zuldan wrote on 2025-02-02, 09:24:

Getting around 3000 (driver v3.8.421).

Try using Catalyst 6.2. Unlike Nvidia, newer ATi drivers actually improve performance while not causing any new compatibility issues. There's no reason to use older drivers with ATi Radeon cards, unless you're running them on a really old CPU or something.

installed VIA chipset drivers (4in1435v.zip)

That driver version seems way too old for an Athlon64 motherboard. Use Hyperion Pro 5.09A instead.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-02-02, 09:31:

Try using Catalyst 6.2. Unlike Nvidia, newer ATi drivers actually improve performance while not causing any new compatibility i […]
Show full quote

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-02, 09:24:

Getting around 3000 (driver v3.8.421).

Try using Catalyst 6.2. Unlike Nvidia, newer ATi drivers actually improve performance while not causing any new compatibility issues. There's no reason to use older drivers with ATi Radeon cards, unless you're running them on a really old CPU or something.

installed VIA chipset drivers (4in1435v.zip)

That driver version seems way too old for an Athlon64 motherboard. Use Hyperion Pro 5.09A instead.

Thanks for the recommendations. I’m a ATI noob. I didn’t know newer drivers are better with ATI. Any reason why you didn’t recommend Omega drivers?

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-02, 09:38:

Any reason why you didn’t recommend Omega drivers?

I never felt the need to use them on my R300 and R400 cards. The latest official Catalyst 6.2 driver offers plenty of performance under Win9x.

BTW, if you're dual booting Win98 and WinXP, you want to use Catalyst 6.2 on the former and Catalyst 7.11 on the latter. That version introduces perfect table fog emulation under WinXP, while also being the last one that is compatible enough for some problematic OpenGL games from the early-mid 2000s, like Star Wars KOTOR and Neverwinter Nights. You may also need .NET Framework 2.0 for the Catalyst 7.11 Control Center to work properly.

To clarify, my previous statement that ATi's later drivers are better is true for Win9x. But for WinXP, there are some minor OpenGL compatibility concerns when going higher than Catalyst 7.11.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-02-02, 09:59:

I never felt the need to use them on my R300 and R400 cards. The latest official Catalyst 6.2 driver offers plenty of performanc […]
Show full quote

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-02, 09:38:

Any reason why you didn’t recommend Omega drivers?

I never felt the need to use them on my R300 and R400 cards. The latest official Catalyst 6.2 driver offers plenty of performance under Win9x.

BTW, if you're dual booting Win98 and WinXP, you want to use Catalyst 6.2 on the former and Catalyst 7.11 on the latter. That version introduces perfect table fog emulation under WinXP, while also being the last one that is compatible enough for some problematic OpenGL games from the early-mid 2000s, like Star Wars KOTOR and Neverwinter Nights. You may also need .NET Framework 2.0 for the Catalyst 7.11 Control Center to work properly.

To clarify, my previous statement that ATi's later drivers are better is true for Win9x. But for WinXP, there are some minor OpenGL compatibility concerns when going higher than Catalyst 7.11.

I'm only intending running WinXP on this machine. I installed .NET 2.0 and the Catalyst 6.2 drivers just for fun (and made sure the old drivers were gone with Driver Cleaner Professional v1.5) and the performance dropped even further.

I uninstalled the 6.2 drivers, rebooted and tried to install Catalyst 7.11 drivers as you recommended but the installer refuses to work. I was able to manually install the drivers via Device Manager but performance was the same.

I got a feeling the 9800XT is performing fine, it's just a quirk with 3dMark03. There must be some ATI tweak or 3dMark03 setting I'm not configuring. I looked up Quake 3 performance https://www.guru3d.com/review/ati-radeon-9800 … review/page-15/. Guru3D got 171 FPS @ 1024 and I'm getting 201 FPS @ 1024.

Any other ideas?

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-03, 08:53:

I uninstalled the 6.2 drivers, rebooted and tried to install Catalyst 7.11 drivers as you recommended but the installer refuses to work.

I've seen that happen a few times, usually when a previous version of ATi drivers was installed. Driver cleaner utilities don't seem to help with that, for some reason. But installing .NET Framework 2.0 followed by Catalyst 7.11 on a clean WinXP installation has always worked for me.

Any other ideas?

Not many I'm afraid. Try a clean install of WinXP + SP3 followed by VIA Hyperion Pro 5.24A drivers (since you're running XP), .NET Framework 2.0 and Catalyst 7.11. If the card underperforms on a clean install like that, it's possible that 3DMark 03 has some issues with it. Have you tested the performance in other Direct3D applications? Period correct games for that would be Halo and X2: The Threat.

By the way, IGN has a review of the 9800 XT where they test it with 3DMark 03 and it seems to be working fine for them.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-02-03, 09:01:

I've seen that happen a few times, usually when a previous version of ATi drivers was installed. Driver cleaner utilities don't […]
Show full quote

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-03, 08:53:

I uninstalled the 6.2 drivers, rebooted and tried to install Catalyst 7.11 drivers as you recommended but the installer refuses to work.

I've seen that happen a few times, usually when a previous version of ATi drivers was installed. Driver cleaner utilities don't seem to help with that, for some reason. But installing .NET Framework 2.0 followed by Catalyst 7.11 on a clean WinXP installation has always worked for me.

Any other ideas?

Not many I'm afraid. Try a clean install of WinXP + SP3 followed by VIA Hyperion Pro 5.24A drivers (since you're running XP), .NET Framework 2.0 and Catalyst 7.11. If the card underperforms on a clean install like that, it's possible that 3DMark 03 has some issues with it. Have you tested the performance in other Direct3D applications? Period correct games for that would be Halo and X2: The Threat.

That said, IGN has a review of the 9800 XT where they test it with 3DMark 03 and it seems to be working fine for them.

I’ll do a reinstall and use the newer VIA Hyperion Pro 5.24A drivers (I forgot to mention I did use the 5.09 drivers in the previous test).

I’m wondering if it’s something silly like using a USB keyboard and mouse instead of PS/2. You would think by 2003 that wouldn’t be a problem.

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-03, 09:46:

I’m wondering if it’s something silly like using a USB keyboard and mouse instead of PS/2. You would think by 2003 that wouldn’t be a problem.

On the topic of silly issues, have you ensured that V-Sync is turned off in the ATi drivers prior to performing the tests?

I think 3DMark 03 can do that on its own, but manually setting V-Sync to "Always Off" should still be done for benchmarking, just in case.

Just digging around on google .. many suggest that to get a proper score in 03 you need to set the slider to max performance.

Display Properties -> Settings -> Advanced -> 3D

Move that slider and see if it helps.

Also make sure AGP fastwrites are turned off in the BIOS . .they are know to cause issues with ATI cards.

You should be getting around 5900 - 6900 points, anything lower and something is not right since 03 is pretty much GPU based and CPU makes little to no difference.

Thanks to both of you for the advice.

I’ll turn off v-sync, move the slider to max and disable AGP Fast writes (it’s currently enabled) tomorrow. If that fails I’ll reinstall WinXP.

TrashBytes (in a PM) also mentioned trying it in a 939 board so that’s another option.

Ok here’s an update

1. Disabled AGP Fast Write in the BIOS
2. Reinstalled XP
3. Installed VIA Hyperion Pro 5.24A drivers
4. Installed .NET 2.0
5. Installed Catalyst 7.11 drivers
6. Made sure V-sync was turned off
7. Set Catalyst option to Performance

Got a 3DMark03 score of 3600. A nice little improvement but still massive performance issue.

BUT…

I think I found the problem. If you look at the specs on my card

The graphics clock should be 412Mhz and the memory clock should be 365Mhz https://www.gpuzoo.com/GPU-ATI/Radeon_9800_XT.html

Is it possible the previous owner flashed another BIOS? Or is it possible to set the graphics and memory clock speed in the BIOS?

I really hope the previous owner hasn’t down clocked the card to hide some issue. Arrrg!!

I was trying to say the exact same thing: the clocks on your card are wrong! This is usually done in order to keep the card running OK if it is crashing at default clocks. Try MSI aferburner to set the correct clocks on your card by raising slowly - 10 MHz core and memory - and testing each time with 3dmark for artifacts. Watch the temps with GPU-Z older version.

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-04, 11:03:

Is it possible the previous owner flashed another BIOS? Or is it possible to set the graphics and memory clock speed in the BIOS?

It's been ages since I bothered with that, but from what I recall, there were some BIOS editing tools for both Nvidia and ATi cards from that time.

Those tools would allow you to edit a BIOS rom file and set the core and memory speed to whatever you wanted. You could then flash the modified BIOS back onto the card, so that you wouldn't need to overclock it manually via RivaTuner and such. I don't remember the specifics since it was a long time ago, but maybe someone else has more info.

Yep BIOS can be modified easily Re: Radeon 9800 XT Troubles - Need Advice

Looks like I’ve been scammed. As soon as I set the memory clock speed to anything over 200Mhz I get artifacts all over the screen. The memory must be screwed on this card.

Damnit! Feeling a bit bummed.

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-04, 11:38:

Looks like I’ve been scammed. As soon as I set the memory clock speed to anything over 200Mhz I get artifacts all over the screen. The memory must be screwed on this card.

Looking at your GPU-Z screenshot, in addition to the low clocks, it also seems like the memory bus on the card is 128-bit. On a Radeon 9800 XT, the memory bus width should be 256-bit.

It could be that GPU-Z is reading it wrong, so maybe double check with Everest Home Edition.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-02-04, 11:48:

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-04, 11:38:

Looks like I’ve been scammed. As soon as I set the memory clock speed to anything over 200Mhz I get artifacts all over the screen. The memory must be screwed on this card.

Looking at your GPU-Z screenshot, in addition to the low clocks, it also seems like the memory bus on the card is 128-bit. On a Radeon 9800 XT, the memory bus width should be 256-bit.

It could be that GPU-Z is reading it wrong, so maybe double check with Everest Home Edition.

I think with just one odd thing that might be the case but we have several data points now and they all point to that poor card being touched in the no no spot.

Now it could be they threw a modded bios on it to get it stable with lower clocks but the memory bus thing ....I would be taking that cooler off and getting the number off the die and checking it.

My guess is its not a 9800XT die but possibly a modded 9600XT but that doesn't quite fit since it does have 8 pixel, 4 vertex and 8 ROP/TMUs which matches the R360 core, AFAIK there are no R360 cores with a 128bit memory bus so thats very odd on its own. 9800Xt GPU clock should be 412Mhz with 365 on the Vram, Now I really want to see what the number on the die is.

Yep it’s a 9800 Pro (maybe?) running a 9800 XT BIOS. That explains the 128bit.

Re: Bought these (retro) hardware today

zuldan wrote on 2025-02-04, 12:12:

Yep it’s a 9800 Pro (maybe?) running a 9800 XT BIOS. That explains the 128bit.

https://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3513/dscf0032custom.jpg

Re: Bought these (retro) hardware today

9800 Pro also has a 256bit bus .. its using the same core as the 9800XT and has 380/340 clocks.

how game are you at removing coolers !

Here are pictures of the actual card

Thats not a 9800XT .. they didn't use that cooler on the XT cards, even the cap layout is different to the ATI reference models.

This is the reference ATI 9800XT card

So that begs the question .. what did you get sold, and that sticker on the back .. its certainly a fake.

This is the 9800 Pro reference model for comparison