I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card. How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ? Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 18:11, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
I have 2 PC's with a FX 5500 and a FX5600, same card different clock speeds. Work perfectly under SUSE 10 and 10.1 Matthew
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
I have 2 PC's with a FX 5500 and a FX5600, same card different clock speeds.
Work perfectly under SUSE 10 and 10.1
I'll second that - I've had one of those cards for ages (since they first came out). With the base install it's always correctly IDed and works fine with the default nv drivers. If you install the nVidia binaries you get fairly decent OpenGL support as well... all the Linux OpenGL games work great.. as do the OpenGL screen savers :-) C.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:11:00 -0700 (PDT) BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
I can't say how well it would compare to your ATI, but I have a FX5200 card and Suse 10.0 and they work well together. Never had a problem with it.
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200? I installed one about three weeks ago. No problems, SUE 10.0 saw it fine.I
On Tue October 17 2006 10:11, BRUCE STANLEY wrote: then used YaST to install the Nvidia driver. All works fine including 3d. Even did a kernel update without having to reinstall drivers. -- Russ
BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
Worked for me on SuSE 10.0 and 10.1 without problems to the full of its capabilities. I even played Quake4 on 10.0. Rui
On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger. Matthias -- MDo you know if the FX 6200 will run on earlier Kernals such as Centos 4.1? I need to be able to use both Suse 10.0 and Centos on the same box (can run multilpe OS version via removbale
On Oct 18, 06 14:12:50 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
MDo you know if the FX 6200 will run on earlier Kernals such as Centos 4.1?
I need to be able to use both Suse 10.0 and Centos on the same box (can run multilpe OS version via removbale
I have no idea what kernel Centos 4.1 uses. As long as it is a 2.6, probably yes. You can try by plugging in any NVidia card (from a friend or so) and checking whether the current driver from NVidia works. If it does, yes it will. BTW - never *ever* put your reply after the signature limiter (--<space>) - I almost didn't notice your mail at all as it all seemed to be a signature. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 11:14, Matthias Hopf wrote:
On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger.
Matthias =============
Here is the additional info I have for the nVidia cards. I don't see that replacing a good 9250 ATI card with a 5200 would be a good move, but it's your money, so choose what pleases you. ============ Here is a excerpt from a lug list I am on. A little long but very informational about nvidia. The guy that wrote is a pretty good hardware guy. Helped me to decide. Maybe it will help you. --------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah. In a nutshell, here's the deal. #1: nVidia Generation comparison (this is mega-oversimplified): NV2x (GeForce 3 and 4"Ti" series): Old best bang for the buck NV3x (GeForce "FX" 5000 series): Not so good bang for the buck NV4x (GeForce 6000 series): New best bang for the buck Pure "performance-wise," there is not much difference between the NV2x and NV3x series. In fact, some of the cheaper NV3x series (GeForce 5200, 5500 and 5700LE) are typically _slower_ than most of the NV2x series (GeForce 4 Ti4200-4800). BTW, don't confuse the GeForce 4 "Ti" products (NV25) with the cheaper/more-common GeForce 4 "MX" (NV17). The latter is the _previous_ generation NV1x series (GeForce 1/2 core). The only thing the NV3x has is some extra capabilities that make it perform better at OpenGL (and DirectX 9) software, especially when you use Full Screen Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) which reduces the number of "jaggies" on the edges between objects. It basically takes a GeForce FX5700 ("true"/non-"LE") or FX5700Ultra to being to "equal" the GeForce 4 Ti4200-4800 at most titles, and even then it still loses on older DX apps without FSAA. The new NV4x series is best of both worlds, more performance at both older and newer features. #2: Here are the typical options you have for PCIe and AGP: PCIe (PCI-Express): $ 75-100 GeForce 6200 $125-150 GeForce 6600 $175-200 GeForce 6600GT $350-375 GeForce 6800 (aka 6800GE) $375-500 GeForce 6800GT $600-700 GeForce 6800Ultra [ NOTE: I _purposely_ left off the GeForce PCX 5000 series because they are not worth a dime if you have PCI-Express ] AGP: $ 50- 75 GeForce Ti4200/4800 $ 50- 75 GeForce FX5200 $ 75-100 GeForce FX5500 $ 75-125 GeForce FX5700LE $100-125 GeForce FX5600XT $125-200 GeForce FX5700 ("true"/non-"LE" _very_ hard to find!) $175-200 GeForce FX5700Ultra $175-250 GeForce 5900 $225-250 GeForce 6600GT $250-275 GeForce 6800LE $275-325 GeForce 6800 $325-400 GeForce 6800GT $300-600 GeForce 6800Ultra [ I won't list the GeForce 5900Ultra/5950 as they are $350+ and can't be the cheaper 6800 series for the same bang ] Looking at the list, you'll realize the following: A) On PCI-Express, the 6200/6600 are cheap, but the 6800 tends to be more expensive than its AGP equivalent. Long story short, the newer NV4x (43/45 6200/6600) is natively PCI-Express, while the older NV4x (40/41 6800) is natively AGP. A bridge chip is required for the older, but faster 6800 series. B) On AGP, it's the opposite. The 6600GT is more expensive because it requires a bridge to AGP, but the 6800 series is cheaper because it is native to AGP. In fact, the 6800LE is probably a better option than the 6600GT for $25 more. C) The "cheap" AGP solutions _suck_ because the NV3x is still "selling well" for nVidia -- especially the 5600XT (NV31) and 5200/5200 (NV34). These things can be _half_ the speed of the older GeForce Ti4200! nVidia won't introduce an AGP version of the 6200 or 6600, only the 6600GT (which is almost the cost of the 6800LE, so not worth it), because it competes with the 5200/5500/5600XT. So given these facts, here are some conclusions: 1. If you want a "solid AGP video card" for $50-75, the GeForce Ti4200 (Ti4200-8x or Ti4800 -- which isn't too much different) is still good. Aim for 128MB for a few bucks more. 2. _Avoid_ the GeForce FX5200, 5500 and even 5600XT, even if they have 256MB of RAM. They _suck_. In the "best case scenario," about the only place they can "match" the GeForce 4 Ti4200-4800 is in Doom3 with _all_ of the options _jacked_up_ (including Isotropic Filtering). But then you're running at 10fps, so it doesn't matter. ;-ppp 3. If you can find a "true" GeForce FX5700 for AGP for cheap (like $125), and not the overwhelming number of FX5700"LE" cards (which is 40% _slower_), then that will be near-equivalent in older titles to the Ti4200, but faster in more OpenGL or when you use FSAA. 4. If you really want a "higher-end" card, you've got two options: AGP: Start with the GeForce 6800LE or 6800 for $250-325 PCIe: Buy a new, "regular" nForce4 mainboard (due in January) for about $125, and then a GeForce 6200, 6600 or 6600GT for about $75-175 (your choice) The 6200-6600 are not quite a 6800, but they are _far_closer_ than a GeForce FX5700, and even the FX5900 series is not quite any 6000 series card. Bob S. ----------------------------------------------------- Prices have probably changed a lot from this review, but I think the guy's findings will hold up. Good info and I think should be considered before making a purchase. bye Lee
On Thursday 19 October 2006 04:49, BandiPat wrote:
Here is the additional info I have for the nVidia cards.
This was very educational. Say thanks to Bob S for me! -- Pob hwyl / Best wishes Kevin Donnelly www.kyfieithu.co.uk - KDE yn Gymraeg www.eurfa.org.uk - Geiriadur rhydd i'r Gymraeg www.rhedadur.org.uk - Rhedeg berfau Cymraeg www.cymrux.org.uk - Linux Cymraeg ar un CD
Kevin Donnelly <kevin@dotmon.com> wrote: On Thursday 19 October 2006 04:49, BandiPat wrote:
Here is the additional info I have for the nVidia cards.
This was very educational. Say thanks to Bob S for me! -- Pob hwyl / Best wishes Kevin Donnelly Thanks Kevin, that is very good information. I will not be doing too much 3D stuff with the system but it would be nice to get the OpenGL screen savers to work! ;-) It looks like the best over all bang for the buck for my AGP 4X system may be the Geforce 6200 series. They are now available for the AGP buss (CompUsa has some).
On Oct 18, 06 23:49:41 -0400, BandiPat wrote:
============ Here is a excerpt from a lug list I am on. A little long but very informational about nvidia. The guy that wrote is a pretty good hardware guy. Helped me to decide. Maybe it will help you. --------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah. In a nutshell, here's the deal.
#1: nVidia Generation comparison (this is mega-oversimplified):
NV2x (GeForce 3 and 4"Ti" series): Old best bang for the buck NV3x (GeForce "FX" 5000 series): Not so good bang for the buck NV4x (GeForce 6000 series): New best bang for the buck
100% ACK.
nVidia won't introduce an AGP version of the 6200 or 6600, only the 6600GT (which is almost the cost of the 6800LE, so not worth it), because it competes with the 5200/5500/5600XT.
Plain wrong nowadays. There are plenty of 6200 for AGP to buy. E.g. Asus N6200/TD for Euro 39.- (approx. US $49). Most are a bit more expensive ($60 or so).
1. If you want a "solid AGP video card" for $50-75, the GeForce Ti4200 (Ti4200-8x or Ti4800 -- which isn't too much different) is still good. Aim for 128MB for a few bucks more.
Wouldn't recommend. Get a 6200, in the future you'll need fragment programs, even for 2D (video acceleration). The NV2x (GeForce 4xxx) don't have fragment programs at all, the performance of NV3x (GeForce 5xxx) is *much* lower than that of NV4x. Do not buy a 6200 TurboCache. Repeat: Do *not* buy a 6200 TurboCache. That said, I think there is no 6200TC (TurboCache) for AGP.
Prices have probably changed a lot from this review, but I think the guy's findings will hold up. Good info and I think should be considered before making a purchase.
Except for that 6200 is available for AGP now. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
Aaaargh! On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:26 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
Wouldn't recommend. Get a 6200, in the future you'll need fragment programs, even for 2D (video acceleration). The NV2x (GeForce 4xxx) don't have fragment programs at all, the performance of NV3x (GeForce 5xxx) is *much* lower than that of NV4x.
Do not buy a 6200 TurboCache. Repeat: Do *not* buy a 6200 TurboCache. That said, I think there is no 6200TC (TurboCache) for AGP.
Prices have probably changed a lot from this review, but I think the guy's findings will hold up. Good info and I think should be considered before making a purchase.
Except for that 6200 is available for AGP now.
I've been reading this exchange with interest, because I wanted to replace my onboard graphics. So I bought a 6200 (XFX GEFORCE 6200 AGP 8X 256MB DDR2 - a.k.a. GF 6200 256MB DDR2 TV DVI VerF.4). Yesterday, I plugged it in. My motherboard (MSI K8M Neo-V) evidently noticed, because there was no video on the motherboard connector and there was video on the graphics card VGA connector. It all worked. There don't seem to be any BIOS settings I need to or can change. So I switched off, smiled and went to bed. Today, I thought I'd upgrade the video driver, which is exceptionally easy with SUSE, yes? I switched on, it noticed new hardware, asked me to confirm the nv driver, I said OK, everything still fine. So then I go into YOU and ask for the nvidia driver. It downloads and everything is fine up until it tries to use it! Then the screen goes dark. Not black but a dark marbled pattern through which text is just about visible. The screen is also obviously low-res. So I switch to a terminal (CTRL-ALT-1) and the screen is darker: unusable. I reboot and select 'failsafe'. Hah! It says: ... PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00) PCI: Via IRQ fixup and hangs! So much for failsafe. I reboot and let it default to normal. The boot sequence looks just like it always does until it starts X. Then it goes dark swirling patterns again. This time I can see the prompt in CTRL-ALT-1. I copy the original (non-nvidia, non-nv) xorg.conf back - lucky I saved it?! I reboot again. And here I am. The colours and brightness are normal. It's running in my normal 1280x1024 BUT what's visible on screen is not the whole desktop. What's visible appears to be 1150x1000. Has anybody seen this or have any idea what's wrong? It doesn't seem to be a hardware problem because the boot sequence works. It's at times like this that I despair of Linux, Dave
Dave Howorth wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:26 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
Wouldn't recommend. Get a 6200, in the future you'll need fragment programs, even for 2D (video acceleration).
I've been reading this exchange with interest, because I wanted to replace my onboard graphics. So I bought a 6200 (XFX GEFORCE 6200 AGP 8X 256MB DDR2 - a.k.a. GF 6200 256MB DDR2 TV DVI VerF.4).
Yesterday, I plugged it in. My motherboard (MSI K8M Neo-V) evidently noticed, because there was no video on the motherboard connector and there was video on the graphics card VGA connector. It all worked. There don't seem to be any BIOS settings I need to or can change. So I switched off, smiled and went to bed.
Today, I thought I'd upgrade the video driver, which is exceptionally easy with SUSE, yes? I switched on, it noticed new hardware, asked me to confirm the nv driver, I said OK, everything still fine. So then I go into YOU and ask for the nvidia driver. It downloads and everything is fine up until it tries to use it!
Then the screen goes dark. Not black but a dark marbled pattern through which text is just about visible. The screen is also obviously low-res. So I switch to a terminal (CTRL-ALT-1) and the screen is darker: unusable.
I reboot and select 'failsafe'. Hah! It says:
... PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00) PCI: Via IRQ fixup
and hangs! So much for failsafe.
I reboot and let it default to normal. The boot sequence looks just like it always does until it starts X. Then it goes dark swirling patterns again. This time I can see the prompt in CTRL-ALT-1. I copy the original (non-nvidia, non-nv) xorg.conf back - lucky I saved it?! I reboot again.
And here I am. The colours and brightness are normal. It's running in my normal 1280x1024 BUT what's visible on screen is not the whole desktop. What's visible appears to be 1150x1000.
Has anybody seen this or have any idea what's wrong? It doesn't seem to be a hardware problem because the boot sequence works.
I just noticed something else. Before installing the driver I went to <http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html> as instructed by Nvidia. On the SUSE page, I clicked on the SUSE LINUX 9.3-AMD64 link. It says: "It is recommended to use YOU (YaST Online Update) for (re)installation of the nvidia driver. There are several reasons for this. First, it's simple. Second, and this is the most important one, you won't need to recompile the nvidia kernel module after a kernel update. Inside YOU enable "Installable and Installed Patches" for "Show Patch Category" and select "Download NVIDIA(r) Graphics Driver" from the patches list (usually at the bottom of the list). Note, that you need to mark it as "Update" (right mouse click) if you already installed it before and the driver was uninstalled - for any reason. Proceed as usual now. After YOU has finished restart your Xserver (i.e. logout from your Xsession) and you're fine." I followed those instructions, but I've just noticed that at the top of the page there is a contradictory note, which says: "NOTE: The nvidia installer does not work as long as a Xserver is still running and the nvidia kernel module is still loaded. Therefore please boot into runlevel 3 by specifying "3" as kernel boot option or switch to runlevel 3 ("init 3") and unload the kernel module ("rmmod nvidia") before running the nvidia installer." So which is right? Should I be running YOU inside an Xsession as the specific instructions say, or should I be at runlevel 3 as the general note says? And if the latter, what is the recovery procedure to correct the results of having followed the instructions? Thanks, Dave
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 11:35 +0100, Dave Howorth wrote:
Dave Howorth wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:26 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
Wouldn't recommend. Get a 6200, in the future you'll need fragment programs, even for 2D (video acceleration).
I've been reading this exchange with interest, because I wanted to replace my onboard graphics. So I bought a 6200 (XFX GEFORCE 6200 AGP 8X 256MB DDR2 - a.k.a. GF 6200 256MB DDR2 TV DVI VerF.4).
Yesterday, I plugged it in. My motherboard (MSI K8M Neo-V) evidently noticed, because there was no video on the motherboard connector and there was video on the graphics card VGA connector. It all worked. There don't seem to be any BIOS settings I need to or can change. So I switched off, smiled and went to bed.
Today, I thought I'd upgrade the video driver, which is exceptionally easy with SUSE, yes? I switched on, it noticed new hardware, asked me to confirm the nv driver, I said OK, everything still fine. So then I go into YOU and ask for the nvidia driver. It downloads and everything is fine up until it tries to use it!
Then the screen goes dark. Not black but a dark marbled pattern through which text is just about visible. The screen is also obviously low-res. So I switch to a terminal (CTRL-ALT-1) and the screen is darker: unusable.
I reboot and select 'failsafe'. Hah! It says:
... PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00) PCI: Via IRQ fixup
and hangs! So much for failsafe.
I reboot and let it default to normal. The boot sequence looks just like it always does until it starts X. Then it goes dark swirling patterns again. This time I can see the prompt in CTRL-ALT-1. I copy the original (non-nvidia, non-nv) xorg.conf back - lucky I saved it?! I reboot again.
And here I am. The colours and brightness are normal. It's running in my normal 1280x1024 BUT what's visible on screen is not the whole desktop. What's visible appears to be 1150x1000.
Has anybody seen this or have any idea what's wrong? It doesn't seem to be a hardware problem because the boot sequence works.
I just noticed something else. Before installing the driver I went to <http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/nvidia-installer-HOWTO.html> as instructed by Nvidia. On the SUSE page, I clicked on the SUSE LINUX 9.3-AMD64 link. It says:
"It is recommended to use YOU (YaST Online Update) for (re)installation of the nvidia driver. There are several reasons for this. First, it's simple. Second, and this is the most important one, you won't need to recompile the nvidia kernel module after a kernel update.
Inside YOU enable "Installable and Installed Patches" for "Show Patch Category" and select "Download NVIDIA(r) Graphics Driver" from the patches list (usually at the bottom of the list). Note, that you need to mark it as "Update" (right mouse click) if you already installed it before and the driver was uninstalled - for any reason. Proceed as usual now. After YOU has finished restart your Xserver (i.e. logout from your Xsession) and you're fine."
I followed those instructions, but I've just noticed that at the top of the page there is a contradictory note, which says:
"NOTE: The nvidia installer does not work as long as a Xserver is still running and the nvidia kernel module is still loaded. Therefore please boot into runlevel 3 by specifying "3" as kernel boot option or switch to runlevel 3 ("init 3") and unload the kernel module ("rmmod nvidia") before running the nvidia installer."
So which is right? Should I be running YOU inside an Xsession as the specific instructions say, or should I be at runlevel 3 as the general note says? And if the latter, what is the recovery procedure to correct the results of having followed the instructions?
Thanks, Dave
I always do the run level 3 installation. Haven't had a failure on that for several years. After that, run sax2. Art
On Oct 19, 06 22:41:21 +0100, Dave Howorth wrote:
Today, I thought I'd upgrade the video driver, which is exceptionally easy with SUSE, yes? I switched on, it noticed new hardware, asked me to confirm the nv driver, I said OK, everything still fine. So then I go into YOU and ask for the nvidia driver. It downloads and everything is fine up until it tries to use it!
Then the screen goes dark. Not black but a dark marbled pattern through which text is just about visible. The screen is also obviously low-res. So I switch to a terminal (CTRL-ALT-1) and the screen is darker: unusable.
Hm. This sounds strange. I heard something similar before, but I assumed this fixed...
I reboot and select 'failsafe'. Hah! It says:
... PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00) PCI: Via IRQ fixup
and hangs! So much for failsafe.
Yes. It fails safe ;-) Seems like your machine doesn't like to be booted w/o ACPI. Strange, though.
I reboot and let it default to normal. The boot sequence looks just like it always does until it starts X. Then it goes dark swirling patterns again. This time I can see the prompt in CTRL-ALT-1. I copy the original (non-nvidia, non-nv) xorg.conf back - lucky I saved it?! I reboot again.
In any way, you can always boot into runlevel 3 (just enter '3' on the boot prompt before pressing enter), and no Xserver will be started.
And here I am. The colours and brightness are normal. It's running in my normal 1280x1024 BUT what's visible on screen is not the whole desktop. What's visible appears to be 1150x1000.
Ok, that's a different issue. For the binary driver especially important is the driver version (cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version). If this is older than 8xxx, you probably have to download a newer driver from NVidia and install it yourself. The only thing you absolutely need for that are the kernel sources (don't worry, you don't have to touch them) and gcc (which is probably already installed). I assume that we do not support the 6200 for SL9.3 ourself, as the hardware is pretty new, and 9.3 pretty old. That's why probably there hasn't been an updated driver for 9.3 with working support for the 6200. The same goes for the nv driver, it is probably too old to work correctly with the 6200. But you can try to use xvidtune to move the displayed screen pane. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 15:11 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
For the binary driver especially important is the driver version (cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version).
Hmm, when I do this I don't see encouraging results: dhoworth@piglet:~$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version cat: /proc/driver/nvidia/version: No such file or directory dhoworth@piglet:~$ ls /proc/driver/ nvram rtc snd-page-alloc Anybody know what this means? Should it work in 9.3? Do I have an nvidia driver? How else do I discover its version? Thanks, Dave
On Oct 20, 06 22:13:10 +0100, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 15:11 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
For the binary driver especially important is the driver version (cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version).
Hmm, when I do this I don't see encouraging results:
dhoworth@piglet:~$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version cat: /proc/driver/nvidia/version: No such file or directory dhoworth@piglet:~$ ls /proc/driver/ nvram rtc snd-page-alloc
Anybody know what this means? Should it work in 9.3?
You sure you use the binary only drivers from NVIDIA? Please check /etc/X11/xorg.conf, and try 'lsmod | grep nv' Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
Matthias Hopf wrote:
On Oct 20, 06 22:13:10 +0100, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 15:11 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
For the binary driver especially important is the driver version (cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version). Hmm, when I do this I don't see encouraging results:
dhoworth@piglet:~$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version cat: /proc/driver/nvidia/version: No such file or directory dhoworth@piglet:~$ ls /proc/driver/ nvram rtc snd-page-alloc
Anybody know what this means? Should it work in 9.3?
You sure you use the binary only drivers from NVIDIA?
Yes. This was after using YOU to download the driver. I've now taken your advice and downloaded nvidia's latest (more in that in another sub-thread :) so I won't investigate this particular glitch any further.
Please check /etc/X11/xorg.conf, and try 'lsmod | grep nv'
Matthias
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 15:11 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
I assume that we do not support the 6200 for SL9.3 ourself, as the hardware is pretty new, and 9.3 pretty old. That's why probably there hasn't been an updated driver for 9.3 with working support for the 6200.
I was curious about this, because I'm not good with dates. According to nvidia's press release <http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_16247.html> 6200 boards were available November 2004. I can't immediately find a date for SUSE 9.3 but my copy of the admin manual says 2005. So I don't understand why you call 9.3 old and the 6200 new? Of perhaps more concern, if I'd bought SLES or SLED instead of Pro, does that mean I wouldn't be able to replace a failed graphics card with a current model within the extended support period? I also looked at the SUSE hardware compatibility list. It says there are three types of 6200. All are AGP !? One is apparently my specific model (0x0221). All are stated to have FULL support in 9.3 amd64, but the one that seems to match my configuration most exactly is NOT supported in 10.1. So that seems a good reason to run 9.3! But why am I running 9.3? Start from the premise that I want to minimise maintenance effort - I moved to SUSE from Debian for that reason, as well as others. So I have to have a positive need to upgrade, which I haven't found yet. Plus, from what I can see on this list, 10.1 is not a release that is likely to reduce the effort I have to spend on maintenance. My perception is that it's likely to take more time and be more difficult to manage. With that background, let me refer to an earlier comment:
For the binary driver especially important is the driver version (cat /proc/driver/nvidia/version). If this is older than 8xxx, you probably have to download a newer driver from NVidia and install it yourself. The only thing you absolutely need for that are the kernel sources (don't worry, you don't have to touch them) and gcc (which is probably already installed).
If I understand it though, this creates more work doesn't it? Every time YOU presents me with a new kernel patch, I will have to manually recompile the driver again? And worse, I will have to continually monitor nvidia to see if they release a new version of the driver, which I'll have to update manually. I believe there is a new version with security implications in beta now, for example. I'd much rather have that automatically sorted out by YOU.
The same goes for the nv driver, it is probably too old to work correctly with the 6200. But you can try to use xvidtune to move the displayed screen pane.
Again, the SUSE CDB says it is supported. Regards, Dave
On Oct 21, 06 05:27:05 +0100, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 15:11 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
I assume that we do not support the 6200 for SL9.3 ourself, as the hardware is pretty new, and 9.3 pretty old. That's why probably there hasn't been an updated driver for 9.3 with working support for the 6200.
I was curious about this, because I'm not good with dates. According to nvidia's press release <http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_16247.html> 6200 boards were available November 2004. I can't immediately find a date for SUSE 9.3 but my copy of the admin manual says 2005. So I don't understand why you call 9.3 old and the 6200 new? Of perhaps more
9.3 is old for us, because there are 2 new versions inbetween :-) There is only a single version (7xxx) inbetween on the hardware side, and hardware doesn't age as fast as software. Well, I guess, it's some point of view. But there are 6200 cards that are much newer than 2004, the chipset revisions changed in the meantime.
concern, if I'd bought SLES or SLED instead of Pro, does that mean I wouldn't be able to replace a failed graphics card with a current model within the extended support period?
For SLED AFAIK we have a working update path with service packs, including feature updates. We don't have that for the consumer products (and we don't need that, because the versions come out much more frequently). I'm not saying that the 6200 doesn't work with SL9.3. I just remember that there have been issues with the nv driver and newer 6200 chips, I don't remember whether this was 9.3 or an earlier release. The binary only driver works. Though, again, I don't know whether the driver released with 9.3 will work or not.
I also looked at the SUSE hardware compatibility list. It says there are
Where from?
three types of 6200. All are AGP !? One is apparently my specific model
AFAIR: 0x00F3 (GeForce 6200) is AGP 0x0146 (GeForce Go 6600 TE/6200 TE), 0x014F (GeForce 6200) are PCIe. AFAIR all 0x00F* chips are the IDs of the AGP converter chips. 6xxx is natively PCIe.
(0x0221). All are stated to have FULL support in 9.3 amd64, but the one that seems to match my configuration most exactly is NOT supported in 10.1.
I cannot find 0x0221 in NVIDIA's README.txt at all. I think I remember there has been the issue that NVIDIA forgot one of the devices in the README, which in turn doesn't have sax2 detect the driver automatically... The driver itself worked, however.
So that seems a good reason to run 9.3! But why am I running 9.3? Start from the premise that I want to minimise maintenance effort - I moved to SUSE from Debian for that reason, as well as others. So I have to have a positive need to upgrade, which I haven't found yet. Plus, from what I
Then don't do it. You may have to install the NVIDIA driver yourself, but that isn't rocket science. You would have to do that on windows as well.
can see on this list, 10.1 is not a release that is likely to reduce the effort I have to spend on maintenance. My perception is that it's likely to take more time and be more difficult to manage.
Depending on what you want to do, this could well be.
If I understand it though, this creates more work doesn't it? Every time
Not too much. You have to reinstall the driver (read: compile/install the kernel module) if you download an updated kernel. This doesn't happen too often.
monitor nvidia to see if they release a new version of the driver, which I'll have to update manually. I believe there is a new version with security implications in beta now, for example. I'd much rather have that automatically sorted out by YOU.
In this particular case, the security issue is only something for 10.1 and up. We didn't have any other issues. That's why you probably won't see any driver updates at all. That's why the driver *might* be too old for a newer card.
Again, the SUSE CDB says it is supported.
So the CDB is still there? Interesting... Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
Matthias Hopf wrote:
On Oct 21, 06 05:27:05 +0100, Dave Howorth wrote:
concern, if I'd bought SLES or SLED instead of Pro, does that mean I wouldn't be able to replace a failed graphics card with a current model within the extended support period?
For SLED AFAIK we have a working update path with service packs, including feature updates. We don't have that for the consumer products (and we don't need that, because the versions come out much more frequently).
OK, that's good to know.
I'm not saying that the 6200 doesn't work with SL9.3. I just remember that there have been issues with the nv driver and newer 6200 chips, I don't remember whether this was 9.3 or an earlier release. The binary only driver works. Though, again, I don't know whether the driver released with 9.3 will work or not.
I also looked at the SUSE hardware compatibility list. It says there are
Where from?
<http://cdb.suse.de/productSearch.php?PHPSESSID=11197f30bc15c371b4a6a5a2fb78be79&LANG=en_UK&searchtype=extended&update_session=1&f_manufactor=nvidia&f_vendorId=&f_device=6200&f_deviceId=&f_method=AND&f_supported=0&f_categories%5B%5D=133&f_categories%5B%5D=133&f_dist=&f_arch=> The second entry is my card, AFAICT, and it says there is full support under both nv and the nvidia driver. BTW, I found this interesting: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_Graphics_Processing_Units>
three types of 6200. All are AGP !? One is apparently my specific model
AFAIR:
0x00F3 (GeForce 6200) is AGP 0x0146 (GeForce Go 6600 TE/6200 TE), 0x014F (GeForce 6200) are PCIe.
AFAIR all 0x00F* chips are the IDs of the AGP converter chips. 6xxx is natively PCIe.
(0x0221). All are stated to have FULL support in 9.3 amd64, but the one that seems to match my configuration most exactly is NOT supported in 10.1.
I cannot find 0x0221 in NVIDIA's README.txt at all. I think I remember there has been the issue that NVIDIA forgot one of the devices in the README, which in turn doesn't have sax2 detect the driver automatically... The driver itself worked, however.
I couldn't find it in nvidia's lists either :( I didn't check their forums. I think my card corresponds to the chipset marked NV43/NV44a in the wikipedia list, since it has DDR2 memory. I'll stop trying to use sax2, then. That'll be a relief - it always gives me grief one way or another.
So that seems a good reason to run 9.3! But why am I running 9.3? Start from the premise that I want to minimise maintenance effort - I moved to SUSE from Debian for that reason, as well as others. So I have to have a positive need to upgrade, which I haven't found yet. Plus, from what I
Then don't do it. You may have to install the NVIDIA driver yourself, but that isn't rocket science. You would have to do that on windows as well.
I've downloaded the nvidia driver now but haven't yet installed it. I think the version of the driver that YOU is trying to install is the one that was current when SUSE 9.3 was launched. To be fair, none of the subsequent ones have security fixes, except for the latest. It's not rocket science but it is time-consuming. I've spent a couple of hours finding all the docs on the nvidia site and reading them. I've already wasted a few hours playing with YOU and especially sax2. Now I need to reread all the X stuff to make sure I'm familiar with the appropriate options and paths etc. I think on Windows it would either just know, or I'd stick in the disk that came with the card and then it would know what to do. I'd be really surprised if I needed to spend more than five minutes. (Not that I intend to use Windows again any time soon :) If nvidia really want to support Linux, they should put their driver and Linux installer on the disk!
can see on this list, 10.1 is not a release that is likely to reduce the effort I have to spend on maintenance. My perception is that it's likely to take more time and be more difficult to manage.
Depending on what you want to do, this could well be.
If I understand it though, this creates more work doesn't it? Every time
Not too much. You have to reinstall the driver (read: compile/install the kernel module) if you download an updated kernel. This doesn't happen too often.
monitor nvidia to see if they release a new version of the driver, which I'll have to update manually. I believe there is a new version with security implications in beta now, for example. I'd much rather have that automatically sorted out by YOU.
In this particular case, the security issue is only something for 10.1 and up. We didn't have any other issues. That's why you probably won't see any driver updates at all. That's why the driver *might* be too old for a newer card.
I think I saw something in nvidia's docs that says their installer will dial home for a new driver if the installer realizes it needs it. It would be good if YOU downloaded a version recent enough to have that feature. I really appreciate your help. Thank, Matthias. Cheers, Dave
Again, the SUSE CDB says it is supported.
So the CDB is still there? Interesting...
Matthias
On Oct 25, 06 16:32:26 +0100, Dave Howorth wrote:
I also looked at the SUSE hardware compatibility list. It says there are Where from? <http://cdb.suse.de/productSearch.php?PHPSESSID=11197f30bc15c371b4a6a5a2fb78be79&LANG=en_UK&searchtype=extended&update_session=1&f_manufactor=nvidia&f_vendorId=&f_device=6200&f_deviceId=&f_method=AND&f_supported=0&f_categories%5B%5D=133&f_categories%5B%5D=133&f_dist=&f_arch=>
This is funny, because I thought the cdb isn't really supported any longer. Well, seems I just don't know :-]
Then don't do it. You may have to install the NVIDIA driver yourself, but that isn't rocket science. You would have to do that on windows as well.
I've downloaded the nvidia driver now but haven't yet installed it. I think the version of the driver that YOU is trying to install is the one that was current when SUSE 9.3 was launched. To be fair, none of the subsequent ones have security fixes, except for the latest.
Yes. And for 9.3 there won't be a security fix release, as RenderAccel was off by default, so the problem doesn't occure.
It's not rocket science but it is time-consuming. I've spent a couple of hours finding all the docs on the nvidia site and reading them. I've
Okey, I never did that. Actually, the only thing that's really necessary is to call the installation program. It does everything on its own, and so far it never failed for me.
I think on Windows it would either just know, or I'd stick in the disk that came with the card and then it would know what to do. I'd be really
As soon as you have to install a driver you downloaded (the CDs will never have security fixes, and are often too old as well), it's about the same.
intend to use Windows again any time soon :) If nvidia really want to support Linux, they should put their driver and Linux installer on the disk!
This is not NVIDIA's fault, but the fault of the card vendors.
I think I saw something in nvidia's docs that says their installer will dial home for a new driver if the installer realizes it needs it. It would be good if YOU downloaded a version recent enough to have that feature.
No, it will try to download the module in compiled form from the website if it is not included. That never worked for me, in the end it had to compile the module itself. Which is automatic as well.
I really appreciate your help. Thank, Matthias.
You're welcome :) Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger. Matthias Hi Matthias! Why avoid the TurboCache versions? Stability or performance issues? I will not be doing much 3D stuff with it.
On Oct 19, 06 06:15:12 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
Why avoid the TurboCache versions? Stability or performance issues? I will not be doing much 3D stuff with it.
6200 TurboCache are not much cheaper than 6200, and just plainly suck. They use the main memory of your computer for the framebuffer, the onboard memory (which is slow as well) is used for textures only. They typically have only 8MB to 32MB on-board memory. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger. Matthias Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available. I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question. What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
BRUCE STANLEY <bruce.stanley@prodigy.net> wrote: Matthias Hopf wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger. Matthias Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available. I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question. What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod). I take it then that no one has any info on the difference between a 6200 card and a 6200LE card?
On Tue October 24 2006 12:18, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
BRUCE STANLEY <bruce.stanley@prodigy.net> wrote:
Matthias Hopf wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger.
Matthias
Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available.
I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question.
What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
I
take it then that no one has any info on the difference between a 6200 card and a 6200LE card? Look for a e-GeForce FX5200 from EVGA Intelligent Innovation its DDR 128MB AGP 8x/4x. I purchased mine at a local store here in Washinton state about three weeks ago. www.evga.com
Hope this helps -- Russ
Russbucket <russbucket@nwi.net> wrote: On Tue October 24 2006 12:18, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
Matthias Hopf wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger.
Matthias
Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available.
I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question.
What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
I
take it then that no one has any info on the difference between a 6200 card and a 6200LE card? Look for a e-GeForce FX5200 from EVGA Intelligent Innovation its DDR 128MB AGP 8x/4x. I purchased mine at a local store here in Washinton state about three weeks ago. www.evga.com
Hope this helps -- Russ - Hi Russ! Well, I picked up a eVga 6200 card (non LE or TC) and tried it. It was a no go. I made my system even more unstable than the ATI 9250 card I was using. Thats after down loading the latest driver software. I don't know if a eVga 5200 card would work better or not. My system is using an ABIT KT7A-RAID board with an AGP 4X slot. The system bios has been upgraded to the last rev available (A9) for it.
On Wed October 25 2006 05:56, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
Russbucket <russbucket@nwi.net> wrote: On Tue October 24 2006 12:18, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
BRUCE STANLEY
wrote:
Matthias Hopf wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger.
Matthias
Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available.
I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question.
What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
I
take it then that no one has any info on the difference between a 6200 card and a 6200LE card?
Look for a e-GeForce FX5200 from EVGA Intelligent Innovation its DDR 128MB AGP 8x/4x. I purchased mine at a local store here in Washinton state about three weeks ago. www.evga.com
Hope this helps
My FX5200 has been running for several weeks now with no problems. I have a PIII, 866MHZ Micron (MPC) system. I use SUSE 10.0 with all updates. I did install the Nvidia drivers from YaST. Will they let you exchange the 6200 for a 5200 so you can try it? After you installed the card did you run SAX? I know I did not install from init3 like many recommend but like I say it installed. My Googleearth now works with the 3d. The card also appears to work under XP, even though I just installed it there incase. Haven't used XP in almost 2 years except for TurboTax and to test my wifes webpage with IE. -- Russ
BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger.
Matthias
Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available.
I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question.
What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
I bought a 6200 recently that went belly up (would not even display post) in about 3-minutes after insertion. Yes, I was careful about static. Funny thing was I had to use a dremmel tool to file down a rivet on the cabinet for the AGP slot for this card to fit. The older 5200 card fits perfectly. Anyway, when someone comes up with an exact brand, Model Number and a good Web site in the U.S to by a 6200 that they have confidence in I would appreciate that pointer.
On Oct 22, 06 14:17:25 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available.
O-key? Strange.
I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question.
What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
Frankly said I don't know. I could find only a single LE card, for PCIe. That said, I couldn't find a non-LE non-TC 6200 for PCIe, while there were several for AGP... So this is vice versa for me :-/ Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat@mshopf.de Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ labs www.mshopf.de
BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de> wrote: On Oct 17, 06 10:11:00 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
I am thinking about replacing my ATI RADEON 9250 PRO with a NVIDA Geforce FX5200 card.
How well is the FX5200 supported under Suse 10.0 ?
Works well, but I would suggest getting a 6200 instead. Is approx. the same price and much faster in certain cases (avoid the TurboCache variants). That said, if you already *have* a 5200, use it.
Would if be worth replacing the ATI card with the FX5200?
IMHO it's always worth replacing an ATI by something else... Hope this changes now after the AMD merger.
Matthias
Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available.
I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question.
What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
I just spoke with EVGA to try and figure out the differences between the different offerings. Outside of the Turbo Cache versions they told me that the only differences are the packaging. That is LX , LE and L2 are all the same card. He said that if the part number is the same then the cards are the same. The last letters/digits at the end of the part number are only to distinguish packaging. Frankly I found this hard to believe because I found price differences ranging from $149.99 to $89.99 list. I told him this but he said no worries. Bob
Robert Lewis <rll@felton.felton.ca.us> wrote:
Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available.
I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another question.
What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod).
I just spoke with EVGA to try and figure out the differences between the different offerings. Outside of the Turbo Cache versions they told me that the only differences are the packaging. That is LX , LE and L2 are all the same card. He said that if the part number is the same then the cards are the same. The last letters/digits at the end of the part number are only to distinguish packaging. Frankly I found this hard to believe because I found price differences ranging from $149.99 to $89.99 list. I told him this but he said no worries. Bob Hi Bob! I did try a 9200 card in my system but it does not seem to work very well with my motherboard (ABIT KT7A-RAID). I am now looking at an older MSI MX4000-T28 NVIDIA card as a possiblity. Do you have any knowledge or experience with this model?
BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
*/Robert Lewis <rll@felton.felton.ca.us>/* wrote:
> > > Well I went window shopping this weekend but I could not find any > 5200 AGP cards locally. PCI versions were available. > > I did find several version of the 6200 card which brings up another > question. > > What is the difference betwee a 6200 card and a 6t200 LE card? > I found both 6200 LE and 6200 LE Turbo cards (which I knwo now to aviod). > > > > > I just spoke with EVGA to try and figure out the differences between the different offerings. Outside of the Turbo Cache versions they told me that the only differences are the packaging. That is LX , LE and L2 are all the same card. He said that if the part number is the same then the cards are the same. The last letters/digits at the end of the part number are only to distinguish packaging. Frankly I found this hard to believe because I found price differences ranging from $149.99 to $89.99 list. I told him this but he said no worries.
Bob
Hi Bob!
I did try a 9200 card in my system but it does not seem to work very well with my motherboard (ABIT KT7A-RAID).
I am now looking at an older MSI MX4000-T28 NVIDIA card as a possiblity. Do you have any knowledge or experience with this model?
Sorry Bruce, I have no knowledge of that card. I do have a 5200 but thought I would blow some $$$$ and try the 6200 that has been discussed in this thread.
participants (13)
-
Art Fore -
BandiPat -
BRUCE STANLEY -
Clayton -
Dave Howorth -
Dave Howorth -
Kevin Donnelly -
Matthew Stringer -
Matthias Hopf -
Robert Lewis -
Rui Santos -
Russbucket -
Steve Jeppesen