Out of the cards that I have, my fastest is a stock standard GeForce 4 MX card 😀 So the 6200 will be faster for sure. Matrox does some half height cards, but they are older G500 series types.

the gf 6200a is a highly cut down model so its far from the "complete" standard verion of 6200, i doubt if it would be a match for the elsa ti4200. there were also r8500le/9100 and r9550 in half-height form, both are agp cards.

I think they made HD3450 cards in AGP half height format. EDIT: A little steep, but proves I am right 😀 http://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-ATi-Radeon-HD345 … isAAOSwUdlWcq-y

ODwilly wrote:

I think they made HD3450 cards in AGP half height format. EDIT: A little steep, but proves I am right 😀 http://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-ATi-Radeon-HD345 … isAAOSwUdlWcq-y

Isn't that a full-size bracket though?

I'd be concerned about the 200W power supply if its low quality. There are plenty of units that wattage that would handle that system just fine (as long as you don't go too crazy with the GPU or other components), but there are also others that can't.

Its not so much the wattage as it is the distribution of the 12v and 5v rails and the requirements of your components.

Yes, but it is either or. You can simply remove the VGA ribbon cable and use a half height bracket. Thus if you need VGA you use a DVI to VGA adapter. EDIT: Actually check out the sellers photo of the box, it has a double width low profile bracket.

Ozzuneoj wrote:

I'd be concerned about the 200W power supply if its low quality. There are plenty of units that wattage that would handle that system just fine (as long as you don't go too crazy with the GPU or other components), but there are also others that can't.

Its not so much the wattage as it is the distribution of the 12v and 5v rails and the requirements of your components.

Yeah, I hear ya. This my first experience with a SFF desktop case. Gonna have to find a better power supply - just not sure what will fit.

It kind of looks like a Micro ATX power supply may fit. At least the fan is in the right spot and the dimensions seem to be at least similar.

I wonder if a Micro PS3 power supply would fit. Something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16817338009

ODwilly wrote:

I wonder if a Micro PS3 power supply would fit. Something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16817338009

In the description for the power supply in the Aopen case link in my original post, it says 'proprietary' which scares me a bit.

The best solution is to see if you can hunt down the spec sheets and get the PSU measurements i think

for 98SE yes its the 6200, see if you can find a 6200A with 128bit member they existed

candle_86 wrote:

for 98SE yes its the 6200, see if you can find a 6200A with 128bit member they existed

Got one of those and they are flashable to 6600 GT specs, the only problem is that none of them came in the half height format. The half height 6200s use the newer 64bit core.

If only there was a list of preferred cards for agp and pci under win9x.

Finding supported AGP cards in Windows 98SE isn't too much of a problem - but when you add the half-height restriction that really changes the game. I'm seeing the same thing though - all of the half-height 6200s are the newer 64-bit core or the 6200a variants. Some of these even go down to 32-bit wide buses... And finally, there are versions of the 6200 that borrow system memory - "TurboCache (TC) models. On top of this, it seems all of these can have different clocks as well. I can see how it could be VERY confusing back in the day for people buying these cards, that's for sure.

The next question then becomes, since I can't do the 128-bit version of the 6200, will the 64-bit version suffice for Win98SE? Or do I begin looking at 128-bit versions of the Radeon cards?

I would consider the Geforce FX5200 BUT I think I find a recurring theme here, I found what appeared to be a Low Profile(without the bracket) FX5500 but upon further research its a 64bit model, perhaps its a safe assumption that all low profile FX5200/6200s will be 64bit, I wonder the Geforce MX440s are the same story but thats really starting to give away performance and features, perhaps the ATI cards will be a better bet.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MSI-MS-8998-MS-899 … BQAAOSwiylXBOsL
http://web.archive.org/web/20090207204820/htt … no=&prod_no=795

Another potential option is the ATI 9100? only bad thing is 64meg of memory but It might still be faster than a 64bit 6200, you'd think their would 128meg cards floating around.

Clock/memory bandwidth

9100 275mhz/8.8GB/S
6200 350mhz/4.26GB/S

Pixel/Vertex/TMUS/ROPS

9100 4/2/8/4
6200 4/3/4/2

Pixel/Vertex/Texture rate

9100 1.000GPIXELS/0.125 GVertices/ 2.00 GTexels
6200 0.700 GPixel/0.263 GVertices/1.40 GTexels

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Club-3D-ATI-Radeon … vgAAOSwgQ9V5GMN

What about the X1050? Equal to a Radeon 9550, and uses the same Windows 98 driver.
http://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/280932125249?_mwBanner=1

Artex wrote:

Finding supported AGP cards in Windows 98SE isn't too much of a problem - but when you add the half-height restriction that really changes the game. I'm seeing the same thing though - all of the half-height 6200s are the newer 64-bit core or the 6200a variants. Some of these even go down to 32-bit wide buses... And finally, there are versions of the 6200 that borrow system memory - "TurboCache (TC) models. On top of this, it seems all of these can have different clocks as well. I can see how it could be VERY confusing back in the day for people buying these cards, that's for sure.

The next question then becomes, since I can't do the 128-bit version of the 6200, will the 64-bit version suffice for Win98SE? Or do I begin looking at 128-bit versions of the Radeon cards?

The 64bit version is definitely slower but not by so much that one rages, what gets me is the lack of benchmarks against older cards like the FX5200 and the ATI 9100. From what I can find is that the 6200 is faster than the 5200 hands down but it loses to ATI 9600s in some benchmarks. The lack of raw fill rates and power hurts this card in DX9 era titles and probably loses to older high end cards in DX8. Still better than some of the rubbish out there but better be ready for some overclocking.

vetz wrote:

What about the X1050? Equal to a Radeon 9550, and uses the same Windows 98 driver.
http://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/280932125249?_mwBanner=1

That looks like a good choice, not sure how much faster than the 6200 but a solid choice.

Edit: so basically the x1050 is a x300

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-ge … che,973-12.html

http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-X1050-PCI-E-card-496.html

http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-X300-SE-card-85.html

http://www.gpureview.com/geforce-6200-agp-card-192.html full height 128bit version