Ahh! Someone earlier in the thread mentioned playing quake in linux as a test, I thought that's what we were referring to. Sorry :>

Admittedly I'm following this thread to see if there ends up being some resolution to getting usable performance out of these newer PCI cards in older computers via PCI slot, hopefully. I think we're all going to have to just result to using period-era AGP cards though, sadly.

3dMark2001 when run through Wine under Lubuntu had almost the same score as that of Vista, all the more impressive being a DirectX test involving API calls translation. I will post the results later tonight. Polygon test results exceeded even that of Win XP. The Nature test was also almost having the same FPS as that of WinXP. However some failed miserably (Car Chase, Vertex Shader etc., probably bug/non-implementation in Wine). As advertised in their Wiki, it does work nicely as a compatibility layer rather than an emulator, but it needs to go a long way to have all the libraries needed for gaming especially in older hardware with not much margin for overhead. I'm also not sure whether the better results in some of the above tests has to do with OS efficiency(combined with Wine, as applicable) or the difference in implementation of the nvidia drivers between the two platforms.

Edit2:Multitexturing test had a messed up display and occasional stutters observed in GT1 High & GT3 High. The high MTriangles/s in Polygon tests baffles me.

A nice write up on the 3dMark01 tests as to 'what' it tests, http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/gf33dmark2k1/. Still trying to correlate and verify my results with that.

Another article (http://www.overclockaholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=691) had me wondering about my system's poor show in light of the following statement,
----------------TESTS - System stabilty factors. (What the tests focus on) ---
CarH - CPU GPU : MILD
Edit1: Got to scratch the above as 'MILD' is in conjunction with modern systems.

I'm not trying out the Linux Platform for gaming as an alternative per se, as indicated in previous posts. This is only to find out if there is any difference in real world gaming performance by means of MTRR settings (write-combine vs. uncacheable). From what I gathered, PAT takes care of the cacheable ranges and supersedes/aids MTRR in modern(?) CPU's(read P3). However in syslogs under Lubuntu, 'PAT' is shown as not supported by my CPU, all the more reason the changes I make in MTRR should matter(it doesn't). Any suggestions/guidance are highly appreciated.

zstandig wrote:

You got the Zotac right?

I did the same thing a year or two ago (only I got the gt420). You know, thinking "lol, holy crap, I'm gonna have a Pentium 3 with HDMI!" Anyway, long story short, it wouldn't install right, it would say it's installed, then I'd restart, and then nothing and back to the crappy integrated graphics. I switched back to the Radeon 9500ishxyz. Which I think was the best gpu on the PCI at the time before Zotac started shoving gt400,500, and 600s onto it.

zstandig, do you mind if I ask, what happened to the 430 PCI you got and what was the problem you faced exactly?

gandhig wrote:

zstandig wrote:

You got the Zotac right?

I did the same thing a year or two ago (only I got the gt420). You know, thinking "lol, holy crap, I'm gonna have a Pentium 3 with HDMI!" Anyway, long story short, it wouldn't install right, it would say it's installed, then I'd restart, and then nothing and back to the crappy integrated graphics. I switched back to the Radeon 9500ishxyz. Which I think was the best gpu on the PCI at the time before Zotac started shoving gt400,500, and 600s onto it.

zstandig, do you mind if I ask, what happened to the 430 PCI you got and what was the problem you faced exactly?

Not at all,

It's currently in a zip lock bag waiting to be used in another computer (assuming I find one without PCIE/AGP soon). As far as I know it works. When I was attempting the upgrade, I'd uninstall the Radeon and switch back to integrated. Then install the drivers and Zotac gpu. Everything would appear successful, but when I restarted it would switch back to integrated no matter how many times I would re-install. This machine just did not want to acknowledge the zotac and stay on the zotac.

This is well over a year or two ago, so that's all I really remember. The computer in question was running XP, so it should have been compatible. To be honest I suspect the fact that it's a dell from 2000 (dimension l800r). If I was running it on a standard sized motherboard and a standard (non-dell) power supply it probably would have worked.

zstandig wrote:

Not at all,

It's currently in a zip lock bag waiting to be used in another computer (assuming I find one without PCIE/AGP soon). As far as I know it works. When I was attempting the upgrade, I'd uninstall the Radeon and switch back to integrated. Then install the drivers and Zotac gpu. Everything would appear successful, but when I restarted it would switch back to integrated no matter how many times I would re-install. This machine just did not want to acknowledge the zotac and stay on the zotac.

This is well over a year or two ago, so that's all I really remember. The computer in question was running XP, so it should have been compatible. To be honest I suspect the fact that it's a dell from 2000 (dimension l800r). If I was running it on a standard sized motherboard and a standard (non-dell) power supply it probably would have worked.

Thanks for the reply. Seems to be the same problem(improper intitialization of modern GPU's by older BIOS'es) I initially faced with mine.

gandhig wrote:

zstandig wrote:

Not at all,

It's currently in a zip lock bag waiting to be used in another computer (assuming I find one without PCIE/AGP soon). As far as I know it works. When I was attempting the upgrade, I'd uninstall the Radeon and switch back to integrated. Then install the drivers and Zotac gpu. Everything would appear successful, but when I restarted it would switch back to integrated no matter how many times I would re-install. This machine just did not want to acknowledge the zotac and stay on the zotac.

This is well over a year or two ago, so that's all I really remember. The computer in question was running XP, so it should have been compatible. To be honest I suspect the fact that it's a dell from 2000 (dimension l800r). If I was running it on a standard sized motherboard and a standard (non-dell) power supply it probably would have worked.

Thanks for the reply. Seems to be the same problem(improper intitialization of modern GPU's by older BIOS'es) I initially faced with mine.

You say initially faced... Were you ever able to overcome that obstacle? If so, I'd appreciate knowing what you did.

zstandig wrote:

You say initially faced... Were you ever able to overcome that obstacle? If so, I'd appreciate knowing what you did.

I'm assuming you too tried it on a P3 system similar to mine which is also around 2000. I searched the dimension l800r specs, which mentions the Intel 810 chipset. Do you have any system report(AIDA,Everest,MSInfo,SIV,CPU-Z,HWiNFO etc) generated during the time when you tried it so that we can confirm for sure that it is the same symptom.

I was able to overcome the first obstacle initially with a temporary work-around and then with a permanent one(sort of, with a bios mod). More details are in the first post. Though I was able to get it working and even got to disable the onboard graphics, the performance was somewhat found lacking which led me to join Vogons & start this thread. Glad if I could be of any help.

gandhig wrote:

zstandig wrote:

You say initially faced... Were you ever able to overcome that obstacle? If so, I'd appreciate knowing what you did.

I'm assuming you too tried it on a P3 system similar to mine which is also around 2000. I searched the dimension l800r specs, which mentions the Intel 810 chipset. Do you have any system report(AIDA,Everest,MSInfo,SIV,CPU-Z,HWiNFO etc) generated during the time when you tried it so that we can confirm for sure that it is the same symptom.

I was able to overcome the first obstacle initially with a temporary work-around and then with a permanent one(sort of, with a bios mod). More details are in the first post. Though I was able to get it working and even got to disable the onboard graphics, the performance was somewhat found lacking which led me to join Vogons & start this thread. Glad if I could be of any help.

Thanks for checking that out. I had to mod the BIOS (replaced the Dell BIOS with an Intel BIOS) previously in order for it to recognize a modified tualatin, so I don't really want to do that again if I can help it. It was kind of risky to do that, and I don't want to tempt fate because it's my last Pentium 3 machine and I kind of have a soft spot for them because my first computer was one.

I'd actually be surprised if the 430gt was really all that better than the Radeon 9k, I was able to play games like Half Life, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Postal 2 really well with it.

zstandig wrote:

I don't want to tempt fate because it's my last Pentium 3 machine and I kind of have a soft spot for them because my first computer was one.
I'd actually be surprised if the 430gt was really all that better than the Radeon 9k, I was able to play games like Half Life, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Postal 2 really well with it.

In that case there is the temporary option if you are interested:

1. Boot to DOS
2. Manually write the PCI config space registers of the reverse bridge.
3. Continue to load the OS.

Basically you have to run it every time during boot, so I had put it in a batch file in my initial stages before I went for the permanent mod. Later I realised that there is no real difference in performance between the temporary and the permanent work-arounds. Again all these are assuming that yours is the same issue as mine.

Out of the games you have mentioned, I have only played Half life(steam) and it had occassional fps drops below 30 with my system + GT520 combination. Theoretically the GT 430 should be far superior to the Radeon 9000 series, but I doubt that in reality with the PCI version. Probably it is better you stick with the Radeon. I'm not so sure either way.

gandhig wrote:

In that case there is the temporary option if you are interested: […]
Show full quote

zstandig wrote:

I don't want to tempt fate because it's my last Pentium 3 machine and I kind of have a soft spot for them because my first computer was one.
I'd actually be surprised if the 430gt was really all that better than the Radeon 9k, I was able to play games like Half Life, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Postal 2 really well with it.

In that case there is the temporary option if you are interested:

1. Boot to DOS
2. Manually write the PCI config space registers of the reverse bridge.
3. Continue to load the OS.

Basically you have to run it every time during boot, so I had put it in a batch file in my initial stages before I went for the permanent mod. Later I realised that there is no real difference in performance between the temporary and the permanent work-arounds. Again all these are assuming that yours is the same issue as mine.

Out of the games you have mentioned, I have only played Half life(steam) and it had occassional fps drops below 30 with my system + GT520 combination. Theoretically the GT 430 should be far superior to the Radeon 9000 series, but I doubt that in reality with the PCI version. Probably it is better you stick with the Radeon. I'm not so sure either way.

Thanks, that's a little beyond my skill level, so I'll just stick with what I have and the 430 will probably be used on something else sooner or later.

zstandig wrote:

Thanks, that's a little beyond my skill level, so I'll just stick with what I have and the 430 will probably be used on something else sooner or later.

Wise decision. The GT430 PCI should pack a decent enough punch in P4 Northwood class systems and above i.e. if you are stuck only with PCI slots(like some DELL's). You might be even surprised by it.

Please do let us know if you use it in such a system. I'm curious about its performance.

gandhig wrote:

zstandig wrote:

Thanks, that's a little beyond my skill level, so I'll just stick with what I have and the 430 will probably be used on something else sooner or later.

Wise decision. The GT430 PCI should pack a decent enough punch in P4 Northwood class systems and above i.e. if you are stuck only with PCI slots(like some DELL's). You might be even surprised by it.

Please do let us know if you use it in such a system. I'm curious about its performance.

Sure thing.

Resurrecting this thread. I also have Intel SAI2 with dual Pentium III-S 1.4 GHz, Voodoo2 SLI setup and I got Radeon HD2400 PRO PCI. Apparently it also has PCIe-PCI bridge. It works fine in regular PCI slot but not in PCI-X slot: boots up fine but displays error "Could not find enough resources for the device) for the PCI bridge. Plugging it to regular slot works well.

I did one 3DMark2001SE pass, got 6062 points, not too good but obviously could be much worse. Will make few passes to get some average result.

I've got a dual Pentium III 1.266GHz and a PCI Radeon 9250 to test out.

I don't suppose anyone knows if all PCI Radeon 9250's 128 bit or is there a possibility that I have a 64 bit version?

http://www.gpureview.com/radeon-9250-pci-card-305.html seems possible

d1stortion wrote:

I really think putting such a new card in a P3 makes for a bizarre combination... my guess is that the drivers expect SSE3 as that is the lowest common denominator for quite some time (or just a lot more general CPU performance than what your P3 offers), which may be why you are getting such bad frame rates even in old games like Deus Ex. It's not a completely fair comparison obviously, but still worth mentioning that Xbox had a 733 MHz P3/Celeron hybrid with a GF3 and that played 2004 games like HL2 and Doom3 well enough.

Getting a 3dfx card or at least something up to Geforce FX would make a lot more sense for such a PC if you are talking about compatibility...

Drivers usually expects SSE2, not SSE3 in modern GPUs, his 3DMark 2001 SE score is good for a P3, but not great, the newest card i got working on a P3 without issues was a Geforce 7600GT which worked fine, i tried slapping a Radeon HD 4650 AGP, but it didn't want to work reliably.

Geforce 6 and 7 series can work with P3 without any issues, but newer drivers might have the SSE2 and not be realiably, so your solution might be using older drivers like 74.xx or 93/94 depending of the card

Although aparently, my willamette based Socket 423 Pentium 4 1.5 Ghz with that 7600GT scores around 8400 in 3DMark 2001 for some reason

Paadam wrote:

Resurrecting this thread. I also have Intel SAI2 with dual Pentium III-S 1.4 GHz, Voodoo2 SLI setup and I got Radeon HD2400 PRO PCI. Apparently it also has PCIe-PCI bridge. It works fine in regular PCI slot but not in PCI-X slot: boots up fine but displays error "Could not find enough resources for the device) for the PCI bridge. Plugging it to regular slot works well.

I did one 3DMark2001SE pass, got 6062 points, not too good but obviously could be much worse. Will make few passes to get some average result.

Hi, did you try the pcitool utility mentioned in this thread? Glad to help, if needed.

No I did not. Could you explain please what do I have to do?

I have attached 02 zip files containing the utility, one each for windows & dos(whichever you are comfortable). Run the tool as mentioned in the attached file comment with your PCI card in regular PCI slot and then in PCI-X slot. Check for difference between the two reports apart from the slot numbers.

I went through the Intel SAI2 technical specification guide. As per the guide, PCI-X slot uses 3.3V signalling whereas the regular PCI slot uses 5V signalling. If this is the reason for the issue, then hardware hack might be required(might be risky and not worth it) to get it to initialize properly.

If the Pci-e to PCI(X) bridge on the graphics card works in the PCI-x slot with just software mod, we should see a quadrupling of bandwidth (theoretically), provided that there is no other issue due to variables such as graphics driver dependency on SSE2 etc.