Jump to content

BFG nVIDIA GeForce 7800GS OC on Win98


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jumper said:

The drivers likely are multi-core on XP. Features not fully accelerated by the hardware are implemented in the drivers. Check the benchmark details for subtests with extra large result deviations.

Until you test with the same drivers on XP as on 9x, you're comparing apples to an orange. The XP results are not yet relevant.


OK, will do.

1 hour ago, RainyShadow said:

In addition to what @jumper said... check in the BIOS settings if you can disable the extra cores and HT - basically make it a single-core system.

Then test again in both XP and 98.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the BIOS to disable the second core.  Hyper Threading has been turned off in the BIOS for all the tests including the previous time I installed XP.

So ya, I will install XP with one of the same sets of drivers and report the results.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to do any more work on reporting IMO, XP and 98 drivers are too different and have non shared version numbers. Try Unofficial SP for Win98 the registration settings of and different APIs make a difference. Make sure there are no cross linking of resources. The first picture shows a poor installation and is what a restricted PCI bus can do causing Motherboard Resources as a device being reported. The SCSI card I am fairly sure is stopping full buss width access. (an input line is not toggling) but the poor install is also due to previous Motherboard installation settings being still there. This latter situation would not be applicable in your case but the motherboard resources issue could be. The second is a better install of the same hardware note that the first shows many undetermined resource allocations where the better install has very few undetermined. If the undetermined resources are associated with the AGP port then this could affect benchmark outcomes.



Edited by Goodmaneuver
Tried to make pictures smaller in size
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was almost done so I went ahead and finished running 3DMark03 with the same drivers on 98 and XP.  And I agree, even with using the same driver versions, at least with the VIA driver it is not installing the same exact driver since there are 98 and XP versions in different folders.  For what it's worth, here is the results:

					3DMark	Coolbits	HWiNFO		GPU		Everest	chipset		CPU-Z
Video	OS	VIA(GART)	FW	2003	AGP Tab	OS	GPU		MHz		AGP status		Graphic Int.
GF6800	Win98	5.13A(V4.60A)	81.98	7592	N/A		8x@Disabled	324		Disabled		greyed out
GF6800	XP	5.13A(V4.60A)	81.98	10324	3.0 2x FW=1	8x@8x		324		Enabled	8x		AGP 3.0, 8x

I've never gotten the Unofficial SP core to install correctly, every time I try the systems hangs on reboot.  It could be a problem with one of the updates I slipstreamed into my base install: not many, but a few like RLoew's SATA patch, etc.  I wonder if everyone who got good benchmark scores had the U98SESP3 installed?





Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wrong about individual version numbers being employed for 81.98 but for previous versions were they a unique number or am I totally wrong?

It looks like XP has the advantage of using the dual cores and APIs can make a difference as I benched my 7900GS with a very early build of ME and got 13700 3Dmark03 points. It was not straight out of the box either though as to speak as it had several games installed plus IAA23 plus Dotnet 50727 - working. The thing to note about the 98 vs XP comparison is the fill Rate which is the most reliable reading IMO. In 3Dmark05 with KernelEx24 I can only bench fill rate and triangles because they are not using the system drivers. The CPU score is not really a CPU score as it is highly reliant on the video cards performance and in fact after upgrading my CPU and benching RAM and CPU gaining higher bench results from other 3rd party bench 3Dmark03 gave lower CPU score which tends to reinforce the reliance on the video card itself. Here s my bench for XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP 128MB. My motherboard has AGP as well. The second picture is when MotherNature froze output half way up the water stream which proves AGP has got plenty of thoughput and the bottle neck is within the video card. The 3rd picture is fill rate of 3Dmark05 and the last picture proves the internal drivers that they are using.





Edited by Goodmaneuver
Added128MB, the 3rd pic is blurry as I accidently saved as BMP then converted to PNG before uploading
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fraps stops many games from starting with a resource conflict BSOD on my test machine here but what I can tell you is that Settlers5 @ 1360x768 everything on high the 6800 will have a minimum frame-rate above 20. My quick check was 27. Flatout2 @1920x1080 all setting max seems to be constantly at half the sync frequency which was 31 FPS 6800 and 60 FPS locked at sync with the 7900GS. To test a nVidia out try ExtremeG2. ATI usually works best on this and other older games. ABCDEFG sums up the nVidia top cards quite well here https://msfn.org/board/topic/181314-nvidia-quadro-fx-5500-and-others-your-experience/?do=findComment&comment=1185954 I know my inner CPU was not working as it was not getting hot and it should have.  It was cutting in and out while playing games on a new motherboard (FSP halving )  . No this was with 2 x 6600 in SLI ( muddle up on my part but there were black areas, card and/or machine failing, frame-rate also dropped ) I have yet to apply water blocks and try again on strong board/CPU combo. But when on one GPU WinME 7900GT accelerated a fair bit over the 7900GS. The MT/s can be calculated mathematically and I think Wiki has a good reference about the cards. It is the MT/s that is making a difference I think in general browsing and Windows activity and gaming. The 7900GT benched over 17000 3Dmark03. If you download Tardis3D screen saver direct here https://www.screensaversplanet.com/screensavers/doctor-who-tardis-3d-680/download then it will test any video card's output speed. There has to be a problem with my 6800 Ultra I think as it is locked to 30 FPS. It could be co-incidental but I have application controlled vertical sync set. I have seen this screen saver fly without Fraps so I will report back the 7900GS FPS when I put the card back. No the screen saver application is locked at 30 FPS in the preview window and on the desktop. It did not behave this way before and was unlocked it even works in safe mode I think and will try. It works in safemode at about 2 FPS 7900GS.

Edited by Goodmaneuver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

BTW Windows XP can be installed with uniprocessor kernel so then you better compare singlecore performance in w98 vs XP. Also you can just swap your CPU to an older singlecore one to see if SMP cause so high gain in XP - I doubt so.

Newer videobios would be good to try but aslo I doubt it help, it usually can fix/break some VESA features... I flashed a lot of VGAs but never it had significant performance difference (except bioses with different clock settings).

In the distant past I had a big headaches with AGP on non-intel chipset boards. They were cheaper and I had not much money as a student so I had to suffer all the hell of installing VIA4in1 drivers, nvidia drivers, DX, OS reinstalls, bios flashing... After that I finally changed MB to intel ZX440 (later BX440), just installed intel INFs and all problems has gone. So I rather sticked with intel chipsets for intel CPUs for all my next systems. I totaly ignored Pentium 4 as I think it was the worst CPU intel ever made and I just jumped in when C2D Conroe was released. First I got Asus MB with intel 945 with PCIE and it runs very well with Win98SE and 7600GS, later 7900GT. Same for next MB Gigabyte with intel G31. So if you have a chance to get intel chipset MB for good price go and try it...

Edited by xrayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...