Can Intel 440BX Motherboard Accept AGP 4X/8X Card?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jay Chan
  • Start date Start date
J

Jay Chan

I want to upgrade the video card in my old PC. I am doing this for two
reasons: (1) Need to use a wide screen LCD to set it at its native
1680x1050 resolution. (2) Need hardware assisted decoding MPEG-2 video.

The catch is that my Dell Dimension XPS T450 PC has an old Intel 440BX
mother board that can only handle AGP 2X (AGP speed is 66MHz or 133MHz)
(I believe it has a 3.3 volt AGP slot based on the appearance of the
existing AGP card). This seems to suggest that I can only use AGP card
that is 1X/2X or 2X/4X, right? If this is true, I am in trouble
because I don't seem to find any 2X/4X AGP cards that can support
hardware assisted video decoding. For example, I can find ATI Radeon
9250 that can supports 2X/4X; but it doesn't have hardware assisted
video decoding. On the other hand, ATI Radeon 9550 has hardware
assisted video decoding; but it seems to come in a 4X/8X AGP card, not
2X.

I would like to ask several questions regarding this issue:

o Am I limited to 2X/4X AGP because the motherboard only
supports 2X AGP and the APG slot is 3.3 volt? I am asking
this despite the odd is against me. The reason is that
somehow ATI "Product Advisor" suggests me a 9600-Pro
(that is 4X/8X) to match up with my old Dell PC that is 2X
AGP only. This makes me wondering may be I have mis-
understood this.

o If I must buy 2X/4X AGP card, can someone suggest a good
2X/4X AGP card that has hardware assisted video decoding?

I really hope that I can put a 4X/8X AGP card like ATI Radeon 9600-XT
in the old PC to make the old PC a bit alive.

Thanks in advance for any info.

Jay Chan
 
Jay Chan said:
I want to upgrade the video card in my old PC. I am doing this for two
reasons: (1) Need to use a wide screen LCD to set it at its native
1680x1050 resolution. (2) Need hardware assisted decoding MPEG-2 video.

The catch is that my Dell Dimension XPS T450 PC has an old Intel 440BX
mother board that can only handle AGP 2X (AGP speed is 66MHz or 133MHz)
(I believe it has a 3.3 volt AGP slot based on the appearance of the
existing AGP card). This seems to suggest that I can only use AGP card
that is 1X/2X or 2X/4X, right? If this is true, I am in trouble
because I don't seem to find any 2X/4X AGP cards that can support
hardware assisted video decoding. For example, I can find ATI Radeon
9250 that can supports 2X/4X; but it doesn't have hardware assisted
video decoding. On the other hand, ATI Radeon 9550 has hardware
assisted video decoding; but it seems to come in a 4X/8X AGP card, not
2X.

I would like to ask several questions regarding this issue:

o Am I limited to 2X/4X AGP because the motherboard only
supports 2X AGP and the APG slot is 3.3 volt? I am asking
this despite the odd is against me. The reason is that
somehow ATI "Product Advisor" suggests me a 9600-Pro
(that is 4X/8X) to match up with my old Dell PC that is 2X
AGP only. This makes me wondering may be I have mis-
understood this.

o If I must buy 2X/4X AGP card, can someone suggest a good
2X/4X AGP card that has hardware assisted video decoding?

I really hope that I can put a 4X/8X AGP card like ATI Radeon 9600-XT
in the old PC to make the old PC a bit alive.

Thanks in advance for any info.

Jay Chan
Click to expand...
As long as it runs on the 3.3v spec you would be fine. It would only run at
2x (maybe 4x if your MB supports it. Many 440bx boards did), but I don't
think you would see much of any difference whatsoever.

Ed
 
Jay said:
I want to upgrade the video card in my old PC. I am doing this for two
reasons: (1) Need to use a wide screen LCD to set it at its native
1680x1050 resolution. (2) Need hardware assisted decoding MPEG-2 video.

The catch is that my Dell Dimension XPS T450 PC has an old Intel 440BX
mother board that can only handle AGP 2X (AGP speed is 66MHz or 133MHz)
(I believe it has a 3.3 volt AGP slot based on the appearance of the
existing AGP card). This seems to suggest that I can only use AGP card
that is 1X/2X or 2X/4X, right? If this is true, I am in trouble
because I don't seem to find any 2X/4X AGP cards that can support
hardware assisted video decoding. For example, I can find ATI Radeon
9250 that can supports 2X/4X; but it doesn't have hardware assisted
video decoding. On the other hand, ATI Radeon 9550 has hardware
assisted video decoding; but it seems to come in a 4X/8X AGP card, not
2X.

I would like to ask several questions regarding this issue:

o Am I limited to 2X/4X AGP because the motherboard only
supports 2X AGP and the APG slot is 3.3 volt? I am asking
this despite the odd is against me. The reason is that
somehow ATI "Product Advisor" suggests me a 9600-Pro
(that is 4X/8X) to match up with my old Dell PC that is 2X
AGP only. This makes me wondering may be I have mis-
understood this.

o If I must buy 2X/4X AGP card, can someone suggest a good
2X/4X AGP card that has hardware assisted video decoding?

I really hope that I can put a 4X/8X AGP card like ATI Radeon 9600-XT
in the old PC to make the old PC a bit alive.

Thanks in advance for any info.

Jay Chan
Click to expand...

My test record on a P2B-S with 440BX:

Geforce3 TI200: Works (my current card)
FX5200 : Works (tried two different brands and booted Knoppix OK,
didn't test any 3D functions.)
ATI 9800Pro : Fails (video beep code - no apparent damage)

It would seem, while the 9800Pro was classed as a Universal type
card (mine has both a 1.5V key and 3.3V key), that something still
prevents it from working (maybe it simply cannot run at 2X, and only
has 4X and 8X modes?). You might well find a number of apparently
Universal cards of recent vintage, that might respond like the 9800Pro.
You'll just have to Google up the combinations, as you think of them.

This page has some info as well, but it cannot account for situations
where a motherboard's local regulator doesn't have enough power to
run the VI/O. Some particular older motherboards had bad hardware
implementations (a linear regulator for VI/O) and while this page might
declare a working combo, the actual motherboard design and BIOS design
can also play a part.

http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

I suspect many of the recent vintage AGP cards, use bridge chips
like ATI Rialto and Nvidia HSI. These seem to be 1.5V only, and
the cards only have one key cut. So those cards won't even fit in
the slot, in theory.

As for hardware assist, there are various levels. For at least
five years, video cards of all kinds have had IDCT (inverse discrete
cosine transform). Apparently IDCT and motion compensation are
things used for MPEG2. But I'm not really up on the details, and
instead I'll show you some performance results. I don't know of
a way to get a modern card, to work in a 3.3V only AGP slot, so the
things listed here will be out of reach. (A PCI version of a
card might work, but would be lousy for gaming.)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce6600gt-theory_6.html

Actually, I see some ATI X1300 PCI cards here (starting at $110). Maybe
these would be good enough for video (but lousy for gaming). The playback
may be accelerated, but the frame buffer would be filled over the PCI bus.
Maybe this would give a working 640x480 video window, or be able to drive
a TV set via S-Video.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+1069609642&Subcategory=48

On balance, maybe the FX5200 AGP is the best compromise. More load on
the processor during playback, but better bus performance for other
things. It is really hard to say.

Paul
 
Ed said:
As long as it runs on the 3.3v spec you would be fine. It would only run at
2x (maybe 4x if your MB supports it. Many 440bx boards did), but I don't
think you would see much of any difference whatsoever.

Ed
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment about I won't see the difference even if the
video card has AGP 4X capability because the motherboard doesn't
support it and the video card ends up will running at 2X anyway. I
will keep this in mind and adjust my expectation accordingly. Luckily,
I am not looking for high 3D score anyway.

Jay Chan
 
Paul said:
My test record on a P2B-S with 440BX:

Geforce3 TI200: Works (my current card)
FX5200 : Works (tried two different brands and booted Knoppix OK,
didn't test any 3D functions.)
ATI 9800Pro : Fails (video beep code - no apparent damage)

It would seem, while the 9800Pro was classed as a Universal type
card (mine has both a 1.5V key and 3.3V key), that something still
prevents it from working (maybe it simply cannot run at 2X, and only
has 4X and 8X modes?). You might well find a number of apparently
Universal cards of recent vintage, that might respond like the 9800Pro.
You'll just have to Google up the combinations, as you think of them.

This page has some info as well, but it cannot account for situations
where a motherboard's local regulator doesn't have enough power to
run the VI/O. Some particular older motherboards had bad hardware
implementations (a linear regulator for VI/O) and while this page might
declare a working combo, the actual motherboard design and BIOS design
can also play a part.

http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

I suspect many of the recent vintage AGP cards, use bridge chips
like ATI Rialto and Nvidia HSI. These seem to be 1.5V only, and
the cards only have one key cut. So those cards won't even fit in
the slot, in theory.

As for hardware assist, there are various levels. For at least
five years, video cards of all kinds have had IDCT (inverse discrete
cosine transform). Apparently IDCT and motion compensation are
things used for MPEG2. But I'm not really up on the details, and
instead I'll show you some performance results. I don't know of
a way to get a modern card, to work in a 3.3V only AGP slot, so the
things listed here will be out of reach. (A PCI version of a
card might work, but would be lousy for gaming.)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce6600gt-theory_6.html

Actually, I see some ATI X1300 PCI cards here (starting at $110). Maybe
these would be good enough for video (but lousy for gaming). The playback
may be accelerated, but the frame buffer would be filled over the PCI bus.
Maybe this would give a working 640x480 video window, or be able to drive
a TV set via S-Video.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+1069609642&Subcategory=48

On balance, maybe the FX5200 AGP is the best compromise. More load on
the processor during playback, but better bus performance for other
things. It is really hard to say.

Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks for the very useful info and the links that you have shared with
me. I especially appreciate your link to the web page about AGP
compatibility issue:
http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

Based on the info in that web page, I can tell that my option is not as
limited as what I thought. Despite the fact that the motherboard only
support AGP 1X/2X at 3.3v, it still can use the following types of AGP
video cards that are likely to be compatible with the motherboard:
o AGP 3.3v card
o Universal AGP card
o Universal AGP 3.0 card (_not_ Universal 1.5v AGP 3.0 card)

Based on the info in that web page, I can come up with the following
shopping strategy:
o I should use the list of compatible graphic chipsets mentioned
in that web page to greatly narrow down my selection. (And I
find that nVidia chipset has a clear edge here).
o I should examine the picture of the video card to make sure
the bus of the video card matches the compatible AGP types
mentioned above. That's to avoid any "surprise".
o Because the old motherboard "may" not provide enough power
to a demanding video card, I should avoid this problem by
only looking for a video card that doesn't have a fan or it has a
fan that gets power directly from the power supply. And this is
one more reason to carefully check the picture of the video card.
o I should buy from a local store that has a good refund policy
just in case the video card doesn't work with the motherboard.
o The video card will be limited by the motherboard speed
(that is AGP 2X) regardless if the video card can do better
than that or not. Moreover, the PC will also be limited by the
low speed CPU (Pentium III). Therefore, this doesn't make
sense to buy a powerful but expensive video card.

Based on this, I have found the following candidates:
o ATI Radeon 9250: It is cheap, fast enough for old games,
has MPEG2-decoder, support LCD, support Win98SE,
widely available in internet and local stores, and it doesn't
need a fan. Not exactly sure if it can support 1680x1050
resolution that is the native resolution of my 20" wide
screen LCD.
o nVidia GeForce4 Mx-serie: It is cheap, fast enough for
old games, has MPEG2-decoder, support LCD, support
Win98SE. The catch is that I don't seem to be able to
find it, and it needs a fan and the fan gets power from
the motherboard. Again, I am not sure if it can support
1680x1050 resolution.

Sound like I will likely buy a ATI Radeon 9250 video card from a local
store.

One question though:
I don't quite understand your comments on nVidia GeForce FX5200
being the best compromise:
On balance, maybe the FX5200 AGP is the best
compromise. More load on the processor during
playback, but better bus performance for other
things. It is really hard to say.
Click to expand...

Can you explain a bit more on this?

Thanks again for the helpful information that you have shared with me.

Jay Chan
 
Jay Chan schrieb:
....
o nVidia GeForce4 Mx-serie: It is cheap, fast enough for
old games, has MPEG2-decoder, support LCD, support
Win98SE. The catch is that I don't seem to be able to
find it, and it needs a fan and the fan gets power from
the motherboard. ...
Click to expand...

My nVidia GeForce4 MX440 64 MB AGP card by MSI does _not_ have a fan;
it does not need a fan.
(But it runs with Vista - though, of course, basic, no Aero.)
You will find those old cards second-hand only.

You may wish to check the compatibility of a GeForce 6200 128 MB AGP
(e.g. by Asus) with your system - I have that card, too, and it works
with Vista Aero.

Roy
 
Gert said:
Jay Chan schrieb:
...

My nVidia GeForce4 MX440 64 MB AGP card by MSI does _not_ have a fan;
it does not need a fan.
(But it runs with Vista - though, of course, basic, no Aero.)
You will find those old cards second-hand only.

You may wish to check the compatibility of a GeForce 6200 128 MB AGP
(e.g. by Asus) with your system - I have that card, too, and it works
with Vista Aero.

Roy
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that nVidia GeForce4 Mx440 by MSI doesn't have a fan.
This means I cannot totally rule out GeForce4. But I probably need to
get it second-hand from eBay. This is where the problem is because I
prefer to get it from a local store when I can return it if it doesn't
work with my motherboard.

According to the AGP Compatibility web page that I mentioned in my last
message, all the nVidia GeForce 6XXX-serie chipset (including 6200)
requires 1.5v AGP slot; therefore, they won't work with my motherboard
because mine has a 3.3v AGP slot. Oh well...

Thanks for the suggestion though, and I will keep my eyes opened for
any GeForce4 in local stores to see if I can find one that doesn't need
a fan.

Jay Chan
 
Jay said:
Thanks for the very useful info and the links that you have shared with
me. I especially appreciate your link to the web page about AGP
compatibility issue:
http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

Based on the info in that web page, I can tell that my option is not as
limited as what I thought. Despite the fact that the motherboard only
support AGP 1X/2X at 3.3v, it still can use the following types of AGP
video cards that are likely to be compatible with the motherboard:
o AGP 3.3v card
o Universal AGP card
o Universal AGP 3.0 card (_not_ Universal 1.5v AGP 3.0 card)

Based on the info in that web page, I can come up with the following
shopping strategy:
o I should use the list of compatible graphic chipsets mentioned
in that web page to greatly narrow down my selection. (And I
find that nVidia chipset has a clear edge here).
o I should examine the picture of the video card to make sure
the bus of the video card matches the compatible AGP types
mentioned above. That's to avoid any "surprise".
o Because the old motherboard "may" not provide enough power
to a demanding video card, I should avoid this problem by
only looking for a video card that doesn't have a fan or it has a
fan that gets power directly from the power supply. And this is
one more reason to carefully check the picture of the video card.
o I should buy from a local store that has a good refund policy
just in case the video card doesn't work with the motherboard.
o The video card will be limited by the motherboard speed
(that is AGP 2X) regardless if the video card can do better
than that or not. Moreover, the PC will also be limited by the
low speed CPU (Pentium III). Therefore, this doesn't make
sense to buy a powerful but expensive video card.

Based on this, I have found the following candidates:
o ATI Radeon 9250: It is cheap, fast enough for old games,
has MPEG2-decoder, support LCD, support Win98SE,
widely available in internet and local stores, and it doesn't
need a fan. Not exactly sure if it can support 1680x1050
resolution that is the native resolution of my 20" wide
screen LCD.
o nVidia GeForce4 Mx-serie: It is cheap, fast enough for
old games, has MPEG2-decoder, support LCD, support
Win98SE. The catch is that I don't seem to be able to
find it, and it needs a fan and the fan gets power from
the motherboard. Again, I am not sure if it can support
1680x1050 resolution.

Sound like I will likely buy a ATI Radeon 9250 video card from a local
store.

One question though:
I don't quite understand your comments on nVidia GeForce FX5200
being the best compromise:


Can you explain a bit more on this?
Click to expand...

The ATI X1300 would accelerate video playback. But my understanding is,
a program playing video, makes calls to the card to aid in the playback
operation, but the final write to the framebuffer comes from the processor
or from system memory. Which means the frame buffer data travels over
the system busses. Flooding the PCI bus with frame buffer data, will
use a substantial portion of available bus bandwidth.

If you were to do that over the PCI bus, you might be limited in your
ability to play a full screen movie at a high resolution. That is my
concern. If video acceleration was so complete, that you could send a
low bandwidth, highly compressed stream directly to the video card,
and it handled all the details, then there would be no issue with the
110MB/sec bus bandwidth. (Now, in reading suggestions for processor
requirements, your processor will probably be at 100%, before you get
to the point of saturating the PCI bus. Maybe 640x480 video is a
reasonable expectation for a 440BX system.)

In that respect, AGP would be less restricting, as there is more bandwidth
available.

AFAIK, the PCI bus on the 440BX, not only drives the PCI bus slots,
but it is also used to connect the Northbridge to the Southbridge.
And that means, disk accesses are using PCI bus bandwidth, as well
as anything else sitting on the PCI bus.
Thanks again for the helpful information that you have shared with me.

Jay Chan
Click to expand...

This page seems to suggest the 9200 series will work. The AGP
description is more inclusive than for my 9800 Pro. I guess
my 9800 Pro, while it doesn't have the right modes, still seems
to be voltage compatible (which is why it didn't burn). But it is
a puzzle to me, why they bothered to cut a 3.3V slot in my
9800Pro, since no good seems to come of it.

Go ahead and give the 9250 a try. And post back your results, so others
will benefit. As I said, when all reference material fails, users
have to rely on real life testing.

http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9200/radeon9200/specs.html
http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html

To set the resolution to 1680x1050, you may need the services of
Powerstrip. I don't know if the ATI drivers have an interface in
the Catalyst control panel yet, to set it up. Powerstrip is a third
party shareware program from Entechtaiwan.com, and it works with
both Nvidia and ATI cards. Nvidia cards do have a custom resolution
box in the Nvidia control panel interface. ATI supports resolution changes,
at least accessible via Powerstrip. So you should be OK there.
What I don't know, is if ATI has made this convenient. ATI did
have "forcing" functions in the interface, but what I don't know, is
if a res like 1680x1050 will be offered in there. When the card first
starts up, you'll be running non-native resolutions at first, until
either the ATI forcing functions allow you to get what you want,
or Powerstrip does. It might help to install the "monitor driver"
for your monitor, so the monitor information in the display control
panel doesn't show as "generic" any more. When I connect my monitor to a
video card, the monitor shows as "generic", until the monitor driver
is loaded. I had to go to the NecMitsubishi site, to get a driver
for my monitor, and it was a tiny download.

1680x1050 should be do-able via VGA, and the info here suggests
the 165MHz TMDS on the 9250, should support that res over DVI
as well. There are some resolution examples for single-link DVI
here (single link DVI is likely to be the interface on the
9250 - for truly huge LCD displays, some of them need dual-link
DVI, which uses more pins on the DVI connector). I don't expect
a problem at the VGA/DVI connector level, so this article is
for future reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvi

Paul
 
Jay said:
I want to upgrade the video card in my old PC. I am doing this for two
reasons: (1) Need to use a wide screen LCD to set it at its native
1680x1050 resolution. (2) Need hardware assisted decoding MPEG-2 video.

The catch is that my Dell Dimension XPS T450 PC has an old Intel 440BX
mother board that can only handle AGP 2X (AGP speed is 66MHz or 133MHz)
(I believe it has a 3.3 volt AGP slot based on the appearance of the
existing AGP card). This seems to suggest that I can only use AGP card
that is 1X/2X or 2X/4X, right? If this is true, I am in trouble
because I don't seem to find any 2X/4X AGP cards that can support
hardware assisted video decoding. For example, I can find ATI Radeon
9250 that can supports 2X/4X; but it doesn't have hardware assisted
video decoding. On the other hand, ATI Radeon 9550 has hardware
assisted video decoding; but it seems to come in a 4X/8X AGP card, not
2X.

I would like to ask several questions regarding this issue:

o Am I limited to 2X/4X AGP because the motherboard only
supports 2X AGP and the APG slot is 3.3 volt? I am asking
this despite the odd is against me. The reason is that
somehow ATI "Product Advisor" suggests me a 9600-Pro
(that is 4X/8X) to match up with my old Dell PC that is 2X
AGP only. This makes me wondering may be I have mis-
understood this.

o If I must buy 2X/4X AGP card, can someone suggest a good
2X/4X AGP card that has hardware assisted video decoding?

I really hope that I can put a 4X/8X AGP card like ATI Radeon 9600-XT
in the old PC to make the old PC a bit alive.

Thanks in advance for any info.

Jay Chan
Click to expand...


Jay-- try this page:
http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/VideoProblems.htm#agpsupport
 
Paul said:
The ATI X1300 would accelerate video playback. But my understanding is,
a program playing video, makes calls to the card to aid in the playback
operation, but the final write to the framebuffer comes from the processor
or from system memory. Which means the frame buffer data travels over
the system busses. Flooding the PCI bus with frame buffer data, will
use a substantial portion of available bus bandwidth.

If you were to do that over the PCI bus, you might be limited in your
ability to play a full screen movie at a high resolution. That is my
concern. If video acceleration was so complete, that you could send a
low bandwidth, highly compressed stream directly to the video card,
and it handled all the details, then there would be no issue with the
110MB/sec bus bandwidth. (Now, in reading suggestions for processor
requirements, your processor will probably be at 100%, before you get
to the point of saturating the PCI bus. Maybe 640x480 video is a
reasonable expectation for a 440BX system.)

In that respect, AGP would be less restricting, as there is more bandwidth
available.

AFAIK, the PCI bus on the 440BX, not only drives the PCI bus slots,
but it is also used to connect the Northbridge to the Southbridge.
And that means, disk accesses are using PCI bus bandwidth, as well
as anything else sitting on the PCI bus.


This page seems to suggest the 9200 series will work. The AGP
description is more inclusive than for my 9800 Pro. I guess
my 9800 Pro, while it doesn't have the right modes, still seems
to be voltage compatible (which is why it didn't burn). But it is
a puzzle to me, why they bothered to cut a 3.3V slot in my
9800Pro, since no good seems to come of it.

Go ahead and give the 9250 a try. And post back your results, so others
will benefit. As I said, when all reference material fails, users
have to rely on real life testing.

http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9200/radeon9200/specs.html
http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html

To set the resolution to 1680x1050, you may need the services of
Powerstrip. I don't know if the ATI drivers have an interface in
the Catalyst control panel yet, to set it up. Powerstrip is a third
party shareware program from Entechtaiwan.com, and it works with
both Nvidia and ATI cards. Nvidia cards do have a custom resolution
box in the Nvidia control panel interface. ATI supports resolution changes,
at least accessible via Powerstrip. So you should be OK there.
What I don't know, is if ATI has made this convenient. ATI did
have "forcing" functions in the interface, but what I don't know, is
if a res like 1680x1050 will be offered in there. When the card first
starts up, you'll be running non-native resolutions at first, until
either the ATI forcing functions allow you to get what you want,
or Powerstrip does. It might help to install the "monitor driver"
for your monitor, so the monitor information in the display control
panel doesn't show as "generic" any more. When I connect my monitor to a
video card, the monitor shows as "generic", until the monitor driver
is loaded. I had to go to the NecMitsubishi site, to get a driver
for my monitor, and it was a tiny download.

1680x1050 should be do-able via VGA, and the info here suggests
the 165MHz TMDS on the 9250, should support that res over DVI
as well. There are some resolution examples for single-link DVI
here (single link DVI is likely to be the interface on the
9250 - for truly huge LCD displays, some of them need dual-link
DVI, which uses more pins on the DVI connector). I don't expect
a problem at the VGA/DVI connector level, so this article is
for future reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvi

Paul
Click to expand...

I have bought ATI Radeon 9250 video card, and installed it in my
computer. But the result is mixed:

On one hand, it fits into the AGP 3.3volt slot without any problem and
and it works fine in my computer. It supports 1X/2X/4X/8X AGP, and
that is the reason why it doesn't have any compatibility problem. And
this is exactly what the AGP Compatibility web page that you have asked
me to check has correctly predicted.

On the other hand, I don't get any benefit from buying this card --
meaning I don't fullfil my original purposes of replacing the existing
video card with a new one:

My primary goal is to get a video card that can support the native
resolution of a LCD panel, and that is 1680x1050. Unfortunately, ATI
Radeon 9250 doesn't support that resolution out of the box. Based on
ATI knowledge base, seem like their X-serie video cards can support
that resolution; but that serie of video cards are not compatible with
3.3 volt AGP slot. I have thought of getting a copy of PowerStrip to
get a custom resolution. But the cost of a copy of PowerStrip is close
to the cost of a video card. This means I can forget about using a ATI
video card to fix this problem.

My secondary goal is to use the hardware-assisted feature of the
video card to help decoding MPEG2 video and offload the job from the
CPU. But when I play back recorded videos using the new video card, I
cannot tell any difference. This is a minor point because the videos
probably are not recorded at high bit rate anyway. The major problem
is that the video player (MS Window Media Player) starts acting up
after I have installed the ATI card -- it refuses to stop playing
video.

At this point, I am going to return the video card, and try to get a
nVidia GeForce4 Mx (like MX4000). It is supposed to compatible with
the 3.3volt AGP solt in my PC; it is supposed to be able to display up
to 2048x1536 resolution; and I probably can find one that doesn't need
a fan. But this means I need to order it through internet instead of
from a retail store -- I guess I just have to try my luck in the web.

Oh well...

Jay Chan
 
Paul said:
The ATI X1300 would accelerate video playback. But my understanding is,
a program playing video, makes calls to the card to aid in the playback
operation, but the final write to the framebuffer comes from the processor
or from system memory. Which means the frame buffer data travels over
the system busses. Flooding the PCI bus with frame buffer data, will
use a substantial portion of available bus bandwidth.

If you were to do that over the PCI bus, you might be limited in your
ability to play a full screen movie at a high resolution. That is my
concern. If video acceleration was so complete, that you could send a
low bandwidth, highly compressed stream directly to the video card,
and it handled all the details, then there would be no issue with the
110MB/sec bus bandwidth. (Now, in reading suggestions for processor
requirements, your processor will probably be at 100%, before you get
to the point of saturating the PCI bus. Maybe 640x480 video is a
reasonable expectation for a 440BX system.)

In that respect, AGP would be less restricting, as there is more bandwidth
available.

AFAIK, the PCI bus on the 440BX, not only drives the PCI bus slots,
but it is also used to connect the Northbridge to the Southbridge.
And that means, disk accesses are using PCI bus bandwidth, as well
as anything else sitting on the PCI bus.


This page seems to suggest the 9200 series will work. The AGP
description is more inclusive than for my 9800 Pro. I guess
my 9800 Pro, while it doesn't have the right modes, still seems
to be voltage compatible (which is why it didn't burn). But it is
a puzzle to me, why they bothered to cut a 3.3V slot in my
9800Pro, since no good seems to come of it.

Go ahead and give the 9250 a try. And post back your results, so others
will benefit. As I said, when all reference material fails, users
have to rely on real life testing.

http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9200/radeon9200/specs.html
http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html

To set the resolution to 1680x1050, you may need the services of
Powerstrip. I don't know if the ATI drivers have an interface in
the Catalyst control panel yet, to set it up. Powerstrip is a third
party shareware program from Entechtaiwan.com, and it works with
both Nvidia and ATI cards. Nvidia cards do have a custom resolution
box in the Nvidia control panel interface. ATI supports resolution changes,
at least accessible via Powerstrip. So you should be OK there.
What I don't know, is if ATI has made this convenient. ATI did
have "forcing" functions in the interface, but what I don't know, is
if a res like 1680x1050 will be offered in there. When the card first
starts up, you'll be running non-native resolutions at first, until
either the ATI forcing functions allow you to get what you want,
or Powerstrip does. It might help to install the "monitor driver"
for your monitor, so the monitor information in the display control
panel doesn't show as "generic" any more. When I connect my monitor to a
video card, the monitor shows as "generic", until the monitor driver
is loaded. I had to go to the NecMitsubishi site, to get a driver
for my monitor, and it was a tiny download.

1680x1050 should be do-able via VGA, and the info here suggests
the 165MHz TMDS on the 9250, should support that res over DVI
as well. There are some resolution examples for single-link DVI
here (single link DVI is likely to be the interface on the
9250 - for truly huge LCD displays, some of them need dual-link
DVI, which uses more pins on the DVI connector). I don't expect
a problem at the VGA/DVI connector level, so this article is
for future reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvi

Paul
Click to expand...

I contacted tech support of nVidia about their GeForce4 Mx-serie video
card. Unfortunately, the tech support said that their GeForce4 cannot
handle 1680x1050 resolution (that is the native resolution of my LCD
panel). This means I cannot use GeForce4.

The tech support suggested me their nVidia 6200 video card. Its spec
looks good (can handle 1680x1050 and has hardware MPEG2 decoder), and
is around the same price as ATI Radeon 9250. But it is not compatible
with 3.3volt version of AGP slot according to the web page that you
have asked me to check:
http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html
Moreover, PNY web site also states that their 6200 video card only
support AGP version 2.0 and above. This means there is a high chance
that the tech support is missing the part about my motherboard only can
handle 3.3volt AGP in my request, and gave me a wrong suggestion.

At this point, I concluded that I cannot expect any ATI card and nVidia
card to work the way that I want out of the box (meaning to support
1680x1050) in a motherboard that has a 3.3volt AGP slot. I probably
should do this: (1) Move the LCD panel to another PC that has Pentium-4
and a newer motherboard that supports AGP 4X (1.5 volt); (2) Return the
ATI Radeon 9250 card; (3) Get the nVidia 6200. This should cost me the
least.

Jay Chan
 
Jay said:
I contacted tech support of nVidia about their GeForce4 Mx-serie video
card. Unfortunately, the tech support said that their GeForce4 cannot
handle 1680x1050 resolution (that is the native resolution of my LCD
panel). This means I cannot use GeForce4.

The tech support suggested me their nVidia 6200 video card. Its spec
looks good (can handle 1680x1050 and has hardware MPEG2 decoder), and
is around the same price as ATI Radeon 9250. But it is not compatible
with 3.3volt version of AGP slot according to the web page that you
have asked me to check:
http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html
Moreover, PNY web site also states that their 6200 video card only
support AGP version 2.0 and above. This means there is a high chance
that the tech support is missing the part about my motherboard only can
handle 3.3volt AGP in my request, and gave me a wrong suggestion.

At this point, I concluded that I cannot expect any ATI card and nVidia
card to work the way that I want out of the box (meaning to support
1680x1050) in a motherboard that has a 3.3volt AGP slot. I probably
should do this: (1) Move the LCD panel to another PC that has Pentium-4
and a newer motherboard that supports AGP 4X (1.5 volt); (2) Return the
ATI Radeon 9250 card; (3) Get the nVidia 6200. This should cost me the
least.

Jay Chan
Click to expand...

If the tech support is reading from a "script", then they are bound to
say that.

The way resolution works, is this. The video card has output devices
(DAC for VGA, TMDS for DVI), and those have limits. If you have a 400MHz
DAC on a video card, then virtually any output resolution you could want
is there.

The internal logic uses programmable registers. There can be set to
custom resolutions.

But the video card drivers, are behind the times. They attempt to protect
the user, by restricting the output resolution, so some old style CRT
type monitor does not get damaged. But many new display devices are not
handled well by the drivers, and especially the 16:9 aspect ratio devices.

Powerstrip talks to both ATI and Nvidia cards. For ATI, Powerstrip works
around the issue, that there isn't a convenient dialog box for custom
resolution. The Nvidia driver does have a convenient box for custom
resolution. I'm still waiting for ATI to provide such a dialog box, which
is why any user of an ATI card, should check for themselves in the interface.
They could add it in any new software release, and I wouldn't know about it.

Powerstrip is shareware. You can evaluate it for a period of time, to see
if it will do what you need. The Entechtaiwan site has a series of FAQ
pages, of which this is an example of the instructions for custom
resolution.

http://forums.entechtaiwan.net/viewtopic.php?t=24

You can also look through the Catalyst Control Center manual. There is
an option to use EDID to get display resolution settings from the monitor.
And if that doesn't work, installing the monitor "driver" file may help.
(For my NEC monitor, I went to the necmitsubishi.com site and downloaded
a monitor driver, a tiny file, so the Display control panel now properly
identifies my display, and stops calling it "generic". Some people have their
monitor identified automatically, and the serial interface on the video
cable carries the necessary EDID information.)

Remember that the output resolution of video cards, is programmable,
and is not fixed. Thus, all that is needed, is a driver, or a tool
that can do the necessary register level programming. Powerstrip taps
into an API provided by ATI and by Nvidia, to make the necessary changes,
and do custom resolutions.

This is a manual for Catalyst Control Center, for ATI cards. You can
see for yourself, what options are available from ATI. I have not been
able to download this document from ATI directly, which is stupid. If
I could find it on the ATI site, I'd be able to provide you with an
up to date version.

http://www.visiontek.com/teksupport/pdf/Catalyst_control_center_guide.pdf

For Nvidia cards, the Forceware control panel has a custom resolution
box, to enter the resolution desired. See page 145 here for an example.

ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/84.12/84.12_Forceware_Display_Property_User_Guide.pdf

As for the accelerating video playback goes, the test results I've seen on
sites like Anandtech, do not suggest a "big acceleration" by relying on
video card features. The processor still does a significant part of the
process. Even if you had a modern Nvidia card with Purevideo, or the
X1300 with Avivo, there would still be performance issues. If I had to
guess, I'd say playback at 640x480 is what you might expect.

There are specialized cards for video playback. I didn't suggest one of
these immediately, because these cards drive an output device directly.
Since you want to play movies on your main computer screen, there is
still a need for the desktop to appear on the same screen as the movies.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to play movies from the computer, and
have a monitor or display device with just movies on it, there are
cards like this.

Note: These are not "consumer level" cards, and leave a lot of details
to the end user. I'm showing these, to show the concept, but I would
not recommend buying one. The first one, at least, would be quite
expensive.

http://www.atreid.fr/media/MasonHD.pdf

(Card pictured at the top of the page)
http://www.mpeg-playcenter.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5343

Perhaps a group that specializes in movies and video, will have better
suggestions than I can come up with. (rec.video.desktop ?)

Paul
 
Paul said:
If the tech support is reading from a "script", then they are bound to
say that.

The way resolution works, is this. The video card has output devices
(DAC for VGA, TMDS for DVI), and those have limits. If you have a 400MHz
DAC on a video card, then virtually any output resolution you could want
is there.

The internal logic uses programmable registers. There can be set to
custom resolutions.

But the video card drivers, are behind the times. They attempt to protect
the user, by restricting the output resolution, so some old style CRT
type monitor does not get damaged. But many new display devices are not
handled well by the drivers, and especially the 16:9 aspect ratio devices.

Powerstrip talks to both ATI and Nvidia cards. For ATI, Powerstrip works
around the issue, that there isn't a convenient dialog box for custom
resolution. The Nvidia driver does have a convenient box for custom
resolution. I'm still waiting for ATI to provide such a dialog box, which
is why any user of an ATI card, should check for themselves in the interface.
They could add it in any new software release, and I wouldn't know about it.

Powerstrip is shareware. You can evaluate it for a period of time, to see
if it will do what you need. The Entechtaiwan site has a series of FAQ
pages, of which this is an example of the instructions for custom
resolution.

http://forums.entechtaiwan.net/viewtopic.php?t=24

You can also look through the Catalyst Control Center manual. There is
an option to use EDID to get display resolution settings from the monitor.
And if that doesn't work, installing the monitor "driver" file may help.
(For my NEC monitor, I went to the necmitsubishi.com site and downloaded
a monitor driver, a tiny file, so the Display control panel now properly
identifies my display, and stops calling it "generic". Some people have their
monitor identified automatically, and the serial interface on the video
cable carries the necessary EDID information.)

Remember that the output resolution of video cards, is programmable,
and is not fixed. Thus, all that is needed, is a driver, or a tool
that can do the necessary register level programming. Powerstrip taps
into an API provided by ATI and by Nvidia, to make the necessary changes,
and do custom resolutions.

This is a manual for Catalyst Control Center, for ATI cards. You can
see for yourself, what options are available from ATI. I have not been
able to download this document from ATI directly, which is stupid. If
I could find it on the ATI site, I'd be able to provide you with an
up to date version.

http://www.visiontek.com/teksupport/pdf/Catalyst_control_center_guide.pdf

For Nvidia cards, the Forceware control panel has a custom resolution
box, to enter the resolution desired. See page 145 here for an example.

ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/84.12/84.12_Forceware_Display_Property_User_Guide.pdf

As for the accelerating video playback goes, the test results I've seen on
sites like Anandtech, do not suggest a "big acceleration" by relying on
video card features. The processor still does a significant part of the
process. Even if you had a modern Nvidia card with Purevideo, or the
X1300 with Avivo, there would still be performance issues. If I had to
guess, I'd say playback at 640x480 is what you might expect.

There are specialized cards for video playback. I didn't suggest one of
these immediately, because these cards drive an output device directly.
Since you want to play movies on your main computer screen, there is
still a need for the desktop to appear on the same screen as the movies.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to play movies from the computer, and
have a monitor or display device with just movies on it, there are
cards like this.

Note: These are not "consumer level" cards, and leave a lot of details
to the end user. I'm showing these, to show the concept, but I would
not recommend buying one. The first one, at least, would be quite
expensive.

http://www.atreid.fr/media/MasonHD.pdf

(Card pictured at the top of the page)
http://www.mpeg-playcenter.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5343

Perhaps a group that specializes in movies and video, will have better
suggestions than I can come up with. (rec.video.desktop ?)

Paul
Click to expand...

I have fixed the problem by moving the LCD to a "newer" PC that
supports AGP v2.0 (2X/4X), and then upgrade the video card with a
nVidia 6200 that is backward compatible with AGP 4X, and support
1680x1050 (that is the native resolution of the LCD), and has video
hardware decoder. Now, the "newer" PC is at least 10% lower CPU
utilization than before the upgrade. The text on the LCD now looks
very sharp. And I have the added benefit of moving the original video
card (nVidia GeForce2 Mx-serie) from the "newer" PC to replace the old
video card in the old PC (that is a ATI 3D Rage Pro). Sound like one
new video card has effectively upgraded two PCs.

The conclusion is: I cannot find any video card that can support both
the relatively _recent_ wide screen resolution (1680x1050) and the
_old_ 3.3-volt AGP v1.0 slot. These two requirements just cannot be
matched at the same time. Seem like the only way around probably is to
use the PowerStrip program if it is available.

Thanks for all the helpful info that you have shared with me, and that
really clarifies everything for me.

Jay Chan
 
Back
Top