How about a ATI chipset compared to nforce?

appiah4 wrote:

Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

I actually tend to agree with Radical Vision on this one. I've been thinking about it too lately. Intel has been known for playing dirty in the past, so it won't surprise me if all major benchmarks are optimized to run best on Intel's processors.

Well, maybe then you could speak on his behalf and explain to us what that has to do with testing the same AMD CPU on different chipsets using synthetic benchmarks?

Nothing. I wasn't saying anything about this particular situation with different chipsets. I was talking regarding Intel processors vs AMD processors benchmarking. Could you point it out to me where Radical Vision actually said that? He was just saying that benchmarks can show fake digits. And he is actually right about it. This is exactly what I said in my previous message.

Baoran wrote:

How about a ATI chipset compared to nforce?

I don't know of any ATI chipset for socket 462!

nd22 wrote:

Baoran wrote:

How about a ATI chipset compared to nforce?

I don't know of any ATI chipset for socket 462!

They list some here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATI_chi … _AMD_processors
The Radeon IGP320/IXP200/IXP250.
Can't find too much about that one, especially the southbridge. It seems it was common to only use the IGP chip, and combine it with a third-party southbridge.

nd22 wrote:

Baoran wrote:

How about a ATI chipset compared to nforce?

I don't know of any ATI chipset for socket 462!

ah, for some reason I was thinking of socket 939 and those ATI xpress chipsets

In DirectX9 games the video card is the main factor behind the performance; I will post screenshots with Far cry 1, Half life 2 and Doom 3 but both systems are very close to each other and essentially it's a tie between the platforms!

I have in use in my retro PCs only ASUS motherboards for socket A.
I like the following chipsets:
NVIDIA nForce 2 Ultra 400 (on ASUS A7N8X Deluxe rev2.0) (for the gamer and multimedia, as it is called "The Digital Media Gateway")
NVIDIA nForce 2 IGP (on ASUS A7N8X-VM/400) (in my opinion, the best chipset with integrated graphics, for average home users and for a budget PC with an nForce chipset)
VIA KT600 (on ASUS A7V600-X) (the best Socket A chipset ever from VIA, good Windows 98 support and the VT8237 southbridge that is compatible with anything, MY FAVORITE CHIPSET!)
VIA KT400A (on ASUS A7V8X-X) (the best quality-price chipset from VIA, for the average home user and office PCs, and for light gaming. It is good however)

I like the KT333 for Socket A. Why? Universal AGP.

appiah4: i know about Universal AGP on KT333 for Socket A, but from my chipsets what do you like?

RetroPC_King wrote:

appiah4: i know about Universal AGP on KT333 for Socket A, but from my chipsets what do you like?

Among what you listed I would certainly go with KT600 because nForce's drivers and RAM compatibility has never been anything but a pain in the ass for me..

appiah 4:I I go to KT600, i already have a KT600 machine. Is was my old PC. I will present it sometime.

RetroPC_King wrote:

VIA KT400A (on ASUS A7V8X-X) (the best quality-price chipset from VIA, for the average home user and office PCs, and for light gaming. It is good however)

Wait a sec, the Asus A7V8X-X has a KT400 chipset, not a KT400A.

I also vote to include AMD 760 chipset in the comparison, single channel DDR though 😁

Even though 760 has the better AGP implementation I would still go with the KT133A..

My Gateway 2000 Athlon PC has a Via chipset. Chipset VIA-133 I think ?
Runs good and stable with Win98.
Sound Blaster live 5.1
I am going to add some fans and a Sound Blaster live drive.

link:
Gateway AMD K7 Winter Holiday Build

AM386DX-40:I know that the ASUS A7V8X-X had a KT400 chipset, but in my manual says KT400A.

RetroPC_King wrote:

AM386DX-40:I know that the ASUS A7V8X-X had a KT400 chipset, but in my manual says KT400A.

That's weird

It's an interesting topic Op, but would you mind compiling your results into some legible form?

I did not publish further results because I got a backlash about the methodology - people believed that using the same CPU, GPU and so on was wrong and comparing with Intel Pentium 4 was a wiser choice.

For 6 years the nforce2 was my gaming companion, from Spring of 2004 until the Autumn of 2010, with GA-7N400PRo rev 2.0.
I can't remember why I didn't upgrade to 64 bit platform back then and I bought the Gigabyte very expensive.

Firstly with 2400+ XP, (on 2005 3200+ XP installed) Geforce 3 Ti 500 (later on 2005 6600 GT was installed), Audigy 1 (from 2006 X-Fi Music installed), and from 256 RAM to 3 GB RAM, Windows 2000 and Windows XP. The last upgrade was the ATi Radeon 3850 AGP on 2008. On 2010 was donated to a friend of mine, but due to issues on his basement with electricity, everything burnt...

I remembering that I was experiencing issues with hardlocks, bsods, bad performance and I've always installed newest nvidia drivers.
Also I couldn't run my 3112 sata pci cards correctly.

Recently I bought the A7V880, it came with 3200+ XP and 512 MB RAM, I've installed my Audigy which I have it from 2001 and an 9600 XT Radeon. I think it runs smoother than with the nforce2. Also I have a SATA drive with dual boot W98SE and XP without issues. The Sil 3112 SATA raid card works great, also a Sil 3124 works without issues on Windows XP, I remember that I couldn't use it correctly on the nforce2.

nd22 wrote on 2018-01-29, 11:34:

1.CPU: Athlon XP 3200 2.2ghz with 400 FSB (actually it's 200) 2.RAM: Corsair 2*1gb CAS 3-3-3-8 DDR400 with silver heat-spreaders […]
Show full quote

1.CPU: Athlon XP 3200 2.2ghz with 400 FSB (actually it's 200)
2.RAM: Corsair 2*1gb CAS 3-3-3-8 DDR400 with silver heat-spreaders!
3.GPU: Leadtek geforce 7800gs 256mb. To all the people that will remind me that are stronger video cards on the AGP interface: I tried installing both the Radeon 4670 and the Radeon 3850! The system enters a continuous restart loop with either of the cards installed but runs just fine with geforce 7800gs/7600gt/X1600XT!
4. Storage: Maxtor 80gb HDD; Intel 180gb SSD (yes ,I know it's not period correct but I used it to speed up the boot times which are really slow on the Maxtor) various IDE optical drives; the system will not run with a SATA optical drive installed!
5. PSU: 350w FSP with strong 5V rail; old but good!
The motherboards:
In one corner we have the Abit AN7 with nforce2 ultra 400 chipset; this motherboard does not have SATA integrated in the chipset but provided via a Silicon Image 3112 controller; 3 memory dims; after serious problems and numerous testing I have found a kit capable of running in dual channel configuration on this board and this is what I am going to use! Also the board has Sound Storm that provides one the best audio experience on systems of this era.
In another corner we have the Abit (you see a pattern here don't you?) KW7 with via kt880 chipset; SATA is integrated in the chipset; 4 memory dims and is far less picky about the memory running with just about every memory module I have; can run with 4 1gb dims in dual channel mode however I choose to use only 2*1gb because any 32 bit Windows (XP or 2000 - tried both) will recognize only 3gb and you must set 2T command rate in Bios for the system to be stable wherever with 2 dims the system runs at 1T!
Both systems have been configured to run only with minimum required hardware in order to complete the tests; wireless cards, extra USB cards have not been installed; unnecessary Bios options have been disabled!

So I realize that this thread has had a slight necro, but I did want to mention that I love such a system. I never got around to building an NForce chipsetted board (they did end up on my testbench a few times but it ended up never going beyond that), but I did have a KT600 chipsetted FS system for years, also with a Barton 3200+. It started out with a Radeon 9600, which I later upgraded to a GF7600GS which improved performance significantly.

However, I did upgrade the graphics card again some time later to a HD4670 and even though I did get it working, there wasn't any obvious and significant performance increase at all from the card. It was clearly held back by the rest of the system (most likely the CPU).

So even though it's a bit of a shame that the 4670 and 3850 didn't seem to work out for you, I doubt it would have really gave a lot of benefit when playing contemporary games. However, I never got to try the cards out in much higher resolutions as I has dealing with a cheap OEM relatively tiny LCD monitor at the time which didn't support higher resolutions. Perhaps some benefits could still be found there.