Thanks?

Thank you very much :)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it!

President Iliescu accent

Hey! It's great, I never got to use such older video cards in Win 10, only CPUs, but maybe in the future :) I did not mention usability in newer OSes, because...time.

I'm glad you found a 7900 GT, those were good cards!

Hehe, thanks!

Don't forget DDR vs GDDR3, GDDR sounds cooler :)

Yep. I had a Inno3D 6600GT in the late year 2004 and with some OC its almost equal to a 6800 performance. I used with a AMD Duron 600 running at 1000Mhz... i loved this setup back then. In 1280x1024 it was enough in every game.

I think I need to redo that video, I don't like it anymore!

The 9800 GT cards were very good, fast and not as prone to breaking as the 8800 cards.

You surely had an Athlon XP with GeForce FX 5200 :)

@@MidnightGeek99 :) Never had a FX5200, i did have an Athlon later. But i think i was on some kind of a Duron up until 2004-2005 when i got an Athlon. The GPU is a blank, wish i have kept the receipts from back then :D

Mine also!

What an upgrade :) I bought one in 2005 myself, upgraded my GF2 MX 400.

Hey, thanks! Obscure 2000 games? Sure, why not, I have a plan to cover some less known games.

Yes, the AGP versions of this card are very good, and also compatible with 98.

I don't have a 8800 GT :) But, I'm looking for one, and I will be reviewing it, sure.

i have one:))))@@MidnightGeek99

The 8800 GT is a legend of a card. At the time it released for $200 and competed with the $400+ 8800 GTX. It also had about three times the performance of the then $150 8600 GTS In modern terms it would be as if nVidia released a RTX 4080 SE with the performance of a 4070 Ti super for the current retail price of a 4060 Ti The only real issue was the cooling. A tiny single slot cooler with a tiny fan. I had one, and it ran with regular gaming load on 103°C. Later i took off the metal shroud from the cooler and strapped a pair of 80 mm fans to it. Dropped temps by 30°C!

Uite ca stii acum :)

I'm tamed in regards to overclocking, capacitors don't like that :)

You are correct, VIA chipsets past KT600 are not that great. I did not pay attention to 3DMark 2001, I'll be looking at it next time, thanks.

VIA were at the top of their game with the later revisions of the KT266 and the KT333, KT400 and KT600. If you want to run socket A and something else than nForce, those are great. There are also some options for socket 370 whith support 1.5 GB RAM, unlike i815, which is limited to 512 MB. A bit slower than the Intel chipsets, but a fine alternative if you want more memory or ISA slots.

It got to 80 for me also, I don't like using it at those temperatures, I'm afraid it's going to die!

@@MidnightGeek99 Sooner or later, all GPUs die. Speaking of dying GPUs, had a GTX 460 die on me while playing STALKER SoC. Thing with STALKER games is that their in-game vsync doesn't work, so the fps is uncapped. You can get something like 1000 fps in menus and a few hundred while playing which causes stress and most importantly heat on the GPU. Since then I always try to cap the fps to my monitor's refresh rate :)

In 2005 I was still rocking an Athlon XP 1700+ and GeForce2 MX 400 :)

The 6800 GT is miles ahead of the 6600.

Or just add a fan on top :)

@@MidnightGeek99 exactly. It already has a large passive cooler, all it needs is airflow to get the warm air away from it.

That's right, the card was there, in the middle, but I had one, and it served me well.

If I would have to make a list of the best nVidia GPUs ever I would probably use: - Geforce 4 Ti 4200, just a great value card that performed well enough to compete even with budget cards 2 generations later - Geforce 6600 GT, priced right, with great performance. - Geforce 7300 GT, a bit of personal nostalgia here. A card with an entry level name, but a cut down midrange chip that, when overclocked, could come very close to actual midrange cards. - Geforce 8800 GT. A highend card for a midrange price. It basically destroyed any reason to by something like a 8600 GTS and easily demolished the HD 3870 - Geforce GTX 460 1 GB, a great card right where it needed to be. - Geforce GTX 660 Ti, midrange price with performance incredibly close to the GTX 670 - Geforce GTX 1080 TI, similar to the 8800 GT, a card that aged incredibly well and is even viable (with managed expectations) today in 2024 Now for the worst cards: - Geforce 4 MX, basically all of them. Outdated API support. But the MX 460 at least had decent performance. - Geforce FX 5200, especially the 64 bit version was just too slow for any use. The FX 5200 Ultra is a much better card, and Radeon alternatives were around that were faster and cheaper. - Geforce 8400 GS, the name suggests a midrange card, but performance was entry level. The updated later revisions were a bit better, but the performance difference between the 8400/8500 cards and the 8600 cards was just too big. - Geforce GT 710, why does this card even exist. It's basically the same thing that they used 3 generations earlier, just with a new name. Clearly a rebranding so that OEMs can claim to have new hardware. The GT730 gets a pass, especially the GDDR5 version, that did adequate for it's price. - Geforce GT 1030 DDR4, the performance difference to the GDDR5 model is absolutely insane. A card that shouldn't exist, considering cards like the GT 710 and 730 were available at the same time. The GDDR5 model is a fine budget card. Both lists are sorted by age, not by ranking.

@@HappyBeezerStudios You're basically listing the "bad" cards as all the bottom end media centre type cards. Not really a fair list. Of course they sucked at gaming, they cost from £50-70. Even going back to Fermi days, entry level GPU's for gaming started around £140, cards like the GTX460 or the HD 4670, for example. Nobody with a sane mind buys a GT430 or HD 4350 to play GAMES, do they? Your top list makes more sense, but the 6600GT blasts the others out of the water, if you consider price to performance. The 4200Ti came close as it usually overclocked to 4400 levels easily, but out of the box it cost 40% more than a 6600GT did just a year later, while the 6600GT beat it soundly.

@@TheVanillatech the 8800 GT was probably the best price to performance card they ever put out. Released for $200 but came within single digit % to a then $400+ 8800 GTX and about 3 times the performance of a $150 8600 GTS. A high-end card of the actual generation for the price of a midrange card. Where is the $300 RTX 4090 SE? Because that would be a fitting equivalent. And obviously the bad cards are all lower end. and they all have a good reason to be bad besides just being slow. Some were just rebadged 3 generation old low end cards, other had misleading names that suggest a much better placement, or simply had much better cards available for practically the same price. Their price was pretty much dictated by manufacturing, packing and shipping cost. For higher placed bad cards, the RTX 4060 probably takes a place, as does the 2080, both were slower than the cheaper card of the previous generation. And the 8600 GT, it didn't perform like a midrange card. The 9600 GT was much better. The FX 5500 was also an odd one, it was not a midrange card, it was entry level, slower than the 5200 Ultra.

@@HappyBeezerStudiosYou can't say the 8800GT was great cos it smashed the 8600GT, the 8600GT was TERRIBLE, in every way. 8800GT was a stellar card, it played Crysis for £230 and lasted a good 2.5-3 years as a capable card, you could skip the 9XXX series and possibly even the GTX 2XX series (Nvidia were simply rebranding and sandbagging back then anyway). BUT it doesn't beat the 6600GT *at all* in terms of value in the mid range. 6600GT was £140 pretty much from the outset, and was FASTER than the £200 6800XT in lower resolutions, only losing out at 1024x768 or higher. The 6600GT blasted everything else out the water, from ATI and also from Nvidias own cards. And although SLI wasn't reliable most of the time, two 6600GT's for £280 was beating the 6800Ultra by a serious margin in many games. 8800GT was good, but it wasn't no 6600GT. The HD3870 cost just a fraction more than a 8800GT, and pretty much matched it all the way (beat it at QHD resolutions too). The 6600GT was in a league of it's own, bro. Trust me. I did the maths many times. (PS. FX5500 was basically an office card. Great RAMDAC so nice image quality, but I think DELL bought 80% of the entire SKU to stick in their office machines .... not really good for gaming, and yeah and oddly named card.).

Jedi Outcast looks great, but we also have the Star Trek: Elite Force games, they also look great. To be honest I did not try a framelimiter for Underground, I might give it a try, 10x for the tip...and yeah, vsync sucks! Unfortunately I did very limited testing for SM 3.0, I'm planning to do a review for the GF 6800, I will go into more details then.

Played Jedi Knight 2 on a 23" Diamond SuperBright CRT, at 1600x1200 on a Ti4800SE. Looked incredible back in the day, but attrocious hit detection. The engine held up, but the design of the game was lacking. I never finished it. Elite Forces was a MUCH better game, despite not looking as good. Quake III engine never let anyone down, from COD to Heavy Metal FAKK to Alice. Great engine.

An AGP version of this 6600 is amazing, because you can use it in Windows 98.

The beginning of SM 3.0...

If I'm nost mistaken, this mobo has a 12V connector, so you don't really need powerful 3.3 output. What is not working more exactly, does the PC not start / POST?

@@MidnightGeek99 Solved, at least for the Radeon the solution was changing PSU. Thanks!

I've used SA in other videos, but yeah, not that often.

The Gigabyte version should be better cooled than this, this Asus simply needs some air blown into it.

@@MidnightGeek99 It get's hot to the point you can't touch it lol. It's the AGP version with a pcie bridge chip on the back side of it.

Din nefericire nu am pe nimeni care sa repare, am si eu o gramada de componente ce trebuie reparate.

Yes :) The good part is that you can add a cooler, it's easy.

Yes, maybe, but in 2004 you could push to 1280x1024, especially if you had an LCD.

Yeah, like I was saying :))

I don't have one, they are hard to find :(

I don't!

❤

Yaz

@@MidnightGeek99 you have such an amazing accent dude!

Yeah, some tests have weird results, but it takes time to discover what exactly went wrong.

I've also played Oblivion on a 6600, it run...ok :)

4.63, with rivatuner statistics server 7.xx

@@MidnightGeek99 Ok, then what version of Windows? I've tried to use all versions of Afterburner, which I found, with XP, but it seems to be not working with XP. Do u use Win7?

@@mistersanya6066 what exactly is not working? the overlay display, of Afterburner does not start at all?

It's a trap!!!

is it?@@MidnightGeek99

That's right, if you were using x00 series cards later in 2010, you might have issues with some games, for example Bioshock.

X800 series was FINE, compared to the 6800 series. What you spitting? The X850 XT PE was the DADDY, easily more attractive than the 6800 Ultra. And the 6600GT had enough grunt to run PS3 titles smoothly such as Far Cry. There were just a handful of game out that particular generation that supported (but didn't REQUIRE) pixel shader 3. By the time more games were released, Radeon had their X1900 series on shelves. The X1950XTX destroying the 7950GT too! Don't hate on Radeon

@@TheVanillatech x800 had amazing horsepower but outdated pixelshader, just because new gpu was available doesnt excuse that. my x800xt was great until it wasnt and the reality was that new gen consoles made that gpu obsolete, again due to pixel shader version. in a hindsight, nvidia 6800 ultra was far better choice, unless you changed your gpus like socks.

@@h1tzzYT Like I said, hardly ANY games at all used Pixel Shader 3.0 at the time of the X800 series shelf life! So it's a non issue. It's like arguing that the 4060Ti 16GB, a $500 card, is "better" than a $500 7800XT, despite the AMD card being 30-50% faster in games, just because RTX performance is better on the Geforce! When less than 2% of ALL games released on STEAM in the last 12 months even have RT implementation, it's a non issue! I had a 6800XT, unlocked to a full 6800GT with RivaTuner. Amazing card, loved it. But I'd have traded it in a heartbeat for my friends FAR BETTER, and FASTER, X850 XT! That card was the best around at the time, dominated even the 6800 Ultra. Facts.

@@TheVanillatech nope, many games from 2007-2008 started requiring pixel shader 3 and x800 series/nvidia 6000 series wasnt THAT old at that time, higher end models clearly had plenty of raw horsepower to run newer games at decent framerates, because games which still required only pixel shader 2 ran at max settings on my x800xt no problem, but shader model requirements completely flipped it on its head. I can name a few games for you: mass effect 1 (2007), GTA4 (2008), bioshock (2007), assassin's creed (2008), spider-man 3 (2007), DiRT (2007), dead space (2008) and many many more.

By itself was ok, the problem was with the 6600 GT, because was a lot faster.

The 128-bit 6200 were ok, decent.

Wasn't the Core 2 a good CPU for laptops?

@@MidnightGeek99 I'm unsure to be honest, it was so long ago, but I remember having more than a few problems with the 1st gen C2D, and I had one of the higher end variants of the processor.

Hehe, yeah.

The X700 Pro was very good, but unfortunately they were rare.

:)))

I did, but I forgot to add those tests as well, here you go: Far Cry 640x480 minimum: 182 C2D / 107 P4 Far Cry 800x600 maximum: 64 C2D / 53 P4 Doom 3 640x480 low: 143 C2D / 81 P4 Doom 3 800x600 medium: 79 C2D / 72 P4 Doom 3 1600x1200 very high: 22 C2D / 23 P4

@@MidnightGeek99 ok, thanks

Yes, the default 300 MHz is not great for a 2004 card!

7600 GS has much better chip in case of energy efficiency, you can cool it with wet finger. 6600 was much hotter.

@@Pidalin I had an AGP 7600 GS by Gainward and tested it out one day while I was bored. That thing overclocked like you wouldn't BELIEVE! I was in shock at how far I could push it, and the literaly linear improvement in framerates from the monster OC turned it into an entirely different tier of card!

​@@Pidalinis in my collection the Asus 7600 GS passive cooling and in Game temperature are 75°C without case fan... 😊

@@Agoz8375 which is ok, with 6600GT and stock cooler, you can have even 95°C in game 😀

@@TheVanillatech I believe, it's the same core as 7600GT, but underclocked, when you had better piece, you was able to overclock core back to GT values

No but it's useful :)