9700pro on va503a

I've recently discovered, that some radeons (ex. 9700, 9200) have the
ability to work on all agp specs (1.0, 2.0, 3.0). I was wondering, whether
putting 9700 pro into my 1.0 agp slot in 503a is risky or not. The fun is,
that tomshardware in their 100 cpu test stated, they had to use geforce 4 ti
4600 on socket 7 becouse of the lack of agp compatibillity. Remaing tests
were conducted with 9700 pro. Also, ATI says, those video cards ARE
compatible with k6's. Confusion is even deeper when surfing FIC's v503a
FAQs. They say: "VA-503A was designed with AGP 1.0 spec. (2A 3.3V), may not
affordable to provide power they need, both 32MB on card models are not
recommended" . Radeon 9700 or 9200 have at least 128Mb. Any ideas?

Rafal

I wouldn't do it, may fry the motherboard ; I mean if you cant run a
voodoo 3 3000 on a PA 2013 or 503+ then I seriously doubt they are going
to tolerate a more modern card. But I could be wrong about that. The
other is, why ? why waste a radeon 9700 on at best a 600 MHz machine
with only AGP x2 ? but good thread question ~

socket7! wrote:

>I've recently discovered, that some radeons (ex. 9700, 9200) have the
>ability to work on all agp specs (1.0, 2.0, 3.0). I was wondering, whether
>putting 9700 pro into my 1.0 agp slot in 503a is risky or not. The fun is,
>that tomshardware in their 100 cpu test stated, they had to use geforce 4 ti
>4600 on socket 7 becouse of the lack of agp compatibillity. Remaing tests
>were conducted with 9700 pro. Also, ATI says, those video cards ARE
>compatible with k6's. Confusion is even deeper when surfing FIC's v503a
>FAQs. They say: "VA-503A was designed with AGP 1.0 spec. (2A 3.3V), may not
>affordable to provide power they need, both 32MB on card models are not
>recommended" . Radeon 9700 or 9200 have at least 128Mb. Any ideas?
>
>Rafal
>
>
>
>

Actually, I do seem to remember someone in this newsgroup a while back who had a
Radeon 9800SE running on his VA-503+ or VA-503A. I do not remember which one,
but it was definitely one of those, as I was surprised that it would actually
work.

The highest AGP card I have ever tried myself on a VA-503A is a Geforce4 MX 420
64MB, which works just fine. The highest I have ever tried for a 503+ is a
Geforce2 GTS 32MB, which also worked fine. It may also depend on the version of
VA-503A you have.

I agree with farmuse that this graphics card is pretty much overkill for whatever
CPU you have right now. If you can get it for cheap or plan on upgrading to a
new motherboard/CPU in the near future, though, I can see the point in trying it.

Unfortunately, I do not have a concrete answer one way or another. That is about
all I can tell you right now. If you do decide to try it, please let us know
your results.

--Alex


farmuse wrote:

> I wouldn't do it, may fry the motherboard ; I mean if you cant run a
> voodoo 3 3000 on a PA 2013 or 503+ then I seriously doubt they are going
> to tolerate a more modern card. But I could be wrong about that. The
> other is, why ? why waste a radeon 9700 on at best a 600 MHz machine
> with only AGP x2 ? but good thread question ~
>
> socket7! wrote:
>
> >I've recently discovered, that some radeons (ex. 9700, 9200) have the
> >ability to work on all agp specs (1.0, 2.0, 3.0). I was wondering, whether
> >putting 9700 pro into my 1.0 agp slot in 503a is risky or not. The fun is,
> >that tomshardware in their 100 cpu test stated, they had to use geforce 4 ti
> >4600 on socket 7 becouse of the lack of agp compatibillity. Remaing tests
> >were conducted with 9700 pro. Also, ATI says, those video cards ARE
> >compatible with k6's. Confusion is even deeper when surfing FIC's v503a
> >FAQs. They say: "VA-503A was designed with AGP 1.0 spec. (2A 3.3V), may not
> >affordable to provide power they need, both 32MB on card models are not
> >recommended" . Radeon 9700 or 9200 have at least 128Mb. Any ideas?
> >
> >Rafal
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

FIC's video card compatibility information for the VA-503+/PA-2013/VA-503A
is all extremely outdated. They pretty much ended with the Voodoo 3 series
cards which is where people were having compatibility problems (3500).
Newer video cards such as the Geforce cards and the Radeon cards use less
power (for the most part) than their predecessors. However, even if it
would work, putting a Radeon 9700 Pro into a VA-503A would be like putting a
KB Hemi into a Volkswagen Bug. I would think that something like a Radeon
7500 or GF2 MX440 or similar would be sufficient. Certainly you wouldn't be
able to use all the graphics ability of a Radeon 9200SE even.
Robert
"socket7!" <> wrote in message
news:c7jgn9$daq$...
> I've recently discovered, that some radeons (ex. 9700, 9200) have the
> ability to work on all agp specs (1.0, 2.0, 3.0). I was wondering, whether
> putting 9700 pro into my 1.0 agp slot in 503a is risky or not. The fun
is,
> that tomshardware in their 100 cpu test stated, they had to use geforce 4
ti
> 4600 on socket 7 becouse of the lack of agp compatibillity. Remaing tests
> were conducted with 9700 pro. Also, ATI says, those video cards ARE
> compatible with k6's. Confusion is even deeper when surfing FIC's v503a
> FAQs. They say: "VA-503A was designed with AGP 1.0 spec. (2A 3.3V), may
not
> affordable to provide power they need, both 32MB on card models are not
> recommended" . Radeon 9700 or 9200 have at least 128Mb. Any ideas?
>
> Rafal
>
>

I know that 9700pro is too much for socket7, I'm simply curious how fast my
system can be when upgrading to radeon. I'm currently having k6 3 400 and
mx400 ono pci, va503a 1.3. In 3dmark 2001 I was able to reach 1250 p. On my
2nd system: Athlon 1GHz and v3 3000 agp I got close to 2000 which was enough
to play most modern games. I will apreciate if anyone can post his
benchmarks on socket7 with indication of video card used. It might be
interesting to know, to what extend a slow CPU is a limiting factor.

Rafal

U¿ytkownik "Robert Akins" <> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:n3ioc.186665$. ..
> FIC's video card compatibility information for the VA-503+/PA-2013/VA-503A
> is all extremely outdated. They pretty much ended with the Voodoo 3
series
> cards which is where people were having compatibility problems (3500).
> Newer video cards such as the Geforce cards and the Radeon cards use less
> power (for the most part) than their predecessors. However, even if it
> would work, putting a Radeon 9700 Pro into a VA-503A would be like putting
a
> KB Hemi into a Volkswagen Bug. I would think that something like a Radeon
> 7500 or GF2 MX440 or similar would be sufficient. Certainly you wouldn't
be
> able to use all the graphics ability of a Radeon 9200SE even.
> Robert
> "socket7!" <> wrote in message
> news:c7jgn9$daq$...
> > I've recently discovered, that some radeons (ex. 9700, 9200) have the
> > ability to work on all agp specs (1.0, 2.0, 3.0). I was wondering,
whether
> > putting 9700 pro into my 1.0 agp slot in 503a is risky or not. The fun
> is,
> > that tomshardware in their 100 cpu test stated, they had to use geforce
4
> ti
> > 4600 on socket 7 becouse of the lack of agp compatibillity. Remaing
tests
> > were conducted with 9700 pro. Also, ATI says, those video cards ARE
> > compatible with k6's. Confusion is even deeper when surfing FIC's v503a
> > FAQs. They say: "VA-503A was designed with AGP 1.0 spec. (2A 3.3V), may
> not
> > affordable to provide power they need, both 32MB on card models are not
> > recommended" . Radeon 9700 or 9200 have at least 128Mb. Any ideas?
> >
> > Rafal
> >
> >
>
>

Whell 'guess, that new cards havin' much RAM as 128 MB require more power
for it, so they thought of a way to achieve this is that you plug in it the
floppy power cable in then. It depends on witch PSU you got. It will be
obvious what to do when you got it in your hands, and see the card.
Guys don't be ashamed of your CPU-s, as the pixes shader technology and
similar in DX9
makes these vga-s do all the work by them selves.
I had a 9800SE on my va503+ and it ran futuremark2003 smooth as it could
on it's own and it should run also any DX9 app. But in a real life situation
(read 'game'), application preformance depends on how much memory alocations
it requires for it's objects, meanin' in games units and memory translations
for thoes fancy textures. This matter depends on max. mem. bandwith that
your sys. can achieve.
So we have a crossroad here witch way your'e goinn' the (highway or is
it our way).
Let's say U got yourself a sata controller and acompaning sata HDD, new
pc100 or 133 RAM and it just may be close to it (of course 512 MB of RAM)
Liker my PC, I'm enjoyin' promise ata 100 controler with ata 100 HDD, and
2x128 MB RAM, runnin' XP.