i build a lot of "high end" win 98se or XP retro builds in the last few years and I always stuck with ATI. For some reason i did not sell these cards and I can only say that i'm glad I did. Until now I did not realy know why. But every time I tried Nvidia on these machines I had some issues so I swapped them. I think the Ati drivers on release often weren't good but the later drivers of an aera fixed that for good, so that now they are a great option. This morning I played Starwars lego with my son on a P4 and hd 2600pro and I ran so well. We had no issues (and thats what U want, playing games with a six years old) :)
good ATI Cards for xp builds: 9600xt, 9500/9700pro 9800pro/xt xt800/850 pro/xt/ .. 1950pro 2600pro/xt 2700pro/xt (then scip a few) hd3850/3870 4770 4850/4870 (power hungry) 5850/5870(already dx11) and so on
@@philscomputerlab Documentation for future generations and asking your audience for tips, then not following up on said philosophy and ignoring these tips is the kind of thing a real lab wouldn't do friend. Im specifically talking about intels compiler you dont seem very thrilled about documenting or discussing with your audience. You dont get to call your channel a lab and not act like a scientist without people like me calling you out.
Number 6 maybe? In the R7 240 video, Kathleen mentioned SSAA (Super Sampling AA) in the drivers. This is a great feature to make old games, that run at 200+ FPS, look even better.
SSAA? Oh nvidia got that covered. When I look up all modi that I can set through the driver (as opposed to in game settings) I got: 2xMSAA 2xQuincunx 4xMSAA 8xCSAA 8xMSAA 16xCSAA 32xCSAA 2x1 SSAA 1x2 SSAA 2x2 SSAA 3x3 SSAA 4x4 SSAA combined 1x2 SSAA & 2xMSAA combined 1x2 SSAA & 4x MSAA combined 2x2SSAA & 2x MSAA combined 2x2 SSAA & 4x MSAA combined 2x2 SSAA & 8x MSAA And for transparency there are OGSSAA and SGSSAA Combine the high SSAA modi with downsampling and I can play at "15K" on my 1080p monitor.
So what do you think of this video? Who do you usually go with, Nvidia or AMD, and why? And do you know of any other differences that can affect Retro Games?
Very informative video as usual! The only weird thing is seeing NFS:U2 referred to as a "retro game": I remember first playing it on a very underpowered system (GPU, specifically) when it first came out.
I'd say it depends on the timeframe. Something like a Rage Fury MAXX is just special. Then there was TruForm on the Radeon 8500, the 9500/9700 and 9800 are legendary even to this day. Then the late support with the HD 3850 and HD 4670, the fastest AGP cards. And let's not forget FineWine. nVidia on the other hand has cards like the GF 4 Ti 4200, one of the most widely used cards. The 8800 cards, that just stumped everything else. And the actually used PhysX back then. In the end it depends on the games to be played and the compatability. At some points ATi/AMD is the way to go, on others nVidia is the best option, and then there are some where it doesn't really matter.
am I wrong in thinking that's reversed in dx11? Because with my i5, a overclocked 780 consistently gave better performance in cpu intensive games compared to the 290x
I have mixed feelings about AMD. My Radeon 4850 was notoriously warm, getting to 120c (!!!) I had to set up a custom cooling profile in RivaTuner and eventually ended up underclocking the entire card to finally have some peace and quiet. So yeah, it was a lot warmer. On top of that - weird artifacts on all drivers except for one specific version. My other AMD card was Radeon 545v - a weird 4540 knockoff - where I had trouble with drivers (only the original ones actually worked, the official Catalyst driver did such a mess that I was forced to reinstall Windows). Currently I run RX480, which (finally!) is an excellent card, with the only drawback being that I cannot really play with Tensorflow framework (it uses CUDA). I chose this card because it was the best choice as far as economics go (cheaper, as fast as an equivalent NVidia card and has more RAM). My point is: brand loyalty is stupid, go for what gives you the most benefit.
Yeah I was about to say, I think that's your card overheating ;). But seriously, AMD always felt like a hobby club card to me. With every release of their driver it was a game to discover what they broke this time. When I bought my HD 4870, the drivers actually caused the fans to not spin up causing the card to overheat. I had to install a hack that always drove the fans at max speed because the drivers themselves took several releases to actually regulate fan speed properly. Also, since I'm into retro gaming, the option to have the resolution displayed 1:1 on my screen was important as well and ATI's drivers kept breaking the black border functionality. On the plus side, it's my first (out of 4) AMD/ATI card to survive more than three years of use - I added new thermal paste and replaced the memory chip heat pads + cleaned the fan so it's a good little retro card now.
@@zelbekon That's more of a vender issue than an AMD issue for the HD 4850. I had a Visiontek HD 3870 that rarely ever ran hotter than 70C and the fan it came with was so quiet it was barely audible running at 100% on my test bench. My sister's Visiontek RX 5500 XT with an AMD reference cooler doesn't hit 70C with custom fan profile that never has to ramp up to 50%. That Radeon 545v is bizarre, never heard of it. I have a weird oem Nvidia GTS 450 I want to try to get working that I bet will have driver issues because its a weird variant. Comes with the territory when dealing with one offs.
ATI in the day was amazing. I loved their x800XT PE and even when the 4870 came out, blew my mind. I had it with a Q9550. I used ATI now AMD up to the 7970. Them I discovered the 980Ti and my world was forever shattered
Well that's not AMD's fault, and to be fair the RX580 came in at £240 and totally dominates the GTX1060 which was £300. Those prices are original UK release prices, before the bitcoin mining rush which inflated all prices. The only reason the RX series was hit so hard in price rises is it's ability to mine coins. Under Vulkan titles like Doom and Wolfenstein, the RX580 is matching the GTX1070, a card which on release cost TWICE as much as the RX580. Lately prices are kinda returning to normal, you can snag a 4GB RX580 for around £270 if you shop about, but this is still massively inflated considering over 6 months ago they were closer to £220 on a good day. I've never had a problem with Nvidia cards ability to produce vibrant, crisp images both in 2D and 3D, in fairness I found the 2D output of many of my Nvidia cards superior to AMD's at the time of testing, but I support AMD to the end (which is upon us/them) simply because as a company, the way they treat their customers is night and day better than Nvidia. In fact, Nvidia will never get another penny from me, and haven't for some years now. I have a GTX980Ti in my main rig, sure. But only because my friend sold it to me for £200 after he bought a 1080Ti. So it's second hand, and Nvidia didn't get my money.
I do realize why the prices are what we are, and that has little to do with how good AMD GPUs are at mining coins, but with low production rates of aforementioned GPUs. AMD did learn its lesson back when bitcoin became a thing and they don't want to make the same mistake again. I've had awesome experiences with R9 270 and R9 290, and I would go with RX580 no questions asked if it had ~260 USD price tag in the area I live in. But the price is eyewatering 400 bucks, which is unacceptable. So I had two choices: stick with Intel HD4600 or get a 1050Ti for 150 bucks. No other options were present at the time. So I had to join the dark side, and it sucks. And yeah, NVidia software SUCKS ASS BIG TIME!
The 480 was never $180, bro ... and it didn't overclock to 1475 Mhz unless on WATER COOLING, which would have cost you an extra $120 to do (minimum). Let's be adult here and keep it real, please.
It sucks we still don't have integer(2x, 3x, 4x etc) scaling on a driver level. 1280x1024 monitors would be perfect for 320x240 and 640x480 games for example, you'd only lose some pixels at the top and bottom.
Nvidia at some point castrated their VBE1/2/3 implementation in the bios. I am not sure at what card series this was introduced. It would be good to find out at what series this started at so DOS gamers will know. For instance the Nvidia 7900GS card are pre VBE slowness/scaling. Phil , you should also do a video about how loading emm386 will slow down all games/benchmarks by a huge 25% versus just loading himem. It also affects protected mode games. Other memory managers like umbpci are much faster. Do a comparison of memory managers in dos and their huge impact on speed.
When it comes to WinXP, I've always had driver issues with AMD. A good example was when I tried using the "R9 270x" in WinXP and just had perpetual issues with the AMD driver. Ended up getting a GTX680 and that seemed to solve the problem. In fact, I had that 270x when it was new, and had issues with it's drivers on even Win7. EDIT: I'm referring to the Catalyst utility, NOT the driver. My bad.
The card itself may have been faulty, you know... I had a R9 270 (non-X) and it ran WinXP, Linux and Win7 without any trouble for the 5 years I kept it.
It's not the card, I should have specified that it wasn't the driver itself but the old software suite that comes with the driver that they recently replaced. I cannot recall the name of the software right off hand, but I consistently had issues with it, even when it was new.
@@GildedPoo Catalyst, probably. Yeah, that thing was the worst - you were far better off using the minimal driver install and letting all settings at default than installing that crappy thing.
Every ATI card I attempted to use in DOS (Rage Pro, Radeon 7000, 9250, 9800Pro) had trouble with Keen 4-6. These days I limit DOS gaming to my older system, so I just use the trusty Voodoo3. It has fantastic DOS performance. Fast and compatible.
Cool! I just discovered recently that the AMD cards all worked better. I've since replaced the Nvidia cards in my retro-K6 and P4 Windows 98 systems with AMD cards. They work great with nGlide, as well.
My first Nvidia card was a Riva 128. It was also my first add in card purchase of any kind. I next tried a VirGe 'decelerator'. Oy those were bad. I first tried ATI with a 9600. I had no issues with this and used it quite happily for several years. IIRC the next few cards were all ATI, all again with no issues. I used them under W95, W98, W2k, and XP. I also tried various incarnations of Linux and BSD with somewhat mixed results due mostly to driver issues which are only recently being addressed. The latest cards that I have used were the HD 4670, 6670 and now the R9 360. These last three are the cards I have used since 2007. The long standing pattern of drivers offering improvements in performance has allowed me to hang onto these cards and all are used in various boxes for different purposes. The cards themselves work fine. It would seem the games throw up different issues depending on CPU, chipset architecture and OS restrictions. IME the gaming issues some talk about vis a vie ATI/AMD cards has more to do with driver optimization rather than the cards themselves. I like that you tackle these older hardware subjects head on and support your observations with real data. Keep on keepi'on. TTFN.
I personally have had issues with later versions of nvidia drivers in games using Direct Draw such as Red Alert 2 where the image will be squished and purple (Google "Red Alert 2 purple screen". There is a work around to this by using DDWrapper but I haven't been able to get smooth game play from using it. I just built an XP gaming box recently with an HD5670 and so far everything is running great.
This is way i do use my AMD HD5970 as a secondary GPU, because on NVIDIA you can run DSR, but no custom resolution . So for my main GPU i run DSR and my second i use some few custom resolution with center scaling for perfect pixel. and i have been experimented with some exotic aspect ratio/resolution on my AMD like 2448x1440 17:10 , 2304x1440 16:10 , 2160x1440 3:2 , 2048x1424 128:89 , 1920x1440 4:3 and 1800x1440 5:4. Also the 2048x1424 is an experimental resolution i used for playstation emulators and some games if i feel like 4:3 its a tiny bit narrow since its not fully 16:10 but not as narrow as 4:3
yeah maybe so, but since my HD5970 was my first truly high end GPU i bought my self, i have to much of a sentimental value to just trash it, and only run my new nvidia card. so i do use this little app called MonitorSwitcher so i can use shortcuts on my keyboard to hotswap monitor configuration. and i like the wide-tent and narrow-tent anti-aliasing on some games since it actually looks much better on my 1440p monitor . on 1080p wide-tent or narrow-tent seems too blurry.
Or just setup the DSR resolutions the same way as other custom resolutions. got a very basic 1080p monitor and can run it at 75 Hz and DSR/downsample without issues all the way up to 4K. technically I even downsampled on my CRTs back then. It's one of the features I actually see as a point in favor of nvidia and most o the reason I went with team green in my current build.
Lack of an Analog RGB out on newer video cards is limiting my options going forward. I'm going to be upgrading to a CRT monitor and a 10-bit flat panel in the near future and I think the best option I have is a 980ti.
SHOTS. FIRED. I do believe under DOS AMD uses a hardware scaler starting with the X1000 series. I'm not sure if this is a sneaky workaround because they don't natively support those res modes, or what the reason is, but the result is nice.
Oh. I thought it would be about retro gaming with retro cards. In that case I could have said that I have a couple of Radeons that have BIOS' with a full range of low resolution VESA modes for late DOS games and demos. The last nVidia card I have with this wide selection of video modes is the PCI Riva 128 (in Asus and Diamond flavors). But it was way before AMD times.
The lsat great AMD/Ati gpu was the HD7970 You buy Nvidia when you want to brag for a year or 2 , you buy Ati/AMD when you want to use it for at least 3-5 years
I always find this to be true. I think it's because AMD/ATI's driver support for legacy hardware is much bettter than Nvidia's. This applies to CPUs and chipsets as well, AMD's parts seem to perform better over a longer time than Nvidia's or Intel's.
Yeah I used my ref soft unlocked HD6950 and it destroyed older content. I felt I got my moneys worth with it where I don't think a $300 GTX1060 would satisfy my like my $290 HD6950 did.
if you are using a Nvidia GPU and a HDMI Monitor / TV always check if you are using the full Output dynamic range (if your screen supports it) Nvidia Control Panel --> Change resolution --> Output dynamic range --> Full Makes the picture quality much better
Yes, this is only in newer drivers, but i had this Problem even with a GTX 650 or lately with my GTX 980 Ti, which were connected to a quiet new "gaming" 1080p screen :) Autocorrection ...
Hey man, just want to say I really like your videos. Hard to come across an Australian PC enthusiast that gives me the information I need. You're really supporting a niche market and if you continue on your way like this, you'll gain popularity quickly. Just keep going with your not-so-orthodox videos (tight budgets, this video exactly etc.)
All the scaling and colour stuff are non-issues. A CRT is what the games were designed for and look correct on. It also handles much higher framerates and has no persistence blur.
nice video as usual, phil! to answer the last questions, no my opinion hasnt changed even tho i like to buy cards from both team red and green! im using a 750ti for my windows xp rig and i never had any problems with it. i found a zotac one on the cheap for 35€ shipped on ebay. maybe its a bit overkill for xp gaming but it has a vga port and i still use my old 1024x768 monitor
All depends on the CPU and the games. For my XP machine I went with an R7 250X (basically a HD 7770) for the longest time. No issues, no trouble. And the nvidia card I put in later detects the DVI monitor as a TV.
I started with an ATI Rage 128 Ultra 32MB and it was solid for late 90s and a smattering of early 00s games. It lasted for years before I upgraded to an Albatron NVidia GeForce FX5200 LP 128MB about six years back when I first attempted a retro upgrade of my old PC. It was nothing special and Nvidia’s own drivers were completely useless. The best thing about it was displaying aero graphics in Windows 7. Just last week I pulled out the old ATI card and put it back in. It’s in temporarily before I buy an 9600XT.
Hi Phil A bit off topic, but could you have a look at the Geforce 750ti I have been eyeballing it as the ultimate XP card, its power effecient and doesn't need a 6 pin power adapter on some models, and generally it's the same price as a Geforce 1030 :)
PhilsComputerLab Awesome :) Locally I missed out twice on some good ones , one was new in box even, will keep an eye open in the hopes that one appears :)
Yeah, my old 950 GTX kept of scretching the screen and things with old games, it had the options in the driver though, but it never seemed to worked correctly. Then it seems they just drop the feature completely.
just grab a GTX780 Ti and be happy with your windows XP "retro" gaming experience D; even if THAT card is FULLY CAPABLE of playing modern games on pretty high setting in 1080p and more than 30fps lol
DVI can output 70Hz; any change to that is part of the card's output design/scaling configuration, how it adapts to your monitor. You can probably get a custom EDID solution to essentially request the specific display mode you want the NVIDIA DVI to lock onto (integer-ratio scaled or source native rez and refresh rate); I think some capture cards have this capability, and there must be other external devices, too. I have a Mac Voodoo5 (flashed for PC) I like a lot, which works like VGA and scales nothing.
With DVI every manufacturer seems to do things a bit differently. Yes DVI can do more than 60 of course, I've overclocked my monitor refresh rate quite a few times :) But when you connect a DVI monitor to a GeForce and run DOS, it will run at 60 Hz, giving you stutter in scrolling and throwing off the speed in some games. Lotus III is a good example, the music will run a lot slower :)
Yeah, it's a real issue, with two sides to it. NVIDIA's idea is to make sure their signal works 100% with whatever you plug into it, which indeed compromises image quality at non-integer scaling ratios and screws with refresh rates & aspect boxing. There are situations where it's preferable and those where it seriously messes with your fidelity. External control over the output mode with a custom EDID could be really great, if the cards properly follow the default mode.
I just bought a ATI Mach 64 GT card at eBay the first ATI Rage card which was their first 3D graphics accelerator card back in early 1996 that's missing the Z buffer.
I also got a Sierra Screamin 3D card (Rendition Verite V1000E) completely new in the shrink wrapped box for only $5 USD and $18 USD shipping. It was a steal and a choice vintage computer collectors item. I could probably sell it back on eBayfor $250 USD but I am going to keep it unopened
I changed from AMD HD 7970 to a GTX 780 Ti. My monitor has a original aspect ratio setting. I should say 50" LG 4k T.V. It also support fullrange RGB signal. I found that the Nvidea card was also supporting OpenGl in old games like Midtown Madness. Any other game gets hundreds of FPS when used with my I7-3770 ang 1600MHz RAM. I can crank settings to Ultra/High settings. The NVidia 386 bit bus and 3GB of GDDR5 VRAM on the card. Probably exceeds anything XP can run. Useing 368.81 driver. Still available on Nvidea web sight. It's kind of XP on steroids.GTX 790 Ti is the last officially supported GPU. Good system for anyone who dares to be more advanced with XP. I was after DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, XP directx 9c gaming. Fits the bill.
Hi Phil, I have a Geforce 4 and a Geforce 7 so hopefully there won't be any issues. I have a 144Hz monitor. Great channel 👍👍 I'm thinking of trying Windows 2000 SP4 👍👍
I have that same amd card in the beginning on the left, the 1900xt but for my retro build I upgraded to a hd2600 GT(which is a rarer card) cause it has unified shader architecture and is compatible with more games as looking cooler with a transparent red cooler that covers the entire card with silver flames running up the cooler
another issue with using nvidia cards for older titles is physX. it's not really back compat. playing games from the early 2000's on pc will crash if they have any sort of physX support. you have to track down old versions of physx and install them to even get some of the games to run. and there's some times a lack of comparability between old versions of physX. huge hassle. there's also the matter of linux support.
Genuinely interesting. I haven't seen much officially showing these differences but I had a "feeling" DOS support wasn't quite what it should be with Geforce.
Same thought. Why running pure DOS under such a card. Any reasonable CPU would be way to fast anyway. I don't make much about being "period correct", but compatability is my issue. So 3 retro systems would be enough for me. One for XP games, one for 98 SE, and one for even older, speed sensitive games. No real reason to run anything newer than 15-20 years under pure DOS.
Far as Windows XP/DOS goes I've almost always been an AMD fan except the time years back when the original Crysis was still a thing, and I Got a pair of EVGA Nvidia 9500GT 1Gb cards for SLI at a good price, and I'm going to throw this in as up till recently I've always had issues running AMD/ATI cards under various Linux distros due to the drivers being a pain to install, so if I was building a Linux system for myself, or someone else on a budget I would try to find some decent Nvidia based cards for a good price, throw Linux Mint Mate or XFCE on the machine with the included drivers, and it was off to the races for a basic machine.
Hey Phil, I've been watching your videos for quite a while and it's nice to see life breathed into old hardware. I have a retro gaming PC project that I started about a year ago and I never really got to finishing it. I was wondering how I'd go about donating to the channel so it doesn't go to waste. It's an AMD based system in an i-tx fashion with wireless capability. Is there a way I can I contact you as to give you full specs and etc?
Is that XFX 7800 on the right in the opening? I remember having my first well paid job and I decided to treat myself to the best videocard that just came out. Paid $700 for that baby, which lasted me for many years. With the kind of temperatures I was getting, I'm surprised it hasn't melted. I still have it and it still runs just fine. Perfect for original Farcry and the like.
here were I live finding radeon cards is really really hard, I do have a radeon 9250 that I used to play halo with... man I like that card. The drivers though, they were a pain.
Displayport to VGA is something to try. I don't think, out of the video output options that exist today on video cards, that DP will go away any time soon. I was die hard nvidia from Riva 128 till series 9, then switched to AMD when the 3850 hit the market and stayed until this past year when I put in gtx980 and 1050ti cards into my systems. Still use AMD R275 at work though. Now days, I like ATI cards for vintage machines over the nvidia options. As far as modem GPU's go, my personal rule of thumb is, stay era correct for the build. Playing with modern hardware for older games is interesting but problematic.
I tested several PCIe cards the last weeks under DOS (no high ends, 10-20 yrs old ones) and the Radeons always performed better in legacy Text/VGA/VESA modes. However, the NVIDIAs are more compatible on PCIe versions and boards. For example i choose the fastest AMD i found, the FirePro V4800 (its faster in DOS than the V4900), just to find out that it doesn't work in my target board at all. So for testing, NVIDIA is better, but if a AMD runs on your desired board, it should be preferred for legacy use.
DVI output is so good on Radeon graphics cards. Recently I used Radeon X1600 Pro, and text in BIOS looked so sharp, better than NVIDIA. For DOS I might use Radeon X1600 Pro, I like the pixelated look of image. But not all Radeon graphics cards have such good DVI port. I didn't got satisfaction from Radeon RX 590 and HD4670.
Yes you are right. I once out a Lowe profile Radeon into a DELL Optiplex and with DP to HDMI at 4K the BIOS screen and Windows installation screen was beautiful sharp and clear.
@@philscomputerlab I did some testing with AMD/ATI Radeon cards, what I have, and Radeon X1600 Pro gives the best and sharpest DVI output. Tested on Dell 17" 1280x1024 monitor. 640x480 looks god on DVI output and my 17" Dell monitor from 2007. I have 3 pieces of Gigabyte Radeon X1600 Pro 🤩. I might do some Crosfire testing with these cards on Gigabyte GA-X58-UD3R LGA 1366 motherboard, that support SLI and Crosfire.
@PhilsComputerLab would you prepared to try your Geforce FX 5500 PCI card, to see if any of these issues are present? This being a go-to still available solution to PCI only systems this would be of interest to me.
I believe that card goes full speed, and doesn't put he black border around, but the image is also soft and not as sharp as ATI. Yea I got to do another video with that FX card again, maybe with a VIA Socket 7 board or something like that.
You've broadened the scope of "DOS gaming" in your videos by and large, Phil. It can mean anything between 1982-201x, taken how you talk about hardware. I wouldn't myself waste any of these GPUs on DOS games. 3Dfx Voodoo 4/5 and nVidia TNT2 are maybe the newest ones for that, but that too is still overkill. Matrox and ATI are solid DOS choices, not these. :)
it always came down to $$$$$ when i purchased a vid card and for a long time stuck AMD/ATI but last year i broke out and bought the 1070...i didnt even consider anything from AMD at the time to compare it to....anyway...love the vid Phil as always
I switched to a laptop. with high end laptops using MXM video cards like the 980, 107 and 1080. the laptops has all the ports like VGA and HDMI, so no matter what video card you get you keep the ports. the 1070 and 1080 laptops cards are the same performance as the desktop versions. I am using a trinitron FW900 on my 980 mobile, soon to upgrade to a 1070 or 1080
AMD unlocked multiplier love that my processor has future expandability with a clock adjustment and proper cooling you could potentially increase longevity out of your products by underclocking but that's debatable and speculative. Thanks Mr. Phil. AMD Now 2018 it wasn't until Nvidia gave up product support for there 8 cuda core card's did I stop buying Nvidia products.
Interesting thing about limited RGB, under many circumstances Nvidia still default to that (HDMI) and it can be seen in benchmarking videos when the person benchmarking fails to change it to a full spectrum format and I'm talking modern high performance cards. AMD have a reputation for better visual quality out of the box and it is something reviewers fail to check these days and while neither default to full RGB over HDMI, AMD at least defaults to Y,Cb,Cr 444 format which is very close to full RGB. It's fairly easy to change the formats in the drivers these days but it's most noticeable when changing from limited RGB to full than from YCbCr to full RGB. I do believe these defaults are for compatibility reasons, but AMD's solution won't give you that washed out look. This may be why you don't get that full RGB option with older cards/drivers, it would create more headaches for Nvidia than allowing it would solve (i.e. complaints of washed out colours vs not working on some monitors/TV's) or they just cannot be bothered as old cards/drivers don't make them money.
I kinda understand their thinking. With HDMI, a good guess is that you plugged it into a TV, so limited RGB will match nicely. Maybe the HDMI standard could do with some sort of auto detect feature? AMD has this quirk of applying underscan to the image, but in XP and 10 you have a slider to fix this. Their argument was that they wanted to make sure the user could see the start button. Still I feel that the RGB option is so important, that it really should be in the XP driver.
_"Maybe the HDMI standard could do with some sort of auto detect feature?"_ You cannot autodetect a dumb device that doesn't know what it is, therein lies the problem with backwards compatibility with old devices. I've run into the underscan issue on my current tv/monitor, but that was with windows 8.1 and easily fixed in AMD catalyst, doesn't occur in win 10. If you don't have full RGB with the Nvidia drivers does it have the Y,Cr,Cb 444 setting which is pretty close and does cover the full range.
it's a soft that allow you to chose what resolution you want for nfs (and i think works with others too) i would loved to see if any of those cards to well in 1080p old games
Phil, you mentioned in one of your videos, that Nvidia cards are stronger in opengl. May I ask what you meant by that exactly? The reason I'm asking is because I've got HD77xx cards in my XP builds and am having issues with opengl. They support v4.5 on paper but I get errors (like the driver wasn't there) in all of the stuff that require v3.0+ - which work perfectly on my GeForce cards.
One of the biggest downside with Ati/Amd graphic cards, starting with the HD2000-series, and Intel HD Graphic is, that it has connection problems with some older full screen TFT (like the HP LP2065 that i have in use), if you are using the DVI output of the card or the HDMI via an HDMI to DVI cable. It only works on the VGA output or if i use an HDMI Splitter or Switcher, that disables the HDCP. With Nvidia cards, even with the 1000-series, i dont have this kind of problem. There was even a list of affected monitors on the amd forum, but the thread no longers exists there, but thankfully it was c&p to other forums: www.computerbase.de/forum/showthread.php?t=573050&p=5879826#post5879826
Good to know. Personally I've been capturing DVI from the first Radeon cards onward without issues, but I'm sure there are compatibility issues with some monitors.
Phil. How about doing a few guides on how to get those hard to run games going? Titles such as Mechwarrior 2 for instance is really difficult to run on modern machines and most of the time will not work at all. Mechwarrior 3 on the other hand will often run but with bugs such as a compatibility issue with Radeon GPU's that has APC's and tanks jumping up and down like grasshoppers with their butts on fire. Other examples include Star Trek: Starfleet Command. There are also DOS titles such as Ultima 8 that required a lot of fiddling with Autoexec.bat and Config.sys lines to get working correctly.
I did Tweak Guides in the past, in short, nobody watches them and the information is already well documented on sites like PC Gaming WIKI. Plus you just end up being everyones tech support.
One more question though is, does FreeSync or G-Sync work in XP? They require GCN 2 and Kepler (650 Ti Boost and up) to work respectively. Google search shows up a few strange G-Sync results but nothing for FreeSync
So similar to more recent times: AMD keeps support for longer. But then, for an older platform using older hardware can give better results. I remember seeing a benchmark where a Geforce 7800 GS was faster than a Radeon HD 7870. Oh btw. Phil, do you want results for your DOS benchmark database?
I can't say my opinion has changed much, mostly because any PC I'd build or want to assemble would be overkill for DOS in any case. However, as far as PC gaming is concerned, there are two *must run* titles in my opinion, with absolutely zero ambiguity - the two KotOR games. The Steam update for KOTOR 2 greatly simplifies things, but until the first one gets the same treatment, it too must be able to work correctly. And for the years that it was known as ATI, Radeon cards absolutely hated both games. I spent more time troubleshooting, hand-editing files, extracting files from three or four (or more!) driver revisions, and more, just to get each game to work. Meanwhile, the most I've ever needed to do with an NVIDIA card was one updated dll and running a utility called "flawless widescreen" and I could run the original KOTOR in 4K. There is also the episode in my past where Doom 3 officially launched and it killed my 9800 Pro, leading to a series of six RMA's in less than two years, because each successive replacement was worse or had more problems than the last one. So my experiences with the Radeon brand have been far from pleasant.
There are always specific games that can cause issues. It's like with DOS when people look at a list of games that they might never play, yet people need something to make a decision.
Considering I have been refurbishing a PC using an A8V Deluxe and have been in BSOD loops because of the ATI Radeon card I'm trying to use with it? "The fun never ends", it seems. >:(
One question i have in mind is: What is exactly the latest GPU generation you can use for pure DOS gaming on a DOS machine without flaws? I heard all the time for Nvidia it is the GeForce 3 series, because there would be no VESA (VBE 2/3) compatibility in the graphics cards BIOSes on cards with GeForce 4 and newer. But reading the updated list here gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/ shows VBE3 compatibility of GeForce 4, GF FX5200 and GF 6800GS. I thinks the question is really interesting, because there is a chance to find cards with these GPUs with DVI output instead of the VGA common on earlier cards. And DVI should have some advantages related to image quality, the possibility to capture the image easily and to connect such a DOS system to todays monitors. And especially GF4 cards, often passive cooled, are still widely available for just a few bucks.
It's like this, most DOS games will run on any GPU. It's just that people like to look at lists of games that don't work. So there are some special cases, using custom resolutions, or weird scrolling tricks. But if you want to play Monkey Island or Doom, pretty much any graphics card will work :)
first off, love your videos. as far as reason #1 goes, there is a 3rd option. i created a word document for myself quite a while ago to remind myself how to get aspect ratio correct gpu scaling for 4:3 games on my 1080p monitor when using DVI. now im not sure if i found this out myself or if i read it somewhere when i ran into this issue the first time. here is a copy/paste of the file. hope this helps someone enjoy those old games in the correct AR! ***USE THIS IF MONITOR IS CONSIDERED AN HDTV INSTEAD OF A MONITOR*** IF SCALING OPTIONS ARE MISSING IN NVIDIA CONTROL PANEL USE THIS WORKAROUND (WOULD NEED TO DO EACH AND EVERY VIDEO DRIVER UPDATE) Well I've found a work around for now which doesn't include tinkering with registry entries in the inf file: 1. Use NVIDIA Control Panel to switch to a non-HD "PC" Resolution (ex. 1280x1024) 2. The Flat Panel Scaling options become available. Use them to disable scaling. 3. Use standard Display Properties to change to 1920x1080x32 (since the custom resolution stops being visible in NVIDIA Control Panel after steps 1&2 for some reason) The scaling option selected is kept after resolution change. As the missing scaling options were my biggest concern regarding the "HDTV classification", this should be enough for now. Online I saw posts about a "Treat this custom resolution as HD" option.... Too bad they must have taken it out of the drivers at some point....
This doesn't work, maybe it worked with older cards and / or older drivers than I sued. There was also a way to toggle the scaling mode through command line, this also doesn't work with the latest drivers.
My 1080p LG 22EA53 monitor supports aspect ratio "correction" even when using a digital signal (DVI-D or HDMI). As for number #2, if you are using the HDMI output on you graphics card then use a DVI-D adapter to connect it to the monitor (the other way around won't work) or just a direct DVI-D connection as you suggested. As for #5, I had the same issue a few years ago on my modern PC before UEFI "drivers" where released for the graphics card I was using. I still get the same issue when the CSM is turned on. Anyway, the best AGP card I have is a Sapphire Radeon HD 3650 and it overheats quite easily, especially when using Linux with the open source drivers (fglrx was deprecated in mid-2012, if I recall correctly). Basically I have to mod it like a Voodoo, otherwise it may not work reliably no matter what I'm doing. That's what made me choose NVIDIA for my modern PC, though that Radeon HD card should probably be fine for older games. I prefer using a modern PC with DOSBOX-X, source ports, Wine or Windows 10 for older games, to be honest, but I do enjoy playing with old hardware 😜
PhilsComputerLab Well, my monitor was only €149 when I bought it a few years ago. I don't think it supports lower resolutions through DVI-D or HDMI (the GPU should do the scaling automatically if you're using one of them) but it does support them through D-SUB/VGA, although DOS mode 13h looks stretched due the fact that most DOS games assume an aspect ratio of 4:3 in 13h mode. Maybe the H/V size and position can be adjusted manually but I'm not sure and I can't check right now. (Edit: Wide/Original for DVI-D/HDMI, H/V for D-SUB)
Huh? Getting fullscreen under DOS on a 750Ti myself. You know what, i think you've got a specific issue: i think the NVidia GPU thinks your specific monitor is not at all a monitor a but a TV set, from the HDMI EDID. This would enable both the border, to deal with overscan that most TVs have, and the limited colour range. Perhaps both issues would go away on another display. Hey, do you want to learn EDID hacking? Perhaps i can help. You don't even need to modify the monitor, we can do a piggyback EDID in a cable or adapter.
Apart from the full / limited RGB issue, everything was captured with DVI. For HDMI I used a different capture device that has HDMI. Talking about EDID, I have this EDIT emulator gadget from StarTech, it lets you lock in a set resolution, but that's about it.
Does UEFI FreeDOS have the same slow benchmarks with NVIDIA cards? I have a feeling NVIDIA’s UEFI OptionROM driver might do well comparatively with their hacked in dos support.
4:45 how to solve this problem? I am using 4:3 monitor, but when I watch your video at 6:43, I see also only small display screen with black area surrounded, funny thing is, it is 4:3, and my monitor is also 4:3, so it would need to be only stretched to full screen. This is how I am using 30% smaller monitor. Is problem in playback youtube? Or where is problem? How to solve it, to have it scaled full screen, when it is 4:3, and my monitor is also 4:3.
After one of Nvidia's early detonator drivers, some games get really bad graphical glitches and artifacts. Its why I run my Diamond Viper V550 with the last drivers from Diamond as opposed to any past Detonator 7. Either that or simply use the newer drivers on it or my overclocked TNT2 Vanta, and play games which have problems off my Voodoo2 SLI (which is also able to run DirectX 8.1 games such as BF1942 well). Apparently some people also have problems with graphical glitches with Intel HD graphics as well (not sure about Intel GMA), and I haven't heard of Ati/AMD cards having the same problem at all.
TEAM RED !!!! lol, im a full AMD fanboy no matter i love a lot of their architecture, also there gpu styles, GREAT COVERAGE PHIL !! love the content as always buddy, And did you say Nvideon ? lol sounded like radeon and nvidia mixed LOL, Although on my retro build with an Athlon 64 X 2 full 4gb ram, I wish i had a capable ATI gpu :/ but i had 2 older Nvidia gpus a poopy 8400GS and a 9400gt verto im used the verto 9400gt in the build its not to bad, my buddy i let borrow my r7 350... I DID online see one of those brands that you had of an R7 it was the Yeston r7350 4gb gpu for 80$ online, which might be pretty good for retro idk im skeptic lol
GonZo lol you love their architecture? My choice was 750ti vs the slightly cheaper R7 260x. I paid more for the novidia since it was 115w vs 60w and the 750ti gets better fps always. That's just one example of amds amazing architecture. Double the tdp and less performance lol
No seriously i love am all lol, I'm an avid collector of all AMD hardware, From K5's Athlons, Bobcats, Pumas, K8 Hammer, Bulldozers lol, and sharp tooths lol and Obviously Zen cpus lol, my favorites are in the Steamroller Family 3rd generation, and the Jaguar Family i love AMD Cpus die names, and there stability in the hands of someone who knows what there doing is great, i mean i do like intel ish.. but egh AMD all the way buddy
i actually have a build that i use still daily with a AMD 9590 in a sabertooth 2.0 board, with 2 R9 280x in crossfire just because lol i used this as my main up till 3 months ago when i upgraded to Ryzen 7
GonZo OK if we're going with cpus now, I had an Athlon in Intels dark days, but if you seriously think the fx series and jaguar was a good architecture you're not too bright.
Ati is also superior in 9x, with better 16bit color and free af. They also made the best dx9 cards in general. Ati was superior both in graphics and general purpose use.
I'm working on a video about the Radeon 9000. I tried 16x AF, and even on this old card, it had minimal impact. It's something I haven't looked into much.
ATI had some really cool tech. I owned a R9000 back in the day with an Athlon XP 1700 (awesome overclocker) with win2k. My first budget gaming build that played everything at half the price of Nv/Intel/Rambus/XP. The only caveat with the 9000 is that AF disables trilinear, and it cuts out some hardware of the 8500, but for most purposes it worked well. The wonky and uneven AF patterning made it undiscernible in most games, like it was intended to hide that limitation. The video playback quality was also tremendous, and MMC 7.1 hid divx artifacting and upsampled low resolution videos. The 9000 was good enough to play UT2004 at playable framerates, same with the OC'd XP 1700. Some of my other hardware was a XP-M + NF2, 9800, X800, then 64X2 with a 1900X on XP-64, the best version of XP for gaming in dx9 with a X-Fi, especially with games like SupCom that ate more ram than XP32 allowed. FWIW, SM 3.0 was overrated on the 6800, and the x800 could run "hdr" in 2.0. Some games like Oblivion and Bioshock had replacement shader mods that backported the 3.0 features into 2.0b with more playable fps than the 6800. 2.0b had similar functionality to 3, but only if optimized for, which probably happened more in the modding community.
I think its wierd when people say Radeon Cards has and always have had bad drivers, ITS just PURE bullshit. Twice in the history of Radeon they had bad drivers first one was with 2900xt car and the second time was the 7970 launch, in the case of the 7970 it became one of the best cards ever with Drivers that kept on Giving all the time. the cards lasted High/ultra settings until 2017 when PUBG came out but only due to PUBG being a terribly optimized game.
AMDs drivers are good, they are getting every last drop of performance out of their hardware. Its AMDs graphics cards that are shit. However AMD has now officially removed support for DX9, meaning older titles wont work with any driver past the Crimson series. AMD have stated that they will not "waste" any resources into older titles. So much for this video eh?
Very good video Phil and I tend to agree 100%. For me, I just use old drivers. If the driver is stable and there's nothing compelling about upgrading them, then why this need to upgrade? Especially with a machine that will not see Internet. There's a compelling argument that goes newer is better, but I don't believe that's so. My Note 4 is an awesome phone but Android 6.0.1 is plagued with issues on that phone, especially with the GPS. In many ways that upgrade is like a downgrade since android 4.4 just works better.
+PhilsComputerLab agreed. Over all I like ATI radeon far better but for a little bit different reasons. Nvidia often tends to be a bit faster, true. But AMD does open software better. If you've got a classic system running a early Linux build, your probably better off with a slower ATI then a faster Nvidia cars because driver support is garbage at best.
amd had shit opengl drivers for epsxe emulation a while ago like around in 2006 using pete ogl2 drivers, but amd finally fixed it. and yes, for an xp machine or win98,amd works great, 32bit performance is awesome and everything runs great in cards like x800pro for shader 2.0 games before dx9c (nvidia 6800)
The NV drivers for XP are annoying. Even with a monitor that supports aspect ratio, the existing 4:3 resolutions are set up so that they'll be stretched. In my experience we can get around this by creating a proper (native) 4:3 resolution, e.g. 1440x1080 for a 1920x1080 screen. If that works we create the rest using the same timing*, so that the GPU scales the image to native. For 1920x1080 (current res) that would be Active pixels: 1440 1080 and Total pixels: 1584 1188 (+10%). *Switch to the native 4:3 resolution, in the editor switch the timing to manual before (only) typing in the new resolutions at the top. As tedious as it is, luckily there won't be any more driver updates.
There is another way, you can use a hardware device called an EDID emulator. You put it between the monitor and the video card, and it sets the resolution. Not a cheap gadget, but affordable. Older XP drivers also support command line options, but I haven't used those in years, might be worth looking into that again. But that trick stopped with the newer drivers.
I agree that the AMD cards are better for DOS and Windows XP gaming, but for applications running in a Windows XP environment such as iStripper and some bench marking tools like GpuCapsViewer , there is a lot of stutter and tearing with my R7 240. I tried all kinds of settings to make this smoother but nothing helped. TH-cam video also did not play smooth. The games i tested ran smooth but nothing else. The onboard intel video on my HP 8100 Elite ran the above mentioned programs smoother.
As you've mention, both AMD and NVIDIA have their pros and cons, but over the years, and to this day, i've always favored nvidia due the better driver support, back then, ATI drivers for their video cards were very iffy for some odd reason, and that pretty much did it for me... even though i still own, 9600xt(2)/8500(1)/9800pro(1) and a 3850(1), all being AGP 4x/8x cards.
I always knew this to be the fix for full range RGB, but I don't know if it works for Windows XP: forums.guru3d.com/threads/tip-for-nvidia-users-using-hdmi-and-getting-accurate-color-format.371214/
Nvidia is not sharper under Dos when using a VGA connection. When I got my GTS 450 I thought there was something wrong with it at first because it was extremely blurry. Only after I installed the drivers did it sharpen up, although it was still less sharp than my old X1950 Pro. I don't know if this is still true but another difference I've experienced under XP is that if you try to use the Nvidia control panel to adjust the gamma you'll get color banding whereas you don't on AMD cards. This is using the VGA connection.
There are no drivers for DOS, maybe you're mixing something up? You should get an "odd" resolution mode displayed on the monitor, I believe it's 720x400 at 70 Hz or something like that, and it should be sharper compared to DVI.
I meant the Windows drivers. I can take a picture of what it looks like in Dos compared to a Geforce4 if you want. Both are hooked to the same monitor.
I think I know what's going on. My GTS 450 goes into whatever the default resolution of the monitor is(in this case 1600x1200) and then stretches the image to fill the screen. If I don't turn on the monitor until after the video card has initialized then it will display the standard dos resolution the same as my older cards do.
What about building a retro P4 EE machine? Would you go for 6800GT AGP or the beast@ HD3850 Turbo AGP? Does the drivers of ATI Support as many as games as NVIDIA?
I've only use a 6800 / 7800 with the P4 EE. That Radeon is really expensive. Personally, I would go with PCIe, the boards might cost a bit more, but the GPUs will be cheap.
Super useful to know for my planned WinXP builds, thanks!
I'm looking forward to that, especially seeing what parts you're going to select!
i build a lot of "high end" win 98se or XP retro builds in the last few years and I always stuck with ATI. For some reason i did not sell these cards and I can only say that i'm glad I did. Until now I did not realy know why. But every time I tried Nvidia on these machines I had some issues so I swapped them. I think the Ati drivers on release often weren't good but the later drivers of an aera fixed that for good, so that now they are a great option. This morning I played Starwars lego with my son on a P4 and hd 2600pro and I ran so well. We had no issues (and thats what U want, playing games with a six years old) :)
good ATI Cards for xp builds: 9600xt, 9500/9700pro 9800pro/xt xt800/850 pro/xt/ .. 1950pro 2600pro/xt 2700pro/xt (then scip a few) hd3850/3870 4770 4850/4870 (power hungry) 5850/5870(already dx11) and so on
I plan to try and recreate my old 2006 era PC but with some added upgrades! I still have the GPU - ATI X850XT which I used up till 2011, it is a champ
@@philscomputerlab
Documentation for future generations and asking your audience for tips, then not following up on said philosophy and ignoring these tips is the kind of thing a real lab wouldn't do friend.
Im specifically talking about intels compiler you dont seem very thrilled about documenting or discussing with your audience.
You dont get to call your channel a lab and not act like a scientist without people like me calling you out.
Number 6 maybe? In the R7 240 video, Kathleen mentioned SSAA (Super Sampling AA) in the drivers. This is a great feature to make old games, that run at 200+ FPS, look even better.
PhilsComputerLab Yeah, I'll also take a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese and a large soda.
Immense Data does the number 7 gets extra dip?
Summoner Arthur You bet.
SSAA? Oh nvidia got that covered. When I look up all modi that I can set through the driver (as opposed to in game settings) I got:
2xMSAA
2xQuincunx
4xMSAA
8xCSAA
8xMSAA
16xCSAA
32xCSAA
2x1 SSAA
1x2 SSAA
2x2 SSAA
3x3 SSAA
4x4 SSAA
combined 1x2 SSAA & 2xMSAA
combined 1x2 SSAA & 4x MSAA
combined 2x2SSAA & 2x MSAA
combined 2x2 SSAA & 4x MSAA
combined 2x2 SSAA & 8x MSAA
And for transparency there are OGSSAA and SGSSAA
Combine the high SSAA modi with downsampling and I can play at "15K" on my 1080p monitor.
Dude you should get your hands on a Arcadevga 5000 one of these days www.ultimarc.com/avgainf.html
So what do you think of this video? Who do you usually go with, Nvidia or AMD, and why? And do you know of any other differences that can affect Retro Games?
PhilsComputerLab I remember that between ATI Rage and old GeForce cards, ATI always had a sharper, nicer image on CRT. Nice video Phil.
For modern gaming Nvidia is the way, but for the retro gaming AMD all the way.
Very informative video as usual! The only weird thing is seeing NFS:U2 referred to as a "retro game": I remember first playing it on a very underpowered system (GPU, specifically) when it first came out.
And what's worse is that you can't even buy it digitally! Really annoying. Same goes for so many games. I really hope it comes to GOG.
I'd say it depends on the timeframe.
Something like a Rage Fury MAXX is just special. Then there was TruForm on the Radeon 8500, the 9500/9700 and 9800 are legendary even to this day. Then the late support with the HD 3850 and HD 4670, the fastest AGP cards. And let's not forget FineWine. nVidia on the other hand has cards like the GF 4 Ti 4200, one of the most widely used cards. The 8800 cards, that just stumped everything else. And the actually used PhysX back then.
In the end it depends on the games to be played and the compatability. At some points ATi/AMD is the way to go, on others nVidia is the best option, and then there are some where it doesn't really matter.
IIRC AMD Cards have lower CPU overhead in DirectX9.
am I wrong in thinking that's reversed in dx11? Because with my i5, a overclocked 780 consistently gave better performance in cpu intensive games compared to the 290x
AMD/ATI cards also have a much better picture
@@toaster_bloke9999
It is reversed. Especially with crossfire.
I don't know why, but with Amd cards I feel I bit warmer, like some one cares about me.
I have mixed feelings about AMD.
My Radeon 4850 was notoriously warm, getting to 120c (!!!) I had to set up a custom cooling profile in RivaTuner and eventually ended up underclocking the entire card to finally have some peace and quiet. So yeah, it was a lot warmer. On top of that - weird artifacts on all drivers except for one specific version.
My other AMD card was Radeon 545v - a weird 4540 knockoff - where I had trouble with drivers (only the original ones actually worked, the official Catalyst driver did such a mess that I was forced to reinstall Windows).
Currently I run RX480, which (finally!) is an excellent card, with the only drawback being that I cannot really play with Tensorflow framework (it uses CUDA). I chose this card because it was the best choice as far as economics go (cheaper, as fast as an equivalent NVidia card and has more RAM).
My point is: brand loyalty is stupid, go for what gives you the most benefit.
Yeah I was about to say, I think that's your card overheating ;). But seriously, AMD always felt like a hobby club card to me. With every release of their driver it was a game to discover what they broke this time.
When I bought my HD 4870, the drivers actually caused the fans to not spin up causing the card to overheat. I had to install a hack that always drove the fans at max speed because the drivers themselves took several releases to actually regulate fan speed properly. Also, since I'm into retro gaming, the option to have the resolution displayed 1:1 on my screen was important as well and ATI's drivers kept breaking the black border functionality.
On the plus side, it's my first (out of 4) AMD/ATI card to survive more than three years of use - I added new thermal paste and replaced the memory chip heat pads + cleaned the fan so it's a good little retro card now.
@zelbekon Sounds like your 4850 was faulty. If you still have you should change the thermal paste.
@@zelbekon That's more of a vender issue than an AMD issue for the HD 4850. I had a Visiontek HD 3870 that rarely ever ran hotter than 70C and the fan it came with was so quiet it was barely audible running at 100% on my test bench. My sister's Visiontek RX 5500 XT with an AMD reference cooler doesn't hit 70C with custom fan profile that never has to ramp up to 50%.
That Radeon 545v is bizarre, never heard of it. I have a weird oem Nvidia GTS 450 I want to try to get working that I bet will have driver issues because its a weird variant. Comes with the territory when dealing with one offs.
@@redavatar MSI Afterburner saved a used HD 3870 I bought that the fan wouldn't ramp up. Set the fan speed to 50%-60%. Simple fix
I always use Nvidia for modern PCs, but my XP rig definitely rocks a ATI/AMD 7850. Analog outputs for days.
ATI in the day was amazing. I loved their x800XT PE and even when the 4870 came out, blew my mind. I had it with a Q9550. I used ATI now AMD up to the 7970. Them I discovered the 980Ti and my world was forever shattered
I had to tinker with my 1050 Ti to make the image as crisp as I had it on R9 270. Wish RX580 did not cost as much as a Boeing's plane wing.
Yea bloody crypto craze...
Well that's not AMD's fault, and to be fair the RX580 came in at £240 and totally dominates the GTX1060 which was £300. Those prices are original UK release prices, before the bitcoin mining rush which inflated all prices. The only reason the RX series was hit so hard in price rises is it's ability to mine coins.
Under Vulkan titles like Doom and Wolfenstein, the RX580 is matching the GTX1070, a card which on release cost TWICE as much as the RX580.
Lately prices are kinda returning to normal, you can snag a 4GB RX580 for around £270 if you shop about, but this is still massively inflated considering over 6 months ago they were closer to £220 on a good day.
I've never had a problem with Nvidia cards ability to produce vibrant, crisp images both in 2D and 3D, in fairness I found the 2D output of many of my Nvidia cards superior to AMD's at the time of testing, but I support AMD to the end (which is upon us/them) simply because as a company, the way they treat their customers is night and day better than Nvidia. In fact, Nvidia will never get another penny from me, and haven't for some years now. I have a GTX980Ti in my main rig, sure. But only because my friend sold it to me for £200 after he bought a 1080Ti. So it's second hand, and Nvidia didn't get my money.
I do realize why the prices are what we are, and that has little to do with how good AMD GPUs are at mining coins, but with low production rates of aforementioned GPUs. AMD did learn its lesson back when bitcoin became a thing and they don't want to make the same mistake again.
I've had awesome experiences with R9 270 and R9 290, and I would go with RX580 no questions asked if it had ~260 USD price tag in the area I live in. But the price is eyewatering 400 bucks, which is unacceptable.
So I had two choices: stick with Intel HD4600 or get a 1050Ti for 150 bucks. No other options were present at the time. So I had to join the dark side, and it sucks.
And yeah, NVidia software SUCKS ASS BIG TIME!
Heruvilius
So glad I got my card when I did. $180 for a 480 that is OCed to 1475 MHz. Great card
The 480 was never $180, bro ... and it didn't overclock to 1475 Mhz unless on WATER COOLING, which would have cost you an extra $120 to do (minimum). Let's be adult here and keep it real, please.
It sucks we still don't have integer(2x, 3x, 4x etc) scaling on a driver level. 1280x1024 monitors would be perfect for 320x240 and 640x480 games for example, you'd only lose some pixels at the top and bottom.
Totally agree, we should have much more control over this.
Try dgVoodoo for old games. It has scaling options and some other fancy stuff.
Nvidia at some point castrated their VBE1/2/3 implementation in the bios. I am not sure at what card series this was introduced. It would be good to find out at what series this started at so DOS gamers will know. For instance the Nvidia 7900GS card are pre VBE slowness/scaling.
Phil , you should also do a video about how loading emm386 will slow down all games/benchmarks by a huge 25% versus just loading himem. It also affects protected mode games. Other memory managers like umbpci are much faster. Do a comparison of memory managers in dos and their huge impact on speed.
25%? Are you sure about that?
When it comes to WinXP, I've always had driver issues with AMD. A good example was when I tried using the "R9 270x" in WinXP and just had perpetual issues with the AMD driver. Ended up getting a GTX680 and that seemed to solve the problem. In fact, I had that 270x when it was new, and had issues with it's drivers on even Win7.
EDIT: I'm referring to the Catalyst utility, NOT the driver. My bad.
The card itself might have been faulty - mine had no problem at all.
My HD 7770 runs under XP without any issues.
The card itself may have been faulty, you know... I had a R9 270 (non-X) and it ran WinXP, Linux and Win7 without any trouble for the 5 years I kept it.
It's not the card, I should have specified that it wasn't the driver itself but the old software suite that comes with the driver that they recently replaced. I cannot recall the name of the software right off hand, but I consistently had issues with it, even when it was new.
@@GildedPoo Catalyst, probably. Yeah, that thing was the worst - you were far better off using the minimal driver install and letting all settings at default than installing that crappy thing.
Every ATI card I attempted to use in DOS (Rage Pro, Radeon 7000, 9250, 9800Pro) had trouble with Keen 4-6. These days I limit DOS gaming to my older system, so I just use the trusty Voodoo3. It has fantastic DOS performance. Fast and compatible.
Cool! I just discovered recently that the AMD cards all worked better. I've since replaced the Nvidia cards in my retro-K6 and P4 Windows 98 systems with AMD cards. They work great with nGlide, as well.
Nice :)
I always prefer amd card anyway
My first Nvidia card was a Riva 128. It was also my first add in card purchase of any kind. I next tried a VirGe 'decelerator'. Oy those were bad. I first tried ATI with a 9600. I had no issues with this and used it quite happily for several years. IIRC the next few cards were all ATI, all again with no issues. I used them under W95, W98, W2k, and XP. I also tried various incarnations of Linux and BSD with somewhat mixed results due mostly to driver issues which are only recently being addressed. The latest cards that I have used were the HD 4670, 6670 and now the R9 360. These last three are the cards I have used since 2007. The long standing pattern of drivers offering improvements in performance has allowed me to hang onto these cards and all are used in various boxes for different purposes.
The cards themselves work fine. It would seem the games throw up different issues depending on CPU, chipset architecture and OS restrictions. IME the gaming issues some talk about vis a vie ATI/AMD cards has more to do with driver optimization rather than the cards themselves.
I like that you tackle these older hardware subjects head on and support your observations with real data. Keep on keepi'on. TTFN.
I personally have had issues with later versions of nvidia drivers in games using Direct Draw such as Red Alert 2 where the image will be squished and purple (Google "Red Alert 2 purple screen". There is a work around to this by using DDWrapper but I haven't been able to get smooth game play from using it. I just built an XP gaming box recently with an HD5670 and so far everything is running great.
This is way i do use my AMD HD5970 as a secondary GPU, because on NVIDIA you can run DSR, but no custom resolution . So for my main GPU i run DSR and my second i use some few custom resolution with center scaling for perfect pixel. and i have been experimented with some exotic aspect ratio/resolution on my AMD like 2448x1440 17:10 , 2304x1440 16:10 , 2160x1440 3:2 , 2048x1424 128:89 , 1920x1440 4:3 and 1800x1440 5:4. Also the 2048x1424 is an experimental resolution i used for playstation emulators and some games if i feel like 4:3 its a tiny bit narrow since its not fully 16:10 but not as narrow as 4:3
Batteryman That's awesome, great information.
yeah maybe so, but since my HD5970 was my first truly high end GPU i bought my self, i have to much of a sentimental value to just trash it, and only run my new nvidia card. so i do use this little app called MonitorSwitcher so i can use shortcuts on my keyboard to hotswap monitor configuration. and i like the wide-tent and narrow-tent anti-aliasing on some games since it actually looks much better on my 1440p monitor . on 1080p wide-tent or narrow-tent seems too blurry.
Or just setup the DSR resolutions the same way as other custom resolutions.
got a very basic 1080p monitor and can run it at 75 Hz and DSR/downsample without issues all the way up to 4K. technically I even downsampled on my CRTs back then. It's one of the features I actually see as a point in favor of nvidia and most o the reason I went with team green in my current build.
i also prefer nvidia, but i also like amd stuff too :-)
AFAIK DSR is not supported under Windows XP. But AMD does support SSAA, which is nice.
Lack of an Analog RGB out on newer video cards is limiting my options going forward. I'm going to be upgrading to a CRT monitor and a 10-bit flat panel in the near future and I think the best option I have is a 980ti.
Another informative video Phil, thank you. Honestly, I see this as another reason (or 5 of them!) to support AMD. :)
SHOTS. FIRED.
I do believe under DOS AMD uses a hardware scaler starting with the X1000 series. I'm not sure if this is a sneaky workaround because they don't natively support those res modes, or what the reason is, but the result is nice.
Yea interesting stuff. I also compared Windows scaling under Windows 10, but couldn't see any difference switching between screenshots.
The scaling through the driver is blurry on both cards :D
They do not offer integer scaling, and even on 2:1 or 3:1 ratios the result is quite a mess.
Oh. I thought it would be about retro gaming with retro cards. In that case I could have said that I have a couple of Radeons that have BIOS' with a full range of low resolution VESA modes for late DOS games and demos. The last nVidia card I have with this wide selection of video modes is the PCI Riva 128 (in Asus and Diamond flavors). But it was way before AMD times.
The lsat great AMD/Ati gpu was the HD7970
You buy Nvidia when you want to brag for a year or 2 , you buy Ati/AMD when you want to use it for at least 3-5 years
wakesake I agree, my nodded HD6950 is still worth, although I play at 720p to hold on more
I always find this to be true. I think it's because AMD/ATI's driver support for legacy hardware is much bettter than Nvidia's. This applies to CPUs and chipsets as well, AMD's parts seem to perform better over a longer time than Nvidia's or Intel's.
Yeah I used my ref soft unlocked HD6950 and it destroyed older content. I felt I got my moneys worth with it where I don't think a $300 GTX1060 would satisfy my like my $290 HD6950 did.
if you are using a Nvidia GPU and a HDMI Monitor / TV always check if you are using the full Output dynamic range (if your screen supports it)
Nvidia Control Panel --> Change resolution --> Output dynamic range --> Full
Makes the picture quality much better
That's all good, but this option is absent with Windows XP drivers :)
Yes, this is only in newer drivers, but i had this Problem even with a GTX 650 or lately with my GTX 980 Ti, which were connected to a quiet new "gaming" 1080p screen :)
Autocorrection ...
Could be the reason Why my Image is much Brighter after i switched from a HD 7950 to a GTX 970.
I got to find out one day at what driver version this option disappeared. I definitely had it on a 7800 GTX, with period appropriate drivers.
I dont remember the exact Number but i Think it was After the 198.xx Drivers, i had the same issues on my HP DV6500 with the 8400m
Hey man, just want to say I really like your videos. Hard to come across an Australian PC enthusiast that gives me the information I need. You're really supporting a niche market and if you continue on your way like this, you'll gain popularity quickly. Just keep going with your not-so-orthodox videos (tight budgets, this video exactly etc.)
Cheers mate :D
All the scaling and colour stuff are non-issues. A CRT is what the games were designed for and look correct on. It also handles much higher framerates and has no persistence blur.
Having another option, doesn't make it a non issue. For most, getting a CRT is not an option at all, wouldn't you agree?
nice video as usual, phil!
to answer the last questions, no my opinion hasnt changed even tho i like to buy cards from both team red and green! im using a 750ti for my windows xp rig and i never had any problems with it. i found a zotac one on the cheap for 35€ shipped on ebay. maybe its a bit overkill for xp gaming but it has a vga port and i still use my old 1024x768 monitor
Nice! No such thing as overkill :) You can just crank up AF and AA for an even nicer picture.
All depends on the CPU and the games.
For my XP machine I went with an R7 250X (basically a HD 7770) for the longest time. No issues, no trouble. And the nvidia card I put in later detects the DVI monitor as a TV.
I started with an ATI Rage 128 Ultra 32MB and it was solid for late 90s and a smattering of early 00s games. It lasted for years before I upgraded to an Albatron NVidia GeForce FX5200 LP 128MB about six years back when I first attempted a retro upgrade of my old PC. It was nothing special and Nvidia’s own drivers were completely useless. The best thing about it was displaying aero graphics in Windows 7. Just last week I pulled out the old ATI card and put it back in. It’s in temporarily before I buy an 9600XT.
Hi Phil
A bit off topic, but could you have a look at the Geforce 750ti I have been eyeballing it as the ultimate XP card, its power effecient and doesn't need a 6 pin power adapter on some models, and generally it's the same price as a Geforce 1030 :)
I'm waiting a bit for the priced to come down. The word hasn't spread that a new GT 1030 is just as fast :D
PhilsComputerLab Awesome :) Locally I missed out twice on some good ones , one was new in box even, will keep an eye open in the hopes that one appears :)
Are in your area also these fake ones available? Ozi did a video on it, I also bought one, but not sure if I will do a video :)
PhilsComputerLab Luckily I haven't spotted any fake ones yet, these were all brand names like MSI :)
For power efficiency it would be quite nice.
For maximum overkill under XP it would be a 780 Ti, maybe paired with an i7-2700K
Yeah, my old 950 GTX kept of scretching the screen and things with old games, it had the options in the driver though, but it never seemed to worked correctly. Then it seems they just drop the feature completely.
just grab a GTX780 Ti and be happy with your windows XP "retro" gaming experience D; even if THAT card is FULLY CAPABLE of playing modern games on pretty high setting in 1080p and more than 30fps lol
I really like the GTX 750 Ti for XP gaming, it has a nice balance of performance and low power consumption. It's basically inaudible as well.
@@philscomputerlab i see your argument. because the GTX 780Ti or the R9 290X need a 700Watts powersupply its maybe nicer to go with a 760 or 750Ti :3
DVI can output 70Hz; any change to that is part of the card's output design/scaling configuration, how it adapts to your monitor. You can probably get a custom EDID solution to essentially request the specific display mode you want the NVIDIA DVI to lock onto (integer-ratio scaled or source native rez and refresh rate); I think some capture cards have this capability, and there must be other external devices, too.
I have a Mac Voodoo5 (flashed for PC) I like a lot, which works like VGA and scales nothing.
With DVI every manufacturer seems to do things a bit differently. Yes DVI can do more than 60 of course, I've overclocked my monitor refresh rate quite a few times :) But when you connect a DVI monitor to a GeForce and run DOS, it will run at 60 Hz, giving you stutter in scrolling and throwing off the speed in some games. Lotus III is a good example, the music will run a lot slower :)
Yeah, it's a real issue, with two sides to it. NVIDIA's idea is to make sure their signal works 100% with whatever you plug into it, which indeed compromises image quality at non-integer scaling ratios and screws with refresh rates & aspect boxing. There are situations where it's preferable and those where it seriously messes with your fidelity.
External control over the output mode with a custom EDID could be really great, if the cards properly follow the default mode.
Ｉ ｗａｎｔ ＡＴＩ ｂａｃｋ ！！
They should outsource RTG again, rename it to ATI, and launch the Radeon X2000 series! Which will crush the GTX 1180Ti :)
I just bought a ATI Mach 64 GT card at eBay the first ATI Rage card which was their first 3D graphics accelerator card back in early 1996 that's missing the Z buffer.
A very interesting card, very nice!
I also got a Sierra Screamin 3D card (Rendition Verite V1000E) completely new in the shrink wrapped box for only $5 USD and $18 USD shipping.
It was a steal and a choice vintage computer collectors item.
I could probably sell it back on eBayfor $250 USD but I am going to keep it unopened
I changed from AMD HD 7970 to a GTX 780 Ti. My monitor has a original aspect ratio setting. I should say 50" LG 4k T.V. It also support fullrange RGB signal. I found that the Nvidea card was also supporting OpenGl in old games like Midtown Madness. Any other game gets hundreds of FPS when used with my I7-3770 ang 1600MHz RAM. I can crank settings to Ultra/High settings. The NVidia 386 bit bus and 3GB of GDDR5 VRAM on the card. Probably exceeds anything XP can run. Useing 368.81 driver. Still available on Nvidea web sight. It's kind of XP on steroids.GTX 790 Ti is the last officially supported GPU. Good system for anyone who dares to be more advanced with XP. I was after DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, XP directx 9c gaming. Fits the bill.
I've always noticed that borders in dos window. I thought that it is a DVI feauters. Didn't know that AMD did it more efficiently
Hi Phil, I have a Geforce 4 and a Geforce 7 so hopefully there won't be any issues. I have a 144Hz monitor. Great channel 👍👍 I'm thinking of trying Windows 2000 SP4 👍👍
I have that same amd card in the beginning on the left, the 1900xt but for my retro build I upgraded to a hd2600 GT(which is a rarer card) cause it has unified shader architecture and is compatible with more games as looking cooler with a transparent red cooler that covers the entire card with silver flames running up the cooler
another issue with using nvidia cards for older titles is physX. it's not really back compat. playing games from the early 2000's on pc will crash if they have any sort of physX support. you have to track down old versions of physx and install them to even get some of the games to run. and there's some times a lack of comparability between old versions of physX. huge hassle. there's also the matter of linux support.
That's a good point!
PhilsComputerLab what GPU do you think is the strongest and most efficient for a W98se machine?
i think you mean ATI not AMD, ATI is a CANADIAN company, and AMD had literally nothing to do with their startup + initial success in the 1990s
Genuinely interesting. I haven't seen much officially showing these differences but I had a "feeling" DOS support wasn't quite what it should be with Geforce.
Same thought. Why running pure DOS under such a card. Any reasonable CPU would be way to fast anyway.
I don't make much about being "period correct", but compatability is my issue. So 3 retro systems would be enough for me. One for XP games, one for 98 SE, and one for even older, speed sensitive games.
No real reason to run anything newer than 15-20 years under pure DOS.
Far as Windows XP/DOS goes I've almost always been an AMD fan except the time years back when the original Crysis was still a thing, and I Got a pair of EVGA Nvidia 9500GT 1Gb cards for SLI at a good price, and I'm going to throw this in as up till recently I've always had issues running AMD/ATI cards under various Linux distros due to the drivers being a pain to install, so if I was building a Linux system for myself, or someone else on a budget I would try to find some decent Nvidia based cards for a good price, throw Linux Mint Mate or XFCE on the machine with the included drivers, and it was off to the races for a basic machine.
Excellent Review. I like to repurpose olf HP AMD Towers as Batocera machines for friends kiddos as well as my own
Hey Phil, I've been watching your videos for quite a while and it's nice to see life breathed into old hardware. I have a retro gaming PC project that I started about a year ago and I never really got to finishing it. I was wondering how I'd go about donating to the channel so it doesn't go to waste. It's an AMD based system in an i-tx fashion with wireless capability. Is there a way I can I contact you as to give you full specs and etc?
That sounds awesome! Under "about" there should be a way for you to message me. Or just use philscomputerlab at gmail dot com
Is that XFX 7800 on the right in the opening? I remember having my first well paid job and I decided to treat myself to the best videocard that just came out. Paid $700 for that baby, which lasted me for many years. With the kind of temperatures I was getting, I'm surprised it hasn't melted. I still have it and it still runs just fine. Perfect for original Farcry and the like.
That's a 7770 GHz Edition :)
Looks like a XFX 7800 GT on the right and an ATI Radeon X1800XL on the left.
nvidia was smart, they always kept it simple when updating drivers..why does ati make it complicated???
Nfs underground 2 i played that game to this day
here were I live finding radeon cards is really really hard, I do have a radeon 9250 that I used to play halo with... man I like that card. The drivers though, they were a pain.
Displayport to VGA is something to try. I don't think, out of the video output options that exist today on video cards, that DP will go away any time soon. I was die hard nvidia from Riva 128 till series 9, then switched to AMD when the 3850 hit the market and stayed until this past year when I put in gtx980 and 1050ti cards into my systems. Still use AMD R275 at work though. Now days, I like ATI cards for vintage machines over the nvidia options. As far as modem GPU's go, my personal rule of thumb is, stay era correct for the build. Playing with modern hardware for older games is interesting but problematic.
I tested several PCIe cards the last weeks under DOS (no high ends, 10-20 yrs old ones) and the Radeons always performed better in legacy Text/VGA/VESA modes. However, the NVIDIAs are more compatible on PCIe versions and boards. For example i choose the fastest AMD i found, the FirePro V4800 (its faster in DOS than the V4900), just to find out that it doesn't work in my target board at all. So for testing, NVIDIA is better, but if a AMD runs on your desired board, it should be preferred for legacy use.
DVI output is so good on Radeon graphics cards. Recently I used Radeon X1600 Pro, and text in BIOS looked so sharp, better than NVIDIA. For DOS I might use Radeon X1600 Pro, I like the pixelated look of image.
But not all Radeon graphics cards have such good DVI port. I didn't got satisfaction from Radeon RX 590 and HD4670.
Yes you are right. I once out a Lowe profile Radeon into a DELL Optiplex and with DP to HDMI at 4K the BIOS screen and Windows installation screen was beautiful sharp and clear.
@@philscomputerlab I did some testing with AMD/ATI Radeon cards, what I have, and Radeon X1600 Pro gives the best and sharpest DVI output. Tested on Dell 17" 1280x1024 monitor. 640x480 looks god on DVI output and my 17" Dell monitor from 2007. I have 3 pieces of Gigabyte Radeon X1600 Pro 🤩. I might do some Crosfire testing with these cards on Gigabyte GA-X58-UD3R LGA 1366 motherboard, that support SLI and Crosfire.
amd better performance at lower cost, simple😃
@PhilsComputerLab would you prepared to try your Geforce FX 5500 PCI card, to see if any of these issues are present? This being a go-to still available solution to PCI only systems this would be of interest to me.
I believe that card goes full speed, and doesn't put he black border around, but the image is also soft and not as sharp as ATI. Yea I got to do another video with that FX card again, maybe with a VIA Socket 7 board or something like that.
A VIA MVP3 / 4 or even an Apollo Pro Socket 370 board something like that could be very interesting. Thanks for your response!
You've broadened the scope of "DOS gaming" in your videos by and large, Phil. It can mean anything between 1982-201x, taken how you talk about hardware. I wouldn't myself waste any of these GPUs on DOS games. 3Dfx Voodoo 4/5 and nVidia TNT2 are maybe the newest ones for that, but that too is still overkill. Matrox and ATI are solid DOS choices, not these. :)
Let's not have that get in the way of a fun video :D
I have the TNT 2 Pro:) I like this card:)
it always came down to $$$$$ when i purchased a vid card and for a long time stuck AMD/ATI but last year i broke out and bought the 1070...i didnt even consider anything from AMD at the time to compare it to....anyway...love the vid Phil as always
How important is physx when it comes to xp gaming in your opinion?
AMD FineWine 😉
Good video!
What's the music that plays in the end btw?
I switched to a laptop. with high end laptops using MXM video cards like the 980, 107 and 1080. the laptops has all the ports like VGA and HDMI, so no matter what video card you get you keep the ports. the 1070 and 1080 laptops cards are the same performance as the desktop versions. I am using a trinitron FW900 on my 980 mobile, soon to upgrade to a 1070 or 1080
AMD unlocked multiplier love that my processor has future expandability with a clock adjustment and proper cooling you could potentially increase longevity out of your products by underclocking but that's debatable and speculative. Thanks Mr. Phil. AMD Now 2018 it wasn't until Nvidia gave up product support for there 8 cuda core card's did I stop buying Nvidia products.
Interesting thing about limited RGB, under many circumstances Nvidia still default to that (HDMI) and it can be seen in benchmarking videos when the person benchmarking fails to change it to a full spectrum format and I'm talking modern high performance cards. AMD have a reputation for better visual quality out of the box and it is something reviewers fail to check these days and while neither default to full RGB over HDMI, AMD at least defaults to Y,Cb,Cr 444 format which is very close to full RGB. It's fairly easy to change the formats in the drivers these days but it's most noticeable when changing from limited RGB to full than from YCbCr to full RGB. I do believe these defaults are for compatibility reasons, but AMD's solution won't give you that washed out look.
This may be why you don't get that full RGB option with older cards/drivers, it would create more headaches for Nvidia than allowing it would solve (i.e. complaints of washed out colours vs not working on some monitors/TV's) or they just cannot be bothered as old cards/drivers don't make them money.
I kinda understand their thinking. With HDMI, a good guess is that you plugged it into a TV, so limited RGB will match nicely. Maybe the HDMI standard could do with some sort of auto detect feature? AMD has this quirk of applying underscan to the image, but in XP and 10 you have a slider to fix this. Their argument was that they wanted to make sure the user could see the start button. Still I feel that the RGB option is so important, that it really should be in the XP driver.
_"Maybe the HDMI standard could do with some sort of auto detect feature?"_
You cannot autodetect a dumb device that doesn't know what it is, therein lies the problem with backwards compatibility with old devices. I've run into the underscan issue on my current tv/monitor, but that was with windows 8.1 and easily fixed in AMD catalyst, doesn't occur in win 10.
If you don't have full RGB with the Nvidia drivers does it have the Y,Cr,Cb 444 setting which is pretty close and does cover the full range.
Nope, there is no option you can change at all under XP.
I was not aware of these issues, but it might be useful to know for the future.
it's a soft that allow you to chose what resolution you want for nfs (and i think works with others too) i would loved to see if any of those cards to well in 1080p old games
Phil, you mentioned in one of your videos, that Nvidia cards are stronger in opengl. May I ask what you meant by that exactly?
The reason I'm asking is because I've got HD77xx cards in my XP builds and am having issues with opengl. They support v4.5 on paper but I get errors (like the driver wasn't there) in all of the stuff that require v3.0+ - which work perfectly on my GeForce cards.
ATI / AMD have a long history of OpenGL issues. Both in performance and compatibility. So if you are doing a lot of OpenGL, best to use Nvidia.
@@philscomputerlab Thanks very much for the swift reply. I wasn't aware of this (always used Nvidia in the past) but definitely good to know.
I will say one thing.
The fucking GPU drivers for Nvidia cards back in the windows 98 era were AWFUL
One of the biggest downside with Ati/Amd graphic cards, starting with the HD2000-series, and Intel HD Graphic is, that it has connection problems with some older full screen TFT (like the HP LP2065 that i have in use), if you are using the DVI output of the card or the HDMI via an HDMI to DVI cable. It only works on the VGA output or if i use an HDMI Splitter or Switcher, that disables the HDCP. With Nvidia cards, even with the 1000-series, i dont have this kind of problem.
There was even a list of affected monitors on the amd forum, but the thread no longers exists there, but thankfully it was c&p to other forums: www.computerbase.de/forum/showthread.php?t=573050&p=5879826#post5879826
Good to know. Personally I've been capturing DVI from the first Radeon cards onward without issues, but I'm sure there are compatibility issues with some monitors.
Phil. How about doing a few guides on how to get those hard to run games going? Titles such as Mechwarrior 2 for instance is really difficult to run on modern machines and most of the time will not work at all. Mechwarrior 3 on the other hand will often run but with bugs such as a compatibility issue with Radeon GPU's that has APC's and tanks jumping up and down like grasshoppers with their butts on fire. Other examples include Star Trek: Starfleet Command. There are also DOS titles such as Ultima 8 that required a lot of fiddling with Autoexec.bat and Config.sys lines to get working correctly.
I did Tweak Guides in the past, in short, nobody watches them and the information is already well documented on sites like PC Gaming WIKI. Plus you just end up being everyones tech support.
One more question though is, does FreeSync or G-Sync work in XP? They require GCN 2 and Kepler (650 Ti Boost and up) to work respectively. Google search shows up a few strange G-Sync results but nothing for FreeSync
So similar to more recent times: AMD keeps support for longer.
But then, for an older platform using older hardware can give better results.
I remember seeing a benchmark where a Geforce 7800 GS was faster than a Radeon HD 7870.
Oh btw. Phil, do you want results for your DOS benchmark database?
Very nice vid , 600 th like
For retro gaming I just use retro hardware, my desktop has a 1080Ti on it. I'm trying to get a 8600 Sli setup working on an AMD x2 system.
I can't say my opinion has changed much, mostly because any PC I'd build or want to assemble would be overkill for DOS in any case. However, as far as PC gaming is concerned, there are two *must run* titles in my opinion, with absolutely zero ambiguity - the two KotOR games. The Steam update for KOTOR 2 greatly simplifies things, but until the first one gets the same treatment, it too must be able to work correctly. And for the years that it was known as ATI, Radeon cards absolutely hated both games. I spent more time troubleshooting, hand-editing files, extracting files from three or four (or more!) driver revisions, and more, just to get each game to work. Meanwhile, the most I've ever needed to do with an NVIDIA card was one updated dll and running a utility called "flawless widescreen" and I could run the original KOTOR in 4K.
There is also the episode in my past where Doom 3 officially launched and it killed my 9800 Pro, leading to a series of six RMA's in less than two years, because each successive replacement was worse or had more problems than the last one. So my experiences with the Radeon brand have been far from pleasant.
There are always specific games that can cause issues. It's like with DOS when people look at a list of games that they might never play, yet people need something to make a decision.
Considering I have been refurbishing a PC using an A8V Deluxe and have been in BSOD loops because of the ATI Radeon card I'm trying to use with it? "The fun never ends", it seems. >:(
One question i have in mind is: What is exactly the latest GPU generation you can use for pure DOS gaming on a DOS machine without flaws? I heard all the time for Nvidia it is the GeForce 3 series, because there would be no VESA (VBE 2/3) compatibility in the graphics cards BIOSes on cards with GeForce 4 and newer. But reading the updated list here gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/ shows VBE3 compatibility of GeForce 4, GF FX5200 and GF 6800GS.
I thinks the question is really interesting, because there is a chance to find cards with these GPUs with DVI output instead of the VGA common on earlier cards. And DVI should have some advantages related to image quality, the possibility to capture the image easily and to connect such a DOS system to todays monitors. And especially GF4 cards, often passive cooled, are still widely available for just a few bucks.
It's like this, most DOS games will run on any GPU. It's just that people like to look at lists of games that don't work. So there are some special cases, using custom resolutions, or weird scrolling tricks. But if you want to play Monkey Island or Doom, pretty much any graphics card will work :)
first off, love your videos.
as far as reason #1 goes, there is a 3rd option. i created a word document for myself quite a while ago to remind myself how to get aspect ratio correct gpu scaling for 4:3 games on my 1080p monitor when using DVI.
now im not sure if i found this out myself or if i read it somewhere when i ran into this issue the first time. here is a copy/paste of the file. hope this helps someone enjoy those old games in the correct AR!
***USE THIS IF MONITOR IS CONSIDERED AN HDTV INSTEAD OF A MONITOR***
IF SCALING OPTIONS ARE MISSING IN NVIDIA CONTROL PANEL USE THIS WORKAROUND (WOULD NEED TO DO EACH AND EVERY VIDEO DRIVER UPDATE)
Well I've found a work around for now which doesn't include tinkering with registry entries in the inf file:
1. Use NVIDIA Control Panel to switch to a non-HD "PC" Resolution (ex. 1280x1024)
2. The Flat Panel Scaling options become available. Use them to disable scaling.
3. Use standard Display Properties to change to 1920x1080x32 (since the custom resolution stops being visible in NVIDIA Control Panel after steps 1&2 for some reason)
The scaling option selected is kept after resolution change.
As the missing scaling options were my biggest concern regarding the "HDTV classification", this should be enough for now.
Online I saw posts about a "Treat this custom resolution as HD" option.... Too bad they must have taken it out of the drivers at some point....
This doesn't work, maybe it worked with older cards and / or older drivers than I sued. There was also a way to toggle the scaling mode through command line, this also doesn't work with the latest drivers.
im using a gtx 480 (2010) with 347.25 drivers (early 2015) on windows xp 32 bit.
My 1080p LG 22EA53 monitor supports aspect ratio "correction" even when using a digital signal (DVI-D or HDMI).
As for number #2, if you are using the HDMI output on you graphics card then use a DVI-D adapter to connect it to the monitor (the other way around won't work) or just a direct DVI-D connection as you suggested.
As for #5, I had the same issue a few years ago on my modern PC before UEFI "drivers" where released for the graphics card I was using. I still get the same issue when the CSM is turned on.
Anyway, the best AGP card I have is a Sapphire Radeon HD 3650 and it overheats quite easily, especially when using Linux with the open source drivers (fglrx was deprecated in mid-2012, if I recall correctly). Basically I have to mod it like a Voodoo, otherwise it may not work reliably no matter what I'm doing. That's what made me choose NVIDIA for my modern PC, though that Radeon HD card should probably be fine for older games. I prefer using a modern PC with DOSBOX-X, source ports, Wine or Windows 10 for older games, to be honest, but I do enjoy playing with old hardware 😜
Awesome, great tips! I know that the Benq gaming monitors have fantastic scaling options. But they cost quite a bit more.
PhilsComputerLab Well, my monitor was only €149 when I bought it a few years ago. I don't think it supports lower resolutions through DVI-D or HDMI (the GPU should do the scaling automatically if you're using one of them) but it does support them through D-SUB/VGA, although DOS mode 13h looks stretched due the fact that most DOS games assume an aspect ratio of 4:3 in 13h mode. Maybe the H/V size and position can be adjusted manually but I'm not sure and I can't check right now.
(Edit: Wide/Original for DVI-D/HDMI, H/V for D-SUB)
Huh? Getting fullscreen under DOS on a 750Ti myself. You know what, i think you've got a specific issue: i think the NVidia GPU thinks your specific monitor is not at all a monitor a but a TV set, from the HDMI EDID. This would enable both the border, to deal with overscan that most TVs have, and the limited colour range. Perhaps both issues would go away on another display. Hey, do you want to learn EDID hacking? Perhaps i can help. You don't even need to modify the monitor, we can do a piggyback EDID in a cable or adapter.
Apart from the full / limited RGB issue, everything was captured with DVI. For HDMI I used a different capture device that has HDMI. Talking about EDID, I have this EDIT emulator gadget from StarTech, it lets you lock in a set resolution, but that's about it.
So besides some minor missing functions (such as some obsolete fog effects), ATI cards are overall better than Nvidia at retro gaming, right?
I wasnt aware of this at all, nice to know.
Does UEFI FreeDOS have the same slow benchmarks with NVIDIA cards?
I have a feeling NVIDIA’s UEFI OptionROM driver might do well comparatively with their hacked in dos support.
4:45 how to solve this problem? I am using 4:3 monitor, but when I watch your video at 6:43, I see also only small display screen with black area surrounded, funny thing is, it is 4:3, and my monitor is also 4:3, so it would need to be only stretched to full screen. This is how I am using 30% smaller monitor. Is problem in playback youtube? Or where is problem? How to solve it, to have it scaled full screen, when it is 4:3, and my monitor is also 4:3.
So in general the dos image quality and scaling issue is fixed by using VGA not DVI. I take it then nvidia equals the image quality of AMD.
the reason behind it is that a lot of nvidia power comes from drivers (optimized for modern games), when AMD relies more on raw power
I use a Geforce 5900XT with my Xp machine. I use a 17" crt with it so I dont have the aspect issues. Runs great too. Paired with a P4 3Ghz/533.
After one of Nvidia's early detonator drivers, some games get really bad graphical glitches and artifacts. Its why I run my Diamond Viper V550 with the last drivers from Diamond as opposed to any past Detonator 7. Either that or simply use the newer drivers on it or my overclocked TNT2 Vanta, and play games which have problems off my Voodoo2 SLI (which is also able to run DirectX 8.1 games such as BF1942 well).
Apparently some people also have problems with graphical glitches with Intel HD graphics as well (not sure about Intel GMA), and I haven't heard of Ati/AMD cards having the same problem at all.
Yea driver bugs with certain games, I believe both cards can be affected
TEAM RED !!!! lol, im a full AMD fanboy no matter i love a lot of their architecture, also there gpu styles, GREAT COVERAGE PHIL !! love the content as always buddy, And did you say Nvideon ? lol sounded like radeon and nvidia mixed LOL, Although on my retro build with an Athlon 64 X 2 full 4gb ram, I wish i had a capable ATI gpu :/ but i had 2 older Nvidia gpus a poopy 8400GS and a 9400gt verto im used the verto 9400gt in the build its not to bad, my buddy i let borrow my r7 350... I DID online see one of those brands that you had of an R7 it was the Yeston r7350 4gb gpu for 80$ online, which might be pretty good for retro idk im skeptic lol
Yea Yeston are pretty big in Asia.
GonZo lol you love their architecture? My choice was 750ti vs the slightly cheaper R7 260x. I paid more for the novidia since it was 115w vs 60w and the 750ti gets better fps always. That's just one example of amds amazing architecture. Double the tdp and less performance lol
No seriously i love am all lol, I'm an avid collector of all AMD hardware, From K5's Athlons, Bobcats, Pumas, K8 Hammer, Bulldozers lol, and sharp tooths lol and Obviously Zen cpus lol, my favorites are in the Steamroller Family 3rd generation, and the Jaguar Family i love AMD Cpus die names, and there stability in the hands of someone who knows what there doing is great, i mean i do like intel ish.. but egh AMD all the way buddy
i actually have a build that i use still daily with a AMD 9590 in a sabertooth 2.0 board, with 2 R9 280x in crossfire just because lol i used this as my main up till 3 months ago when i upgraded to Ryzen 7
GonZo OK if we're going with cpus now, I had an Athlon in Intels dark days, but if you seriously think the fx series and jaguar was a good architecture you're not too bright.
Ati is also superior in 9x, with better 16bit color and free af. They also made the best dx9 cards in general. Ati was superior both in graphics and general purpose use.
I'm working on a video about the Radeon 9000. I tried 16x AF, and even on this old card, it had minimal impact. It's something I haven't looked into much.
ATI had some really cool tech. I owned a R9000 back in the day with an Athlon XP 1700 (awesome overclocker) with win2k. My first budget gaming build that played everything at half the price of Nv/Intel/Rambus/XP. The only caveat with the 9000 is that AF disables trilinear, and it cuts out some hardware of the 8500, but for most purposes it worked well. The wonky and uneven AF patterning made it undiscernible in most games, like it was intended to hide that limitation. The video playback quality was also tremendous, and MMC 7.1 hid divx artifacting and upsampled low resolution videos. The 9000 was good enough to play UT2004 at playable framerates, same with the OC'd XP 1700. Some of my other hardware was a XP-M + NF2, 9800, X800, then 64X2 with a 1900X on XP-64, the best version of XP for gaming in dx9 with a X-Fi, especially with games like SupCom that ate more ram than XP32 allowed. FWIW, SM 3.0 was overrated on the 6800, and the x800 could run "hdr" in 2.0. Some games like Oblivion and Bioshock had replacement shader mods that backported the 3.0 features into 2.0b with more playable fps than the 6800. 2.0b had similar functionality to 3, but only if optimized for, which probably happened more in the modding community.
I think its wierd when people say Radeon Cards has and always have had bad drivers, ITS just PURE bullshit. Twice in the history of Radeon they had bad drivers first one was with 2900xt car and the second time was the 7970 launch, in the case of the 7970 it became one of the best cards ever with Drivers that kept on Giving all the time. the cards lasted High/ultra settings until 2017 when PUBG came out but only due to PUBG being a terribly optimized game.
AMDs drivers are good, they are getting every last drop of performance out of their hardware. Its AMDs graphics cards that are shit. However AMD has now officially removed support for DX9, meaning older titles wont work with any driver past the Crimson series. AMD have stated that they will not "waste" any resources into older titles. So much for this video eh?
Very good video Phil and I tend to agree 100%. For me, I just use old drivers. If the driver is stable and there's nothing compelling about upgrading them, then why this need to upgrade? Especially with a machine that will not see Internet. There's a compelling argument that goes newer is better, but I don't believe that's so. My Note 4 is an awesome phone but Android 6.0.1 is plagued with issues on that phone, especially with the GPS. In many ways that upgrade is like a downgrade since android 4.4 just works better.
Yea going period correct is the best way. I do like to explore other options though, it's just a lot of fun.
+PhilsComputerLab agreed. Over all I like ATI radeon far better but for a little bit different reasons. Nvidia often tends to be a bit faster, true. But AMD does open software better. If you've got a classic system running a early Linux build, your probably better off with a slower ATI then a faster Nvidia cars because driver support is garbage at best.
amd had shit opengl drivers for epsxe emulation a while ago like around in 2006 using pete ogl2 drivers, but amd finally fixed it. and yes, for an xp machine or win98,amd works great, 32bit performance is awesome and everything runs great in cards like x800pro for shader 2.0 games before dx9c (nvidia 6800)
he sounds like he never tried Zotac gtx 1080 Ti
The NV drivers for XP are annoying. Even with a monitor that supports aspect ratio, the existing 4:3 resolutions are set up so that they'll be stretched.
In my experience we can get around this by creating a proper (native) 4:3 resolution, e.g. 1440x1080 for a 1920x1080 screen. If that works we create the rest using the same timing*, so that the GPU scales the image to native. For 1920x1080 (current res) that would be Active pixels: 1440 1080 and Total pixels: 1584 1188 (+10%).
*Switch to the native 4:3 resolution, in the editor switch the timing to manual before (only) typing in the new resolutions at the top.
As tedious as it is, luckily there won't be any more driver updates.
There is another way, you can use a hardware device called an EDID emulator. You put it between the monitor and the video card, and it sets the resolution. Not a cheap gadget, but affordable. Older XP drivers also support command line options, but I haven't used those in years, might be worth looking into that again. But that trick stopped with the newer drivers.
Yea my gtx980ti will still beat anything on retro gaming.
I agree that the AMD cards are better for DOS and Windows XP gaming, but for applications running in a Windows XP environment such as iStripper and some bench marking tools like GpuCapsViewer , there is a lot of stutter and tearing with my R7 240. I tried all kinds of settings to make this smoother but nothing helped. TH-cam video also did not play smooth. The games i tested ran smooth but nothing else. The onboard intel video on my HP 8100 Elite ran the above mentioned programs smoother.
Boom Box I stripper is a nude program really nigga
As you've mention, both AMD and NVIDIA have their pros and cons, but over the years, and to this day, i've always favored nvidia due the better driver support, back then, ATI drivers for their video cards were very iffy for some odd reason, and that pretty much did it for me... even though i still own, 9600xt(2)/8500(1)/9800pro(1) and a 3850(1), all being AGP 4x/8x cards.
I always knew this to be the fix for full range RGB, but I don't know if it works for Windows XP: forums.guru3d.com/threads/tip-for-nvidia-users-using-hdmi-and-getting-accurate-color-format.371214/
Is SimCity 4 a retrogame? I love your channel and your accent!
I'm not sure, everyone sees retro as something different :)
Nvidia is not sharper under Dos when using a VGA connection. When I got my GTS 450 I thought there was something wrong with it at first because it was extremely blurry. Only after I installed the drivers did it sharpen up, although it was still less sharp than my old X1950 Pro.
I don't know if this is still true but another difference I've experienced under XP is that if you try to use the Nvidia control panel to adjust the gamma you'll get color banding whereas you don't on AMD cards. This is using the VGA connection.
There are no drivers for DOS, maybe you're mixing something up? You should get an "odd" resolution mode displayed on the monitor, I believe it's 720x400 at 70 Hz or something like that, and it should be sharper compared to DVI.
I meant the Windows drivers. I can take a picture of what it looks like in Dos compared to a Geforce4 if you want. Both are hooked to the same monitor.
I think I know what's going on. My GTS 450 goes into whatever the default resolution of the monitor is(in this case 1600x1200) and then stretches the image to fill the screen. If I don't turn on the monitor until after the video card has initialized then it will display the standard dos resolution the same as my older cards do.
Hmm very interesting, I don't think I've experienced this. It could depend on the monitor maybe.
What about building a retro P4 EE machine? Would you go for 6800GT AGP or the beast@ HD3850 Turbo AGP? Does the drivers of ATI Support as many as games as NVIDIA?
I've only use a 6800 / 7800 with the P4 EE. That Radeon is really expensive. Personally, I would go with PCIe, the boards might cost a bit more, but the GPUs will be cheap.
i have both cards so no cost problem
Then I would just try them out yourself and see how you go!
Also Radeon cards support FreeSync for modern games (2010+) and a new Radeon Adrenalin Software
So in that case is it a bad idea to run DOS with a Nvidia Titan V?