Thermalwrong wrote on 2024-08-30, 13:25:

That's really cool that you have one, I had no idea these even existed until now. There's even a bigger one, still only 64-bit m […]
Show full quote

AGP4LIfe? wrote on 2024-08-29, 17:00:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-08-29, 15:54:

Yes, like I said, it's an R200 chip with lower clocks than the full 8500 (matching the 8500LE), but is otherwise identical. We a […]
Show full quote

Yes, like I said, it's an R200 chip with lower clocks than the full 8500 (matching the 8500LE), but is otherwise identical. We all use the same places for research you know. 😁

Yes, everything else in the 9000-9250 series is newer than the 8500\8500LE\9100 (R200) because they use the low end RV250 and RV280 cores, which were added as low end parts for the R300 (9500\9700) lineup. The R200 cards have 2 vertex shaders and 8 texture mapping units, where the RV250 and RV280 (9000, 9000 Pro, 9200, 9250, etc.) only have 1 VS and 4 TMUs. This makes a pretty huge difference in performance and is why the 9100 is so much faster than all of the others.

This is why I mentioned the 9100 being very unique, since no other PCI cards after this used previously top of the line GPUs as a low end model.

I'm sure Nvidia had no trouble moving all of the NV20 chips they had, which is why they never had to go this route and instead opted to make the Geforce4MX as the next low end model. Speaking of which, I don't think I've ever seen a decently specced (128bit DDR, etc.) Geforce 4MX of any type in PCI. The vast vast majority are AGP, and even in that format most are egregiously underspecced for their model number... usually an MX440 with low-clocked 64bit DDR. The number of actually decent 128bit MX440 and MX460 models I've seen has been very small (in fact, the 460 seems to have been barely produced at all). Would have been interesting if lots of MX460 cards were sold with full specs in both PCI and AGP. I'm sure we'd see them being sought after to run 90s games that don't need pixel shaders.

As for your 9100 vs 5700LE, that should be an interesting comparison. I can't say I've ever come across one of those in PCI flavor, so that's a pretty awesome find. Depending on how gimped it is (64bit memory, etc) it may be one of the fastest pre-6000 series PCI cards you can get your hands on. Though, if it does have 64bit memory that will hold it back massively.

If it is 128bit I think the 5700LE will be quite a bit faster in most cases, but it could vary a lot depending on the game and settings. If your 5700LE is only 64bit, it will make things a lot closer though, that's for sure.

The 5700LE was only 10% faster than my ATI 9200 PCI in 3D Mark 99. I believe it is 64Bit memory, but I don't believe it exists in 128Bit as far as I know. However I need to test it in something else beside 3DMark 99 to get a good glimpse of its power.
It looks like this --> https://www.newegg.com/jaton-geforce-fx-5700l … N82E16814139166

That's really cool that you have one, I had no idea these even existed until now. There's even a bigger one, still only 64-bit memory but the pads are there for a 128-bit version: https://www.newegg.com/apollo-geforce-fx-5700 … N82E16814140041
I wonder if there are any actually out in the wild or if it's only in newegg / product pictures.

edit: ooh and an Albatron card the FX5700LEIP, I was thinking that heatsink looked like an Albatron one: https://www.newegg.ca/albatron-geforce-fx-570 … 82E16814170063R

Here it is in all it's wonder and glory 😁. It really is a nice 98/Me/2k era card for a PCI only system and bonus low profile ability! I personally think it's pretty dang cool.

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-08-30, 12:29:

Saw that the seller I bought my previous Soltek SL-75KAV from had another for about the same price but this one has the RedStorm Overclocking BIOS on it, not 100% sure what it does exactly but very interested to find out. Have had a bit of a dig with google and its only made me more curious about it.

Board is in great condition so along with the other one I know have a pair of nice KT133A boards with Barton support and ISA.

The attachment Soltek.jpg is no longer available

I tried it. It tests your CPU for the highest OC point and will set it to that, as far as I know. I forgot the FSB increments though 🤣

My first AMD socket 7 processor.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-08-29, 17:23:

Oh my goodness... what cute little fella... err, yeah, that's not the beefiest 5700LE in the world is it? :blush: […]
Show full quote

AGP4LIfe? wrote on 2024-08-29, 17:00:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-08-29, 15:54:

Yes, like I said, it's an R200 chip with lower clocks than the full 8500 (matching the 8500LE), but is otherwise identical. We a […]
Show full quote

Yes, like I said, it's an R200 chip with lower clocks than the full 8500 (matching the 8500LE), but is otherwise identical. We all use the same places for research you know. 😁

Yes, everything else in the 9000-9250 series is newer than the 8500\8500LE\9100 (R200) because they use the low end RV250 and RV280 cores, which were added as low end parts for the R300 (9500\9700) lineup. The R200 cards have 2 vertex shaders and 8 texture mapping units, where the RV250 and RV280 (9000, 9000 Pro, 9200, 9250, etc.) only have 1 VS and 4 TMUs. This makes a pretty huge difference in performance and is why the 9100 is so much faster than all of the others.

This is why I mentioned the 9100 being very unique, since no other PCI cards after this used previously top of the line GPUs as a low end model.

I'm sure Nvidia had no trouble moving all of the NV20 chips they had, which is why they never had to go this route and instead opted to make the Geforce4MX as the next low end model. Speaking of which, I don't think I've ever seen a decently specced (128bit DDR, etc.) Geforce 4MX of any type in PCI. The vast vast majority are AGP, and even in that format most are egregiously underspecced for their model number... usually an MX440 with low-clocked 64bit DDR. The number of actually decent 128bit MX440 and MX460 models I've seen has been very small (in fact, the 460 seems to have been barely produced at all). Would have been interesting if lots of MX460 cards were sold with full specs in both PCI and AGP. I'm sure we'd see them being sought after to run 90s games that don't need pixel shaders.

As for your 9100 vs 5700LE, that should be an interesting comparison. I can't say I've ever come across one of those in PCI flavor, so that's a pretty awesome find. Depending on how gimped it is (64bit memory, etc) it may be one of the fastest pre-6000 series PCI cards you can get your hands on. Though, if it does have 64bit memory that will hold it back massively.

If it is 128bit I think the 5700LE will be quite a bit faster in most cases, but it could vary a lot depending on the game and settings. If your 5700LE is only 64bit, it will make things a lot closer though, that's for sure.

The 5700LE was only 10% faster than my ATI 9200 PCI in 3D Mark 99. I believe it is 64Bit memory, but I don't believe it exists in 128Bit as far as I know. However I need to test it in something else beside 3DMark 99 to get a good glimpse of its power.
It looks like this --> https://www.newegg.com/jaton-geforce-fx-5700l … N82E16814139166

Oh my goodness... what cute little fella... err, yeah, that's not the beefiest 5700LE in the world is it? 😊

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that card was 64bit and maybe even underclocked, given it's size. On paper the NV36 core should be a bit better than an FX 5200 or 5500 clock for clock since it has 3 vs 2 vertex shaders. But other than that it has the same pixel\texel rate as an FX 5200 non-ultra... which is not great.

When I mentioned before about the 5700LE maybe being faster than the 9100, I will admit that there was a typo on the GPU wiki chart I was looking at. It said the card had 1500mpixel and 1500mtexel fill rates, but that was a clear miscalculation since the card is supposed to have a 250mhz core clock, 4 ROPs and 4 TMUs. It should be 1000 for both, which is the same as a 5200. (I have fixed the typo!)

The 9100 has 1000mpixel and 2000mtexel (not to mention much higher bandwidth), so there is a good chance it will be much faster in situations that don't benefit from the FX chip being a newer design.

I tested both the FX 5700LE (64Bit) and the Radeon 9200 (128Bit) on my 3Dmark 2001 SE Tester and WOW the results were interesting!

The FX 5700LE Absolutely crushed the 9200, Almost doubling the score! Radeon 9200 got [3,813 Score] and the F 5700LE got [7,203 Score]!!
I even had to rerun the benchmark with fresh drivers because I couldn't believe it. 🤣
The FX 5700LE is pushing Geforce 3 Territory and equal to the GF3 Ti 200, very impressive for a PCI Card!

I'm even more excited to pitch it aginst the Radeon 9100 PCI when it gets in. Its gonna be fun!

AGP4LIfe? wrote on 2024-08-30, 17:27:

I tested both the FX 5700LE (64Bit) and the Radeon 9200 (128Bit) on my 3Dmark 2001 SE Tester and WOW the results were interesti […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-08-29, 17:23:

Oh my goodness... what cute little fella... err, yeah, that's not the beefiest 5700LE in the world is it? :blush: […]
Show full quote

AGP4LIfe? wrote on 2024-08-29, 17:00:

The 5700LE was only 10% faster than my ATI 9200 PCI in 3D Mark 99. I believe it is 64Bit memory, but I don't believe it exists in 128Bit as far as I know. However I need to test it in something else beside 3DMark 99 to get a good glimpse of its power.
It looks like this --> https://www.newegg.com/jaton-geforce-fx-5700l … N82E16814139166

Oh my goodness... what cute little fella... err, yeah, that's not the beefiest 5700LE in the world is it? 😊

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that card was 64bit and maybe even underclocked, given it's size. On paper the NV36 core should be a bit better than an FX 5200 or 5500 clock for clock since it has 3 vs 2 vertex shaders. But other than that it has the same pixel\texel rate as an FX 5200 non-ultra... which is not great.

When I mentioned before about the 5700LE maybe being faster than the 9100, I will admit that there was a typo on the GPU wiki chart I was looking at. It said the card had 1500mpixel and 1500mtexel fill rates, but that was a clear miscalculation since the card is supposed to have a 250mhz core clock, 4 ROPs and 4 TMUs. It should be 1000 for both, which is the same as a 5200. (I have fixed the typo!)

The 9100 has 1000mpixel and 2000mtexel (not to mention much higher bandwidth), so there is a good chance it will be much faster in situations that don't benefit from the FX chip being a newer design.

I tested both the FX 5700LE (64Bit) and the Radeon 9200 (128Bit) on my 3Dmark 2001 SE Tester and WOW the results were interesting!

The FX 5700LE Absolutely crushed the 9200, Almost doubling the score! Radeon 9200 got [3,813 Score] and the F 5700LE got [7,203 Score]!!
I even had to rerun the benchmark with fresh drivers because I couldn't believe it. 🤣
The FX 5700LE is pushing Geforce 3 Territory and equal to the GF3 Ti 200, very impressive for a PCI Card!

I'm even more excited to pitch it aginst the Radeon 9100 PCI when it gets in. Its gonna be fun!

The attachment SPECDIFF.png is no longer available

Yes, the 9200 is pretty underpowered in certain areas. The lower specs in addition to being an older architecture can really hold it back. I am a little surprised that the 5700LE beat it so soundly, since they probably have about the same pixel\texel throughput and the 5700LE with 64bit memory should have about HALF the bandwidth of the 9200 128bit, but the 5700LE has almost exactly three times the vertices\sec, so that may be why it was so much faster in 3Dmark 2001SE. I'd be curious to see the detailed game test results, since I'm sure some are more geometry (vertex) heavy than others.

You may see very different results in games of course. Especially at higher resolutions... though back in those days performance really depended a lot on drivers and other things too.

I would say that in 3Dmark you will probably see the 9100 fall somewhere between the two in some benchmarks, and much higher in others. Since the 5700LE had such a huge lead, I think it will be tough to beat unless higher texel rate of the 9100 (combined with the higher bandwidth) makes a big difference in some of the tests.

In games though, I really think the 9100 will beat them both soundly, especially with higher resolutions and texture settings. The 5700LE may still win in games that utilize DX8 pixel shaders (newer architecture), but those should really be run on something much faster (at least a 6200).

If I were you, I'd make a thread about this so we can keep talking about fast PCI cards. Or maybe post in this 8 year old one, since it has tons of information and benchmarks in it already. Page two has some really good benchmarks from feipoa.

EDIT: Oh, would it be possible to get some GPUz and maybe Rivatuner screenshots of the specs of these cards to really confirm the specs and clock speeds? Sometimes some programs will report incorrectly, which is why I'd suggest using both GPUZ and Rivatuner.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-08-30, 19:06:

Yes, the 9200 is pretty underpowered in certain areas. The lower specs in addition to being an older architecture can really hol […]
Show full quote

AGP4LIfe? wrote on 2024-08-30, 17:27:

I tested both the FX 5700LE (64Bit) and the Radeon 9200 (128Bit) on my 3Dmark 2001 SE Tester and WOW the results were interesti […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-08-29, 17:23:

Oh my goodness... what cute little fella... err, yeah, that's not the beefiest 5700LE in the world is it? :blush: […]
Show full quote

Oh my goodness... what cute little fella... err, yeah, that's not the beefiest 5700LE in the world is it? 😊

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that card was 64bit and maybe even underclocked, given it's size. On paper the NV36 core should be a bit better than an FX 5200 or 5500 clock for clock since it has 3 vs 2 vertex shaders. But other than that it has the same pixel\texel rate as an FX 5200 non-ultra... which is not great.

When I mentioned before about the 5700LE maybe being faster than the 9100, I will admit that there was a typo on the GPU wiki chart I was looking at. It said the card had 1500mpixel and 1500mtexel fill rates, but that was a clear miscalculation since the card is supposed to have a 250mhz core clock, 4 ROPs and 4 TMUs. It should be 1000 for both, which is the same as a 5200. (I have fixed the typo!)

The 9100 has 1000mpixel and 2000mtexel (not to mention much higher bandwidth), so there is a good chance it will be much faster in situations that don't benefit from the FX chip being a newer design.

I tested both the FX 5700LE (64Bit) and the Radeon 9200 (128Bit) on my 3Dmark 2001 SE Tester and WOW the results were interesting!

The FX 5700LE Absolutely crushed the 9200, Almost doubling the score! Radeon 9200 got [3,813 Score] and the F 5700LE got [7,203 Score]!!
I even had to rerun the benchmark with fresh drivers because I couldn't believe it. 🤣
The FX 5700LE is pushing Geforce 3 Territory and equal to the GF3 Ti 200, very impressive for a PCI Card!

I'm even more excited to pitch it aginst the Radeon 9100 PCI when it gets in. Its gonna be fun!

The attachment SPECDIFF.png is no longer available

Yes, the 9200 is pretty underpowered in certain areas. The lower specs in addition to being an older architecture can really hold it back. I am a little surprised that the 5700LE beat it so soundly, since they probably have about the same pixel\texel throughput and the 5700LE with 64bit memory should have about HALF the bandwidth of the 9200 128bit, but the 5700LE has almost exactly three times the vertices\sec, so that may be why it was so much faster in 3Dmark 2001SE. I'd be curious to see the detailed game test results, since I'm sure some are more geometry (vertex) heavy than others.

You may see very different results in games of course. Especially at higher resolutions... though back in those days performance really depended a lot on drivers and other things too.

I would say that in 3Dmark you will probably see the 9100 fall somewhere between the two in some benchmarks, and much higher in others. Since the 5700LE had such a huge lead, I think it will be tough to beat unless higher texel rate of the 9100 (combined with the higher bandwidth) makes a big difference in some of the tests.

In games though, I really think the 9100 will beat them both soundly, especially with higher resolutions and texture settings. The 5700LE may still win in games that utilize DX8 pixel shaders (newer architecture), but those should really be run on something much faster (at least a 6200).

If I were you, I'd make a thread about this so we can keep talking about fast PCI cards. Or maybe post in this 8 year old one, since it has tons of information and benchmarks in it already. Page two has some really good benchmarks from feipoa.

EDIT: Oh, would it be possible to get some GPUz and maybe Rivatuner screenshots of the specs of these cards to really confirm the specs and clock speeds? Sometimes some programs will report incorrectly, which is why I'd suggest using both GPUZ and Rivatuner.

Unfortunately I already boxed them up and put them away 🙁.
I'll get them back out again when the 9100 arrives. I seem to remember the clocks being correct to the picture I posted.

Today's score.

Who doesn't recognize these speakers. 😉 Probably fake tweeters.
I had these in the 90s with Active95 printed on it, RA1 sounded much better. Finally some bass.
Does anyone know how much brands used these white label speakers? I know Target, Escom, Juster(?) And then there's Active 75, Active 85, etc..
And two PATA drives and an IntelliMouse.

PD2JK wrote on 2024-08-31, 14:20:

Today's score. […]
Show full quote

Today's score.

The attachment DSC_1511.JPG is no longer available

Who doesn't recognize these speakers. 😉 Probably fake tweeters.
I had these in the 90s with Active95 printed on it, RA1 sounded much better. Finally some bass.
Does anyone know how much brands used these white label speakers? I know Target, Escom, Juster(?) And then there's Active 75, Active 85, etc..
And two PATA drives and an IntelliMouse.

Nice speakers 👍🏻

PD2JK wrote on 2024-08-31, 14:20:

The attachment DSC_1511.JPG is no longer available

Does anyone know how much brands used these white label speakers? I know Target, Escom, Juster(?) And then there's Active 75, Active 85, etc..

Re: Cannot believe I bought this "time capsule" PC, wondering what's inside !! SDTA, Primax ... you can even print your own https://blendermarket.com/products/pc-speakers-1 😀
I remember those fondly. The ones I played with in ~1996 had thick metal shield inside ensuring magnets wouldnt interfere with CRT?

G-X wrote on 2024-08-28, 20:49:

Thanks for the suggestions guy's. Appreciate it. I'm currently (already) slightly over $110 so i'm calling it quits on the biddi […]
Show full quote

iraito wrote on 2024-08-28, 19:17:

I wouldn't go over 70\90 and take into account that you can unlock some x850 gto to X850XT-PE levels.

zuldan wrote on 2024-08-28, 20:14:

I purchased mine for $170 USD and consider that a good price. It’s in mint condition and it’s not the OEM version. If you go for a standard x850 to upgrade to a x850XT PE then you need to make sure it has the right memory chips to allow that.

If that card is bringing back a lot of nostalgic feelings for you, then in my view it’s worth spending some more dollars than what you would usually spend. Keep in mind retro hardware will only go up in price. What you think is expensive now will be considered cheap in a couple of years.

AGP4LIfe? wrote on 2024-08-28, 20:32:

I personally wouldn't pay more than 79 ish Dollars for a PCI-E Version of the X850XT-PE, they are not exactly rare vs the AGP version. You can find them in Dell Dimension XPS Gen 4's if memory serves me correct. If you are patient you shouldn't have a problem finding one for under 99$ or buy up an entire XPS Gen 4 Machine and pull it out or use the whole computer 😁

But if you are looking for a personal replica of a specific brand / design ect. Then the Limit is your own pocket book and happiness 😀

Thanks for the suggestions guy's. Appreciate it. I'm currently (already) slightly over $110 so i'm calling it quits on the bidding (currently high bid) we will see were it ends up. Add shipping and that's all i'm comfortable with really.
Also thanks for the tip on the XPS machines. I didn't know these also had x850xt-pe cards. I've only seen later ones with 7800GTX cards.

Going to quote myself here. I ended up not getting the card. Other buyer had it for $130. I'm not bummed about it because in fact not 2 days later i get a pm on a local board where i put a post in the "wanted" section. One guy has the exact same card and i can have it for free! (cost of shipping). There is one caveat however ... it doesn't work. Needs a really good clean though cause the cooler is caked in dust and barely visible in the casing, but all in all the card actually looks to be in good condition.

So even though the card doesn't work i am stoked to get one for free 😀 chances of fixing it are probably very slim but hey ... simply to have said card is half of the enjoyment for me. I think he said the card seems to run but there is no picture. Anyway i'm excited to get it. (unfortunately if it needs a re-ball or new memory chips or what have you it probably wont be getting it due to cost plus the fact i have no experience except for recaps)

All i've read about so far in terms of problems with these cards is that some people report the card "frying" itself and thats the end of it. If anyone knows about common issues with these card i would like to hear your input.

I've bought more games than hardware recently but I'm waiting for two parcels.

An upgrade for my top 2005 system :
A8N32-SLI deluxe (currently using a non 32 model).
For 20€... i would have bough the motherboard alone for that price but it also comes with an Athlon64 X2 (3800+ i think), a GeForce 9800GT and 4x 512MB DDR. Everything tested. Nice for the price.

I also found an ISA backplane. For 20€
I have a 286 SBC. I've borrowed a backplane from a friend and the card seems to have some issues. But for 20€ i will have all my time to troubleshoot and give back the borrowed board to my friend.

Bought this nice late 486 era motherboard.
PCI and VLB, good point to compare some of my video cards.
It marks as a PCI450-A, and it seems that not linted at retroweb. MB has a cool Phoenix BIOS and non standard Cache solution.

Wow, that's a large number of VLB for having PCI too, and four of those too, not just 3. Mind you I guess most of those where you only have 1 VLB and 3 PCI you do have onboard I/O

Susanin79 wrote on 2024-08-31, 21:25:

It marks as a PCI450-A, and it seems that not linted at retroweb.

model number scheme matches J-Bond https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/?manufac … s=1&platform1=4

rasz_pl wrote on 2024-08-31, 22:10:

model number scheme matches J-Bond

Good catch, it definitely looks similar. Will dump the BIOS, may be there will be some clue.
this one is looking very close, but the jumpers position and naming didn't match: https://stason.org/TULARC/pc/motherboards/U/U … M486PA-VIP.html

Constantly keeping tabs on a MSI MS-6168. Pic below is its state. I'm pretty confident it's fixable...

Susanin79 wrote on 2024-08-31, 21:25:

Bought this nice late 486 era motherboard.
PCI and VLB, good point to compare some of my video cards.
It marks as a PCI450-A, and it seems that not linted at retroweb. MB has a cool Phoenix BIOS and non standard Cache solution.

Wow, and a battery that doesn't even look like being close to leaking, nice!

I would, however, still consider removing it, just in case ...

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-09-01, 06:38:

Wow, and a battery that doesn't even look like being close to leaking, nice!

It looks like this board was repaired, mosfet and voltage regulator were replaced, as well as bunch of tantalum capacitors, probably the battery too as it works well, system clock shows the real date. But in any case I'll replace it.

Susanin79 wrote on 2024-09-01, 10:21:

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-09-01, 06:38:

Wow, and a battery that doesn't even look like being close to leaking, nice!

It looks like this board was repaired, mosfet and voltage regulator were replaced, as well as bunch of tantalum capacitors, probably the battery too as it works well, system clock shows the real date. But in any case I'll replace it.

People may take issue with this but I wouldn't touch it, if its in good condition and isn't showing signs of degradation then it can safely be left alone. May even be possible it has a date code on it and if its fairly new then its good for the next 10 - 20 years as itll have been made using a more modern and reliable process to the old Varta batteries.

The reason the old Varta ones leaked was the coatings and sealants used degraded and let the angry pixie juices out, new batteries wont have this issue.

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-01, 10:39:

The reason the old Varta ones leaked was the coatings and sealants used degraded and let the angry pixie juices out, new batteries wont have this issue.

Really glad you mentioned this. I got a 486 board recently were the previous owner installed a new varta battery. I’ve been In conflict on whether to get rid of it or not. I think I’ll leave it and see what happens.