin's Creed or Bioshock on AGP system ?
You can play those just fine on modern machine and for retro focused users - X800 series is older (and AGP native) architecture, making it far more valuable from compatibility perspective, and it's faster in raw pixel/texture fillrate numbers when games need it [AA/AF] (which makes unified architecture... irrelevant from performance standpoint).

Lastly "3-rd fastest" AGP card thing :

^I'm sorry, but even HD 2600 XT isn't close to being 3-rd fastest AGP card (and I tested GDDR3 version, since there are no GDDR4 versions for AGP). Note : HD 2600 Pro with DDR2, is a solid 20-30% slower than it.

We can exchange pictures for a long time.
What's the point?
You can always find a test where x1950 will be slower than HD2600.
i.e. Assassin's Creed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EYcGrnWv2Y
and the X1950 is generally faster than the GT 7950.

Here is mine ATI HD 2600 MSI 256mb DDR2 agp, cleaned with new thermal paste. Driver 8.3 works pretty good on this.

shevalier wrote on 2025-07-06, 18:42:

https://ru.gecid.com/graph.php?idp=68&c1=69&c2=79&c3=62&c4=66&idm=81&i=7&d=0 We can exchange pictures for a long time. What's th […]
Show full quote

We can exchange pictures for a long time.
What's the point?
You can always find a test where x1950 will be slower than HD2600.
i.e. Assassin's Creed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EYcGrnWv2Y
and the X1950 is generally faster than the GT 7950.

I do have screenshots for all my scores (because I'm the one who made those charts).
I like how you don't even pretend to read what cards are tested 😀
PCIe or AGP, 256MB or 512MB VRAM, GDDR3 or GDDR4 - it's all the same to you (as long as it fit's your narrative), isn't it ?
Yes, I think we are done here.

And youtube video just demonstrates how bad the AMD 10.2 Legacy driver for Vista is in some situations.

Studiostriver wrote on 2025-07-06, 19:08:

Here is mine ATI HD 2600 MSI 256mb DDR2 agp, cleaned with new thermal paste. Driver 8.3 works pretty good on this.

Whoa, that is ONE GOOD heatsink! And you also cool the Rialto chip as well!

Pretty sure this heatsink has no direct contact with Rialto whatsoever and it's pretty bad for its longevity.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2025-07-07, 17:56:

Pretty sure this heatsink has no direct contact with Rialto whatsoever and it's pretty bad for its longevity.

Yep, I used this card years ago. The passive cooler is just for the GPU and covers the upper section of the boards backside.

Rialto is just on it's own, as it is 99% of the time and as per design.