Best PCI graphics card for my system?

Discussion relating to Socket 7 hardware.
goodneit
Newbie K6'er
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:29 am

Best PCI graphics card for my system?

Post by goodneit »

Thanks for stopping by ...........................................................

I just discovered this forum through a Google search. It is good to see that the K6-2+ and K6-3 series processor still has something of a cult following. I've posted topics on other forums, only to find that most people advise I upgrade my motherboard and processor. Won't do -- for the most part, I'm perfectly happy with what I have, outdated as it may be by today's standards.

I built my system based upon the socket 7 Via Apollo MVP-4 chipset-based Tekram P5M4-B motherboard (I'm already limited in motherboard upgrade options -- this has to fit into a baby-AT form factor case and power supply). Flashed a patched BIOS, installed a K6-3 450 Mhz processor, and installed 500 MB SDRAM. I'm still running Windows ME (suits me fine). I want to perform what is likely to be the final upgrade -- install the best graphics card which this system will support. But I'm limited here too -- no AGP or PCI Express slots, only PCI.

Can someone recommend a graphics card which, based upon their experience, should work well with this system? I just tried a Radeon 7000-based Diamond Stealth S60PCI64, only to power up to a blank screen (no POST error messages or beeps). I now realize it's possible my 150W legacy internal power supply may have not been able to supply enough juice. I've upgraded to a 300W Antec, but I'd already ditched that particular card, so I don't know for sure if this was the cause of the problem. I'd like to try another graphics card, perhaps pick up a used one on ebay ... if someone has a similar (Via Apollo MVP chipset-based) motherboard and has had a positive experience with a particular model, that would influence my decision.
Super7Dude
K6'er
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Best PCI card

Post by Super7Dude »

Hey there goodneit and welcome to K6Plus! :) I have a similar board to yours (with only PCI slots) and one of the best PCI cards you can get for a Super7 system is the GeForce2 MX/400. I have one and swear by it. Found a board out of a Comcrap Presario 2282 and dropped in a K6-2/400 (on 66MHz bus), with a 75 (yes, 75 watt) AT PSU. It was able to power 512MB of RAM, the board, CPU and the GeForce2. It was also perfectly capable of playing DVDs and (some) games. Had no issues at all with it. Once again welcome and enjoy :)
User avatar
KachiWachi
K6'er Elite
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:53 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by KachiWachi »

I have one of these cards (eVGA GeForce2 MX 400 [NV11]).

1) It won't boot in an i430VX machine.

2) In my ASUS P3V 4X (Apollo Pro 133A - 694X), it won't boot unless the monitor is disconnected. After the machine finishes POST, you can connect the monitor and all is well.

Nice card otherwise.
Moderator - Wim's BIOS

PC #1 - DFI 586IPVG, K6-2/+ 450 (Cyrix MII 433), 128 MB EDO. BIOS patched by Jan Steunebrink.
PC #2 - Amptron PM-7900 (M520), i200 non-MMX, 128 MB EDO
PC #3 - HP8766C, PIII-667, 768 MB SDRAM
PC #4 - ASUS P3V4X, PIII-733, 256 MB SDRAM
PC #5 - Gateway 700X, P4-2.0 GHz, 768 MB PC800 RDRAM
PC #6 - COMPAQ Evo N1020v laptop, P4-2.4 GHz, 1 GB PC2700 DDR
PC #7 - Dell Dimension 4600i, P4-2.8 GHz, 512 MB PC2700 DDR
PC #8 - Acer EeePC netbook, Atom N270 @ 1.60 GHz, 1 GB RAM
PC #9 - ??? ;)
goodneit
Newbie K6'er
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:29 am

Post by goodneit »

Thanks for your responses.

From what you both are saying, I'm now not convinced my experience with the radeon-based Diamond Stealth S60 was due to insufficient power from the PS. If a 75-watt PS can run a K6 system with a GeForce 2 MX 400, then a 150-watt PS should be able to do the same. It sounds like in some cases there simply are compatibility issues between the graphics card and the rest of the system, which may not be predictable or even explainable. That may have been what I had encountered.

I just read an interesting post on another topic in this forum. A question was asked about the best AGP graphics card for a K6-3 based system. One of the responses, which included actual performance measurements, provided a compelling argument for avoiding "over-upgrading" the graphics card. The point was that graphics cards designed in more recent years (specifically, the nVidia-based cards which followed the GeForce3 TI-series) were designed and optimized for systems more powerful than these; these systems lack the horsepower needed to provide the graphic cards with the necessary flow of data.

Unfortunately, I can't find any GeForce 3 TI-200 or TI-500 cards designed for PCI slots. I did some further research and the GeForce2 MX400 seems like a possibility well worth trying. My current system includes a Riva TNT2-based card with 16 MB of RAM. Seems I can pick up a GeForce2 MX400-based PCI card with 32 MB of RAM for around $35 on ebay. I'm guessing I will see an incremental (but not overwhelming) increase in graphics performance -- for me, this would be a worthwhile investment.
DonPedro
K6'er Elite
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:11 pm

Post by DonPedro »

goodneit,

I have also seen no gf3-model with pci bus anytime anywhere. it seems to me that those models and up did not find a manufacturer who took care. the only exception is the gf-6200. I have one and tested it on an asus p5a mainboard. since I ran into unsurmountable problems (up to now) with playing direct3d games I can not recommend this card. opengl-games run fine.

a very good choice with respect to the argument not to overpower the system graphics-wise could be a gf2 (no -mx) model. they have 128bit memory interface and DDR ram. unfortunately I have also seen no such pci-based model so far.

what about a radeon - based graphics card? they surely beat the gf2-mx! models available for the pci-bus are for example 7500, 9100, 9200, 9250. the best would be a 9100 model but they are very sought after, hardly to get and therefor quite expensive. so the next choice could be a 9200 model. they come in different flavours regarding core/mem - clock and memory interface (64/128bit). so take care and ask questions about that first before you buy! :) one more hint: the 9250 is lower clocked than the 9200 model. this is an example how marketing tries to mislead people ...

If you want to have a good survey on what pci-based cards are capable of follow this link.
Super7Dude
K6'er
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Post by Super7Dude »

I have tried several Radeon PCI cards in my Super7 boards, The Radeon series cards above the 7500 are PCI 2.2 and therefore might not run in goodneit's board (haven't checked this though). I also know that a Radeon 9250 PCI card in my GA-5SMM didn't *feel* any faster than the onboard to me (at least in 2D). In 3D mode, I tried to run 3DMark2001 and the system rebooted. Overall, I'd have to say that NVIDIA cards appear to be more compatible and than equivalent Radeons (just my experience).
User avatar
KachiWachi
K6'er Elite
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:53 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by KachiWachi »

There was a great article on this at the now defunct PCChips Lottery.

Basically, as soon as you saturate the PCI bus, you can't get any faster...no matter how good your card is.

Radeon 7xxx cards were mentioned, since there is still support for them, if that is important to you.
Moderator - Wim's BIOS

PC #1 - DFI 586IPVG, K6-2/+ 450 (Cyrix MII 433), 128 MB EDO. BIOS patched by Jan Steunebrink.
PC #2 - Amptron PM-7900 (M520), i200 non-MMX, 128 MB EDO
PC #3 - HP8766C, PIII-667, 768 MB SDRAM
PC #4 - ASUS P3V4X, PIII-733, 256 MB SDRAM
PC #5 - Gateway 700X, P4-2.0 GHz, 768 MB PC800 RDRAM
PC #6 - COMPAQ Evo N1020v laptop, P4-2.4 GHz, 1 GB PC2700 DDR
PC #7 - Dell Dimension 4600i, P4-2.8 GHz, 512 MB PC2700 DDR
PC #8 - Acer EeePC netbook, Atom N270 @ 1.60 GHz, 1 GB RAM
PC #9 - ??? ;)
DonPedro
K6'er Elite
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:11 pm

Post by DonPedro »

@kachiwachi

I can not agree whole heartedly on the "as soon as you saturate the PCI bus, you can't get any faster...no matter how good your card is" argument. because it gives the impression that the pci-bus is the bottleneck in our s7-environment.

the whole question whether installing beefed up graphics cards makes sense depends on where in the system, when, for how long, and how often a bottleneck occurs. this in turn depends also on the software you are running and how the software is programmed. the program decides where in the system happens what at what time. if for example a game is written that way, that all textures used in a game are loaded once at the beginning of the game and the gfx-card is able to keep that data because its local video memory is big enough, then it is primarily (of course up to a certain point, which again we can call a "bottleneck" that can happen somewhere in the system) the gfx-cards core-technology (number of texture units, # of render pipelines, etc), core speed, local memory speed and memory interface width that determine the performance. the pci-bus in such a case is far from being saturated in such a situation, because the only thing (data) that is then transferred to the gfx-card over the pci-bus is rather small: viewpoint coordinates while moving around, xyz coordination of things moving around in the scene loaded, etc. except for extreme conditions the pci-bus (on s7-systems) will not be the bottleneck that is an obstacle to get better performance. I think in our situation (s7) it is the cpu which can not produce fast enough new coordinates etc. of course the more complex the scene (number of friend and foe bots, number of triangles used, etc) the more the pci-bus becomes the bottleneck.
User avatar
KachiWachi
K6'er Elite
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:53 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by KachiWachi »

I was speaking strictly in terms of data transfer into/out of the video card...and nothing more.
Moderator - Wim's BIOS

PC #1 - DFI 586IPVG, K6-2/+ 450 (Cyrix MII 433), 128 MB EDO. BIOS patched by Jan Steunebrink.
PC #2 - Amptron PM-7900 (M520), i200 non-MMX, 128 MB EDO
PC #3 - HP8766C, PIII-667, 768 MB SDRAM
PC #4 - ASUS P3V4X, PIII-733, 256 MB SDRAM
PC #5 - Gateway 700X, P4-2.0 GHz, 768 MB PC800 RDRAM
PC #6 - COMPAQ Evo N1020v laptop, P4-2.4 GHz, 1 GB PC2700 DDR
PC #7 - Dell Dimension 4600i, P4-2.8 GHz, 512 MB PC2700 DDR
PC #8 - Acer EeePC netbook, Atom N270 @ 1.60 GHz, 1 GB RAM
PC #9 - ??? ;)
goodneit
Newbie K6'er
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:29 am

Post by goodneit »

@Super7dude

As you had pointed out that some of the Radeon cards are PCI 2.2-compliant, would you know how I can tell whether my PCI local bus is based upon the 2.2 specification, or something prior? The documentation provided with the motherboard doesn't mention whether the rails run at 3.3 or 5 volts (unfortunately Tekram is now defunct, so I cannot contact tech support regarding this). I did some quick research; evidently, the PCI 2.2 specification was published in December 1998; looks like my board was manufactured circa April 1999.
User avatar
KachiWachi
K6'er Elite
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:53 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by KachiWachi »

Tekram P5M4-B/VIA Apollo MVP4 (VT82C686A Southbridge) is PCI 2.1 compliant as far as I can tell.
Moderator - Wim's BIOS

PC #1 - DFI 586IPVG, K6-2/+ 450 (Cyrix MII 433), 128 MB EDO. BIOS patched by Jan Steunebrink.
PC #2 - Amptron PM-7900 (M520), i200 non-MMX, 128 MB EDO
PC #3 - HP8766C, PIII-667, 768 MB SDRAM
PC #4 - ASUS P3V4X, PIII-733, 256 MB SDRAM
PC #5 - Gateway 700X, P4-2.0 GHz, 768 MB PC800 RDRAM
PC #6 - COMPAQ Evo N1020v laptop, P4-2.4 GHz, 1 GB PC2700 DDR
PC #7 - Dell Dimension 4600i, P4-2.8 GHz, 512 MB PC2700 DDR
PC #8 - Acer EeePC netbook, Atom N270 @ 1.60 GHz, 1 GB RAM
PC #9 - ??? ;)
goodneit
Newbie K6'er
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:29 am

Post by goodneit »

I want to thank everyone who contributed to my post. Super7Dude, KachiWachi, DonPedro -- you folks obviously really know your stuff, and I appreciate your taking the time to share that knowledge (DonPedro, I was hoping my tactic of paraphrasing one of your informative posts on another thread would catch your attention, glad to see that worked!). :D

I've been emailing the card manufacturers' tech support departments regarding the PCI compatibility issue. From the responses I've received, many of the cards designed to PCI 2.2 specification are backwards compatible with a PCI 2.1 local bus. This goes for the VisionTek VTK910064PCI (based upon the Radeon 9100), Jaton VIDEO-198PCI-64TV (based upon the GeForce4 MX440), and PCI version of the eVGA GeForce FX 5200. Speaking of the FX 5200, nobody has mentioned that. Would this likely be a case of "graphics overpowering the system?" This (and the FX 5600) are the only cards in the Sudhian roundup that support DX 9. Then again, in my case this is probably a moot point, since a 450 MHz K6-III CPU on a 100 MHz FSB board probably wouldn't do justice to a DX 9 game, regardless of the graphics card. I'd be happy to settle for less jerky MPEG video playback, and better performance for the DX 8.1 games I already have.
goodneit
Newbie K6'er
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:29 am

Post by goodneit »

I want to thank everyone who contributed to my post. Super7Dude, KachiWachi, DonPedro -- you folks obviously really know your stuff, and I appreciate your taking the time to share that knowledge (DonPedro, I was hoping my tactic of paraphrasing one of your informative posts on another thread would catch your attention, glad to see that worked!). :D

I've been emailing the card manufacturers' tech support departments regarding the PCI compatibility issue. From the responses I've received, many of the cards designed to PCI 2.2 specification are backwards compatible with a PCI 2.1 local bus. This goes for the VisionTek VTK910064PCI (based upon the Radeon 9100), Jaton VIDEO-198PCI-64TV (based upon the GeForce4 MX440), and PCI version of the eVGA GeForce FX 5200. Speaking of the FX 5200, nobody has mentioned that. Would this likely be a case of "graphics overpowering the system?" This (and the FX 5600) are the only cards in the Sudhian roundup that support DX 9. Then again, in my case this is probably a moot point, since a 450 MHz K6-III CPU on a 100 MHz FSB board probably wouldn't do justice to a DX 9 game, regardless of the graphics card. I'd be happy to settle for less jerky MPEG video playback, and better performance for the DX 8.1 games I already have.
DonPedro
K6'er Elite
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:11 pm

Post by DonPedro »

goodneit,

I have tested the gfx-5200 (agp) some time ago and it performed so awfully that I did not even filed the bench numbers I got and I threw the card out of the system within some hours. maybe that was due to the driver version I used or because the specific model I used was a cut back version within the 5200 family (low core/mem clock, 64bit memory interface) I don't know.

also, as you already said, I agree that there aren't a lot of dx9-games out that our systems are able to play. if you are into playing movies from dvd I would suggest to go for a radeon gfx card. they have a very good hw-support for decoding mpeg2 (dvd).
goodneit
Newbie K6'er
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:29 am

Post by goodneit »

DonPedro,

Based upon both your recommendation and the Sudhian benchmarks, I'm about ready to try a Radeon 9100-based model. I can purchase the VisionTek, which includes 64 MB DDR, from one vendor for around $60 including shipping. I just have one final question. Not much was said about the GeForce4 MX440, which also appears to have done well in most of Sudhian's tests (though in most cases, scored a notch below the 9100). I assume you're not favorably impressed with this? I ask the question because I found a 64 MB PCI GeForce4 MX440 selling for around half the price of the VisionTek.
Post Reply