Honestly a 3450 is to slow, an XP can utilize it, they where normally compared to say a Geforce 6200 or Radeon x300, aka to slow.

I think Radeon 3450 actually lacks GUI acceleration in XP. I've used one before with XP and it's really slow. I remember watching the web browser redraw. Such a lame chip. It can decode Blurays alright though, assuming the attached heatsink is adequate (not always the case).

No idea about 4650.

In Linux I set the Opengl composition for the browser and it's quiet smooth even with the Barton 3200+ but I can't see many possibilities beyond the HD4650 to improve it. I think the best agp solution of Nvidia was older right in the series 7xxx ?
Technically wasn't the RV6xx and RV7xx more advanced of the 6200 series?

swaaye wrote:

I think Radeon 3450 actually lacks GUI acceleration in XP. I've used one before with XP and it's really slow. I remember watching the web browser redraw. Such a lame chip. It can decode Blurays alright though, assuming the attached heatsink is adequate (not always the case).

No idea about 4650.

But if it can't even display basic stuff, what did they make that GPU for 🤣?

My AGP 4670 did not have any really slow GUI drawing going on afaicr, I never tried a 4650 but I suppose it's not much different from the 4670 anyway.

Tetrium wrote:

swaaye wrote:

I think Radeon 3450 actually lacks GUI acceleration in XP. I've used one before with XP and it's really slow. I remember watching the web browser redraw. Such a lame chip. It can decode Blurays alright though, assuming the attached heatsink is adequate (not always the case).

No idea about 4650.

But if it can't even display basic stuff, what did they make that GPU for 🤣?

My AGP 4670 did not have any really slow GUI drawing going on afaicr, I never tried a 4650 but I suppose it's not much different from the 4670 anyway.

I don't know if he means that the old Windows GUI acceleration (that I understand changed in Vista os) was not needed in these generation of gpu. I didn't try xp or vista with the HD3450 but even if reading old reviews it looks like a slow 3d accelerator for high end games like Crysis, in lxde ubuntu it looks like running really well and also accelerate 1080p videos with a Barton 3200+ (70% cpu) not bad I'd say maybe with original drivers in Windows it'd be even better.
But next step can only be the RV700 gpu.

I found my Radeon HD 3450 AGP is actually slower than my 7600 GT in both 2D and 3D, my HD 4650 AGP does beat my 7600GT though, i checked with an Athlon 64 and a Pentium 4 PC, idk on Athlon XPs

Carlos S. M. wrote:

I found my Radeon HD 3450 AGP is actually slower than my 7600 GT in both 2D and 3D, my HD 4650 AGP does beat my 7600GT though, i checked with an Athlon 64 and a Pentium 4 PC, idk on Athlon XPs

Interesting. I'd choose the HD4650 cause newer generation of gpu and I imagine lower wattage last nvidia agp. As soon I'll find one cheap I'll take it.

THE 3450 competes with Geforce 6200/X300 in preformance, its worthless honestly.

Carlos S. M. wrote:

I found my Radeon HD 3450 AGP is actually slower than my 7600 GT in both 2D and 3D, my HD 4650 AGP does beat my 7600GT though, i checked with an Athlon 64 and a Pentium 4 PC, idk on Athlon XPs

My Barton 3200+ seemed to run games with either 7600GS or 4670 equally fast (or slow 😁), but I always assumed it was a processor bottleneck.

He is asking 2D - GUI/videos in my book.

For basic 2D both are good. For videos HD4XXX has good video decoding built in and should play even HD videos on Barton. Don't know how good is support in Linux.

About SATA-1 vs SATA-2 HDD there shouldn't be any difference unless you use SSD or latest HDD that have real throughput of over 150MB/s.

Tetrium wrote:

Carlos S. M. wrote:

I found my Radeon HD 3450 AGP is actually slower than my 7600 GT in both 2D and 3D, my HD 4650 AGP does beat my 7600GT though, i checked with an Athlon 64 and a Pentium 4 PC, idk on Athlon XPs

My Barton 3200+ seemed to run games with either 7600GS or 4670 equally fast (or slow 😁), but I always assumed it was a processor bottleneck.

Odd, I tried that back in the day (but I used a 3850) and the 3850 was way faster then the 7600 - most notable at higher resolutions and with AA enabled.

kanecvr wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Carlos S. M. wrote:

I found my Radeon HD 3450 AGP is actually slower than my 7600 GT in both 2D and 3D, my HD 4650 AGP does beat my 7600GT though, i checked with an Athlon 64 and a Pentium 4 PC, idk on Athlon XPs

My Barton 3200+ seemed to run games with either 7600GS or 4670 equally fast (or slow 😁), but I always assumed it was a processor bottleneck.

Odd, I tried that back in the day (but I used a 3850) and the 3850 was way faster then the 7600 - most notable at higher resolutions and with AA enabled.

If I remember correctly I think that in 3D the 3850 was faster than the 4670. But in 2D I would trust a newer generation gpu being almost always better.

As I said I think it's good (considering the cpu) a 70% cpu for decoding a 1080p video with a Barton and the 3450, maybe the 4650 even better.

i forgot to say, SATA2 is useless a system without PCI-E slots since PCI bus is a bottleneck with it's 133 MB/s shared bus

SATA2 on PCI-X could be useful. 2x to 8x the bandwidth (I've only heard of PCI-X 133mhz boards).

For that reason I just decided to use the original sata controller with a good sata3 ssd. After all the cpu still remain the big bottleneck. But it' impressive such an old system can still "live" to nowdays standards.

kanecvr wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Carlos S. M. wrote:

I found my Radeon HD 3450 AGP is actually slower than my 7600 GT in both 2D and 3D, my HD 4650 AGP does beat my 7600GT though, i checked with an Athlon 64 and a Pentium 4 PC, idk on Athlon XPs

My Barton 3200+ seemed to run games with either 7600GS or 4670 equally fast (or slow 😁), but I always assumed it was a processor bottleneck.

Odd, I tried that back in the day (but I used a 3850) and the 3850 was way faster then the 7600 - most notable at higher resolutions and with AA enabled.

I think this might or could have been due to the resolution you used. The system I was using, used a very small early TFT screen (maybe even 14in, but definitely not larger then 15in), so higher resolutions were a no-go for me anyway.
It's also possible I didn't notice any improvements due to the games I was playing being online games and our connection wasn't very good at the time.

But I'm absolutely sure that going from a Radeon 9600 (the 256MB one, I never managed to figure out whether it was a 9600 Pro or regular 9600) to the 7600GS (the type with the slower memory type iirc) was a significant boost and the next step from that 7600GS to the 4670 was not significantly noticeable at all.

And I noticed the same 7600GS card having (much) better performance (FPS) compared to that Barton 3200+ when used with one of my A64 rigs, playing the same games. The 2.2GHz Athlon 64s seemed to be roughly 25% faster with anything they did.

However...since it was only a single system, there's always the possibility that something else with this system was helping to slow it down, but the speed of this system seemed to be consistent in performance compared to all my other systems, including other Athlon XP builds.

Maybe I should rebuild that Barton rig sometime...if only for nostalgia's sake 😁. At some point I took the harddrive out because I wanted to backup my old data and the PSU seems to also have been put to use in something else.

Tetrium wrote:

Maybe I should rebuild that Barton rig sometime...if only for nostalgia's sake 😁. At some point I took the harddrive out because I wanted to backup my old data and the PSU seems to also have been put to use in something else.

Yeah! For myself I choosed to build the pc around the Barton cause I wanted an overall retro/modern machine not too much old where it'd be impossible to surf the web, not to modern to loose that vintage feeling these configurations have. Maybe I could switch to a A64 with PCIX in future.

386SX wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Maybe I should rebuild that Barton rig sometime...if only for nostalgia's sake 😁. At some point I took the harddrive out because I wanted to backup my old data and the PSU seems to also have been put to use in something else.

Yeah! For myself I choosed to build the pc around the Barton cause I wanted an overall retro/modern machine not too much old where it'd be impossible to surf the web, not to modern to loose that vintage feeling these configurations have. Maybe I could switch to a A64 with PCIX in future.

A64 with PCIe compares to A64 with AGP in a somewhat similar fashion as a 486 with PCI compares to a 486 with VLB.
It's a bit of a different challenge. Personally I like the A64 AGP systems though, as (in a way) it really is a pinnacle of AGP for the masses. There were also my fastest AGP systems ever and I've used no less then 3 A64 AGP systems for years and they proved to be very reliable to me.

PCIe A64 is interesting thoug, if only because it's a nice way to dump excess crappy PCIe cards for a system that has some good retro value 😁

Tetrium wrote:

A64 with PCIe compares to A64 with AGP in a somewhat similar fashion as a 486 with PCI compares to a 486 with VLB. It's a bit of […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Maybe I should rebuild that Barton rig sometime...if only for nostalgia's sake 😁. At some point I took the harddrive out because I wanted to backup my old data and the PSU seems to also have been put to use in something else.

Yeah! For myself I choosed to build the pc around the Barton cause I wanted an overall retro/modern machine not too much old where it'd be impossible to surf the web, not to modern to loose that vintage feeling these configurations have. Maybe I could switch to a A64 with PCIX in future.

A64 with PCIe compares to A64 with AGP in a somewhat similar fashion as a 486 with PCI compares to a 486 with VLB.
It's a bit of a different challenge. Personally I like the A64 AGP systems though, as (in a way) it really is a pinnacle of AGP for the masses. There were also my fastest AGP systems ever and I've used no less then 3 A64 AGP systems for years and they proved to be very reliable to me.

PCIe A64 is interesting thoug, if only because it's a nice way to dump excess crappy PCIe cards for a system that has some good retro value 😁

I currently have an Athlon 64 3200+ (2.2 GHz, NewCastle, 130 nm, Socket 754) on a DFI K8T800Pro-ALF, 2 GB RAM and an AGP GeForce 7600 GT and it runs really great, also an Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2 GHz, Venice, 90 nm, Socket 939) on an ASUS A8R-MVP, 2 GB RAM and a Geforce 210 (temporay videocard)

Socket 754 and 939 had both AGP and PCI-E flavors, AM2 was mainly PCI-E, although there are some exceptions

Also the best mobo with both AGP and PCI-E slots imo is for Socket 939 (AsRock 939Dual-VSTA and AsRock 939Dual-SATA2, both can be upgraded to AM2 CPUs if you have the AM2 upgrade card) since these provides full AGP 8x and full PCI-E 16x, VIA PT880Pro/Ultra based mobos have also both AGP and PCI-E slots, but it's main issue is the PCI-E slot only runs at 4x and the chipset was more considered as AGP chipset rather than AGP/PCI-E chipset