Jump to content

Geforce GT 710 cards under Windows XP, Findings


gerwin

Recommended Posts

On 4/25/2021 at 11:42 AM, RED-CHAMBER said:

Finally I managed to do it. No more BSODs with my old games and programs, at least for now. I can say the 344.75 driver is the best choice so far. :P

Hi , I didn't have any notifications , the next time you need to tag a member if you want help. I'd definitely helped you. I'm glad you sorted this out. 344.75 is bullet proof for XP , that's right. I usually suggest it to every XP user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Dixel

See if it says "following" at the top right of the thread. If it doesn't, turn following on and you should get a notification e-mail anytime anyone posts.
If it wasn't on already, check your forum notification settings. You should be automatically subscribed to threads that you post in.
:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 3/20/2021 at 8:37 PM, gerwin said:

PCI-Express lane activation is again troublesome. With both driver versions it was stuck at 1x PCIe initially (benchmark decreases to 26878 points). Other times it is stuck at 8x and not going idle. It is NOT caused by improper seating of the card in the slot. For now I think it is caused by Warm reboots. Cold boots, but also a cycle to standby then waking seem to bring PCIe to 8x lanes.

 A small update on this subject.

I upgraded the Mini-ITX motherboard. Before it was an intel GM45 with Mobile Penryn CPU, now I switched to a GA-H67N-USB3-B3 board with Ivy Bridge CPU. Same Windows XP OS. The above quoted GT 710 PCIe lane idling issues are gone in the newer system. It works properly all the time now. So that is good news.

 

I ran some benchmarks. Of course no stellar performance with such humble graphics hardware. But it is Mini-ITX, a very compact system.

Gigabyte GA-H67N-USB3-B3 with intel Core i3-3220 @3,3 GHz (Except the underclock entry), 2x2GB RAM. NVidia Driver used: v344.75

3D Mark 2001 SE:
MSI/NVidia GT 710, 1GB DDR3, CPU 1,6GHz underclock --- 26933 3D Marks
MSI/NVidia GT 710, 1GB DDR3 --- 32440 3D Marks
Gigabyte/NVidia GT710, 2GB GDDR5 --- 41096 3D Marks
intel HD2500, driver 2013  --- 19849 3D Marks

3D Mark 2005:
MSI/NVidia GT 710, 1GB DDR3 --- 13706 3D Marks
Gigabyte/NVidia GT 710, 2GB GDDR5 --- 16899 3D Marks
intel HD2500, driver 2013 --- 5779 3D Marks

 

Edited by gerwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with UEFI BIOS prevents the computer from booting entirely. It occurs on some brandname computers of the Sandy Bridge era. If the PC boots and you get a picture, then you are good.

The GT 710 has DDR3 memory with a relatively low bandwidth. This really sucks, because if you go on used market, you will generally not find GDDR5 or the memory type won't be indicated by the seller.

Your screenshot show that the card uses 8x PCIe but version 1.1, which is fine because the bandwidth only matters when uploading data to the GPU during loading screens or using video playback at extreme resolutions with copy-back (CUVID in MPC-HC). The volume of models and textures is relatively small. GPU-Z has a monitor for the link utilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2022 at 5:47 AM, j7n said:

The issue with UEFI BIOS prevents the computer from booting entirely. It occurs on some brandname computers of the Sandy Bridge era. If the PC boots and you get a picture, then you are good.

The GT 710 has DDR3 memory with a relatively low bandwidth. This really sucks, because if you go on used market, you will generally not find GDDR5 or the memory type won't be indicated by the seller.

Your screenshot show that the card uses 8x PCIe but version 1.1, which is fine because the bandwidth only matters when uploading data to the GPU during loading screens or using video playback at extreme resolutions with copy-back (CUVID in MPC-HC). The volume of models and textures is relatively small. GPU-Z has a monitor for the link utilization.

Yes. And as for new GT 710 cards, it seems retailers are phasing them out now. And I don't see another low-end card taking its place. There will always be loads of second hand of course, but you are right, it will be hard to find or identify GDDR5 ones.

 

In my initial post is a reading of the effects of the PCIe v1.1 link width:

at 1x link width: 24160 points 3DMark2001
at 8x link width: 30554 points 3DMark2001

So for that setup 1x link gives a noticeable performance decrease. Not that severe, but still a bit worrisome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at images of GTX 950 and 960, they do appear more like mid-range GPUs.

Besides my main PC, I am working with two Lian Li PC-Q07B cases for Mini-ITX. They offer just one PCIe expansion slot at the bottom. Airflow is very limited there. Power supply can be ATX-size, but preferably the smaller SFX size. See attached example image, which is lacking a GPU there. Any GT 710 will work in that spot, but I don't see a match for a GTX 950/960.

 

10 hours ago, reboot12 said:

@gerwin

Try the drivers 355.98 > Windows XP (x64) and very high resolutions with NVIDIA (and now: ATi / AMD)

These drivers are better than the latest because they allow you to add a custom resolution.

I tested this one

"With v347.09 brief testing, I have seen one hang with 3Dmark2001SE.  Showing a benchmark intro screen, about to fade in, but it remains very dark forever. Two other runs; no problem."

So for a GT 710 on Windows XP I am a bit suspect about any driver v347.09 or later.

I will have to check if my current v344.75 driver has the custom resolution support...

Lian-Li_PC-Q07B.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have custom resolutions working with the last ICafe driver. But I've only tried small screen sizes, and have no means to test extreme resolutions.

The last "small" form factor card for XP is GT 730. But the cooling might be insufficient in this chassis if you decide to launch games in summer. On the big markets like ebay or aliexpress they want unreasonable money for it. Only reasonable choice is a local trading board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, j7n said:

I have custom resolutions working with the last ICafe driver. But I've only tried small screen sizes, and have no means to test extreme resolutions.

The last "small" form factor card for XP is GT 730. But the cooling might be insufficient in this chassis if you decide to launch games in summer. On the big markets like ebay or aliexpress they want unreasonable money for it. Only reasonable choice is a local trading board.

From the name GT 730, one would expect it to offer more then a GT 710.

But when I compare the data below (basic DDR3 models), I cannot find much in favor of the GT 730. It says it uses more watt, whilst performing about the same as GT 710, or slightly less. GT 730 core is on an older 40 nm process.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/msi-gt-710-low-profile-2-gb.b4101

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/gainward-gt-730.b3008

EDIT, I think the theoretical performance in the links above, does not properly consider the memory bandwidth difference, and find this more realistic:

https://www.quora.com/Is-a-GT-710-2GB-DDR5-better-than-a-GT-730-2GB-DDR3?share=1

"The GT 730 is about 30% better than the GT 710" 

Where "better" is only meaning a higher frame-rate, I recon, because it is not better in the subject of features or power usage.

Edited by gerwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two possible cores GF108 and GK208. F is old and K is new. Another thing that can go wrong when buying. 730 has 384 cuda cores vs 192, but the same number of render outputs. I think both 710/730 would run into the same resolution limits that max out the ROPs, but 730 would have more compute performance for pixel shader and general processing. I think if if it has "GD" in the model name visible, it should be the new core and with the better memory.

The next small card is GT 1030, but it no longer has an XP driver or VGA output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, j7n said:

There are two possible cores GF108 and GK208. F is old and K is new.

Darn, I see that now. That is a big difference between one GT 730 and the other.

GT  710, GK208 (28nm), 192 : 16 : 4, DDR3  on  64bit-bus, 19 W TDP
GT  710, GK208 (28nm), 192 : 16 : 4, GDDR5 on  64bit-bus, 19 W TDP
GT  730, GK208 (28nm), 384 : 16 : 8, DDR3  on  64bit-bus, 23 W TDP or 38 W ?
GT  730, GK208 (28nm), 384 : 16 : 8, GDDR5 on  64bit-bus, 25 W TDP or 38 W ?
GT  730, GF108 (40nm),  96 : 16 : 4, DDR3  on 128bit-bus, 49 W TDP
GTX 950, GM206 (28nm), 768 : 48 :32, GDDR5 on 128bit-bus, 90 W TDP

I compiled that list above, from different sources, because none of them show the complete lineup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_700_series

https://www.techpowerup.com

https://videocardz.net/nvidia-geforce-gt-730-gk208

Edited by gerwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 12/20/2022 at 6:04 PM, gerwin said:

So for a GT 710 on Windows XP I am a bit suspect about any driver v347.09 or later.

I will have to check if my current v344.75 driver has the custom resolution support...

I can solomny confirm:  The v344.75 driver has the custom resolution support.

Gerwin, you really saved my a** wih this "GT 710 cards under Windows XP, Findings" thread: Thank you so much!

Older driver versions don't have entries for the 710, later versions simply LACK of custom resolution support; the appropriate button in the setting has been simply grayed out - VERY disappointing. But luckyly, the v344.75 (with a little support by tuning the .inf) gets the job done.

My new Z170 system now runs nearly perfectly also with Windows XP...

And btw: Hello to this forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mark-XP said:

I can solomny confirm:  The v344.75 driver has the custom resolution support.

 

Coincidentally, Falcosoft at vogons just posted a good summary of NVidia/WinXP custom resolution support. I already intended to append it here.

QUOTED, from https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=92849&p=1143505#p1143505

Falcosoft Posted on 25-2-2023

The last XP driver that has working GPU scaling option is 355.98. Also you should use VGA or DVI instead of HDMI.

Important! Under XP do not use HDMI since:
- You will not get scaling options.
- You cannot set the dynamic range to Full RGB so you will always get limited RGB. This results in incorrect black levels in case of PC monitors.

Important! In order to get these options you have to switch to a PC or non-native based resolution. After you selected the desired option it also applies to native based resolutions or non-PC resolutions.
(The below examples show what is possible with DVI)


1. Use Nvidia scaling:
In this case the display always stays in its native resolution but no aspect ratio correction is applied by the GPU so you will always get a full screen image. This case is trivial so I do not attach a screenshot.

2. Use Nvidia scaling with fixed aspect ratio:
In this case the display always stays in its native resolution but the GPU also applies aspect ratio correction:
Nvidia_aspect.jpg

3. Use my displays built-in scaling:
In this case the display is switched for the given resolution and no aspect ratio adjustment is applied by the GPU. Your display has to correct aspect ratio either automatically or manually.

4. Do not scale:
In this case the display always stays in its native resolution but the GPU not only corrects aspect ratio but draws a centered pixel perfect screen inside the native resolution (so in case of smaller resolutions you can get a tiny image)

Also:
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=899374#p899374

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...