-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
6400 Video Cards - Specs, Images?
- Thread starter aphetica
- Start date
bluekatt
Well-known member
beachycove
Well-known member
I put a flashed Voodoo 3 2000 pci card in a 6500 c couple of years ago, thinking that the graphics might make the thing capable of running something like Bugdom for one of the kids.
No, it didn't. I reckon that the architecture of the machine is just not up to running something like that. So I wouldn't go to any expense if I were you.
No, it didn't. I reckon that the architecture of the machine is just not up to running something like that. So I wouldn't go to any expense if I were you.
I can't understand that site for the life of me. Everytime I search for info on the 6400 I end up there only to read through 30 pages of text to find out that something might work, or that it worked for some guy far off in a parallel dimension once.
I just want to know what people here are running and whether or not it works the way it's supposed to.
What is it with people being so avoidant when I ask questions about upgrading? I wanted to do a processor upgrade on a Dell once and I had people in the Dell forums telling me to throw my computer away.
I want a video card that works. That's all. I don't understand why everyone is so concerned with getting me NOT to do such when it's totally up to me whether or not it's "worth it".
I want a video card that works. That's all. I don't understand why everyone is so concerned with getting me NOT to do such when it's totally up to me whether or not it's "worth it".
alk
Well-known member
If you make your goal clear, you might get more appropriate or directed feedback. As for the feedback so far, I don't think it is off-base. People naturally jump to the conclusion that you want to do some sort of gaming (practically the only recognized use for upgraded video cards these days). Of course, this does completely ignore the rich history of video cards that were bought mainly for 2D performance back in the day of the PCI Macs...
What do you want to do with said 6400? That makes a huge difference as to what video card is "good enough." The number of PCI video cards that will work in that Mac is actually pretty staggering, but if you are looking for better performance than the on-board video, the pool of cards is a bit more limited (well, okay, just about anything is better than Valkyrie video).
You could put anything from a Radius Thunder 30 in there to a ATI Radeon 9200. In between you've got cards like the TwinTurbo 128, Imagine Number 9, ATI Xclaim, Xclaim Pro, Xclaim VR, Xclaim 128, Rage 128, Formac Proformance III, 3DFx Voodoo, Voodoo 2, Voodoo 3, Voodoo 4, Voodoo 5 (best, IMO, for OS 9 games)... The list goes on.
So? What do you want to do with the Mac?
You may find that you get more bang-for-the-buck by upgrading the motherboard to a 6500 because then you'll get upgraded graphics (ATI Rage II+ which kicks the Valkyrie's butt in all respects) and a faster system bus at the same time without taking up a very valuable PCI slot. Of course, you do lose 8 MB of system memory when you do that, but you also gain 2 MB of dedicated VRAM allowing higher resolutions and bit-depths while not reserving precious DRAM...
Peace,
Drew
[edit: Oops! Thunder IV is NuBus! Clearly, I meant Thunder 30.
]
What do you want to do with said 6400? That makes a huge difference as to what video card is "good enough." The number of PCI video cards that will work in that Mac is actually pretty staggering, but if you are looking for better performance than the on-board video, the pool of cards is a bit more limited (well, okay, just about anything is better than Valkyrie video).
You could put anything from a Radius Thunder 30 in there to a ATI Radeon 9200. In between you've got cards like the TwinTurbo 128, Imagine Number 9, ATI Xclaim, Xclaim Pro, Xclaim VR, Xclaim 128, Rage 128, Formac Proformance III, 3DFx Voodoo, Voodoo 2, Voodoo 3, Voodoo 4, Voodoo 5 (best, IMO, for OS 9 games)... The list goes on.
So? What do you want to do with the Mac?
You may find that you get more bang-for-the-buck by upgrading the motherboard to a 6500 because then you'll get upgraded graphics (ATI Rage II+ which kicks the Valkyrie's butt in all respects) and a faster system bus at the same time without taking up a very valuable PCI slot. Of course, you do lose 8 MB of system memory when you do that, but you also gain 2 MB of dedicated VRAM allowing higher resolutions and bit-depths while not reserving precious DRAM...
Peace,
Drew
[edit: Oops! Thunder IV is NuBus! Clearly, I meant Thunder 30.
]
Last edited by a moderator:
bluekatt
Well-known member
because at times its just not worth the bother and that is apparant from the awnsers you are getting in thsi thread
its not worth the bother to put a good video card in a 6400 because the machien just cant pull it its not 9500 its not a 9600 it doesn thave 12 ram banks not dual cpu's
its old tired and the one new component wont suddenly breath new life in to an old computer it will just be dragged down by the minimum amount of ram the slow bus speed the clock speed etc etc
because that is exactly what you seem to expect
it doesnt matter what videcard you put in there it wont be turned in to amonster just because of anew video card
put a G3 in that thing then the video card will make a difference
cpu upgrades on the mac are ridicilously expensive and uneconomic these days and as far as that dell of yours goes depending on its age its either not worth it or you can only go so far depending on the bus speed and slot or socket form factor
its not worth the bother to put a good video card in a 6400 because the machien just cant pull it its not 9500 its not a 9600 it doesn thave 12 ram banks not dual cpu's
its old tired and the one new component wont suddenly breath new life in to an old computer it will just be dragged down by the minimum amount of ram the slow bus speed the clock speed etc etc
because that is exactly what you seem to expect
it doesnt matter what videcard you put in there it wont be turned in to amonster just because of anew video card
put a G3 in that thing then the video card will make a difference
cpu upgrades on the mac are ridicilously expensive and uneconomic these days and as far as that dell of yours goes depending on its age its either not worth it or you can only go so far depending on the bus speed and slot or socket form factor
alk
Well-known member
For the record, I have run an ATI Xclaim (Rage II+/Mach64 graphics), a Formac Proformance III, and a 3Dfx Voodoo 3 2000 (not all at the same time, of course!) in my 6500. The 6500 was equipped with 128 MB of RAM. It runs Myth II with the Voodoo 3, but only just barely. It still labors quite a bit. Once I dropped a G3 upgrade in it (replacing the 256 KB L2 cache), Myth II was a bit more peppy, but it still lagged in high complexity scenes. I tried to play Oni on this configuration, but that was pretty much a hopeless cause. A real G3 (even a Rev A 266 MHz G3) easily smokes the 6500 G3/400.
You might be able to play Quake (1) or Descent pretty well with that configuration, but I wouldn't count on playing anything more complicated than that with any satisfaction.
On the other hand, using any of those cards as a (not-so) basic framebuffer is really nice. They all allow the use of really big displays - I drove an AppleVision 1710 at 1152x876x24 with all of them, and they all accelerate 2D performance so things like scrolling Finder windows and text documents as well as some Photoshop work are accelerated by the 2D hardware on these cards. In my experience, ATI cards have the best 2D performance if you are looking for a combo 2D/3D card. For pure 2D, the TwinTurbo 128M8 (the 8 MB version) is pretty good, but the Number 9 is even better (though VERY hard to find). Both claim to do 3D, but they don't really mean it. ;-)
The sad reality that everyone knows but few speak is that PCI Macs just suck at gaming. The 50 MHz (at best) system bus and PCI graphics just aren't up to the task of gaming in the modern sense. Sure, all these machines will run sprite-based 2D (or "2.5D") games that are largely CPU-bound like Marathon, but they won't play real 3D games well. Even with G3 upgrades, these machines are still crippled by the slow bus. It wasn't until the G3s came out with 66 MHz and 100 MHz busses that things started to get interesting, and gaming didn't become serious until the AGP G4 Macs came out. It really doesn't matter what PCI Mac you've got: whether a 7500, 4400, 6500, or 9600 MP, gaming just sucks.
Still, if you absolutely have to give it a go, do yourself a favor. Get at least a Rage 128 or Voodoo 3, a 200 MHz 604e or better (preferably a G3 - G4s don't really have any advantage here), and at least 256 KB L2 cache (more is always better, but none is a waste of time and electricity). You can ignore this advice and do your own thing with lesser specs, but don't get upset when you aren't satisfied with the performance...
Peace,
Drew
You might be able to play Quake (1) or Descent pretty well with that configuration, but I wouldn't count on playing anything more complicated than that with any satisfaction.
On the other hand, using any of those cards as a (not-so) basic framebuffer is really nice. They all allow the use of really big displays - I drove an AppleVision 1710 at 1152x876x24 with all of them, and they all accelerate 2D performance so things like scrolling Finder windows and text documents as well as some Photoshop work are accelerated by the 2D hardware on these cards. In my experience, ATI cards have the best 2D performance if you are looking for a combo 2D/3D card. For pure 2D, the TwinTurbo 128M8 (the 8 MB version) is pretty good, but the Number 9 is even better (though VERY hard to find). Both claim to do 3D, but they don't really mean it. ;-)
The sad reality that everyone knows but few speak is that PCI Macs just suck at gaming. The 50 MHz (at best) system bus and PCI graphics just aren't up to the task of gaming in the modern sense. Sure, all these machines will run sprite-based 2D (or "2.5D") games that are largely CPU-bound like Marathon, but they won't play real 3D games well. Even with G3 upgrades, these machines are still crippled by the slow bus. It wasn't until the G3s came out with 66 MHz and 100 MHz busses that things started to get interesting, and gaming didn't become serious until the AGP G4 Macs came out. It really doesn't matter what PCI Mac you've got: whether a 7500, 4400, 6500, or 9600 MP, gaming just sucks.
Still, if you absolutely have to give it a go, do yourself a favor. Get at least a Rage 128 or Voodoo 3, a 200 MHz 604e or better (preferably a G3 - G4s don't really have any advantage here), and at least 256 KB L2 cache (more is always better, but none is a waste of time and electricity). You can ignore this advice and do your own thing with lesser specs, but don't get upset when you aren't satisfied with the performance...
Peace,
Drew
Franklinstein
Well-known member
For those old things, I use either:
a Number Nine Ticket to Ride-based Formac card (excellent 2d)
or a Mach 64
or a RAGE-based card (if I've got one sitting around)
but I usually use a Matrox Millenium II. They're good cards, and some of the retail peecee versions are flashable (though I've found that the OE models aren't).
There's really no point in using anything higher than a 32MB RAGE 128, because older Macs can't feed a faster card at a rate high enough to keep up with the card's processing abilities. Besides, if you just want to drive a larger display, more than 32MB is never utilized even if you're driving some immensely huge screen; 16MB is more than adequate for driving 1280x1024@24bpp.
One thought: I wouldn't try using any card longer than 6", as it most likely won't fit in a compact box like the 6400.
a Number Nine Ticket to Ride-based Formac card (excellent 2d)
or a Mach 64
or a RAGE-based card (if I've got one sitting around)
but I usually use a Matrox Millenium II. They're good cards, and some of the retail peecee versions are flashable (though I've found that the OE models aren't).
There's really no point in using anything higher than a 32MB RAGE 128, because older Macs can't feed a faster card at a rate high enough to keep up with the card's processing abilities. Besides, if you just want to drive a larger display, more than 32MB is never utilized even if you're driving some immensely huge screen; 16MB is more than adequate for driving 1280x1024@24bpp.
One thought: I wouldn't try using any card longer than 6", as it most likely won't fit in a compact box like the 6400.
TylerEss
Well-known member
Worth: I was one of the nay-sayers about how you wouldn't get your socks kicked off by the speed of 3d games on the 6500 even with a G3 and video card upgrade, but I didn't mean at all to discourage you from doing it! Don't let forum posters get 'ya down. ;-)
Matrox: I've been wanting to get my hands on and flash a Matrox Millenium II for the longest time, but they always slip by me. Glad I'm not the only one thinking about them for PCI PowerMacs.
6400/6500 vs 604e Towers: I disagree. Sure, 50MHz trumps 40MHz but they're both pretty slow. 12 RAM slots is no better than 2 if the 2 allow you to install the amount of RAM you need, and most people aren't using dual-604 cards in 9500s anymore. I say, if you like the 6500, you're not missing out on anything by using it instead of a 9600. "Better" isn't very well defined unless you use "high performance" as the definition... which would tell you to throw all your PCI PowerMacs away to make room for a $250 PC from NewEgg! Let's not do that, let's instead just follow what's enjoyable to use.
Voodoo3 as a 2d card: Voodoo3 cards are quite common and easy to flash to the Mac. In addition to having what's probably the best 3d performance relative to cost of any PCI card for old Macs, the 2d performance is quite respectable. 16MB of VRAM lets it drive gigantic monitors easily, too. The drawback is that there's no QuickTime or DVD acceleration, so the Voodoo3 isn't a good choice for playing back QuickTime movies on fullscreen zoom.
Matrox: I've been wanting to get my hands on and flash a Matrox Millenium II for the longest time, but they always slip by me. Glad I'm not the only one thinking about them for PCI PowerMacs.
6400/6500 vs 604e Towers: I disagree. Sure, 50MHz trumps 40MHz but they're both pretty slow. 12 RAM slots is no better than 2 if the 2 allow you to install the amount of RAM you need, and most people aren't using dual-604 cards in 9500s anymore. I say, if you like the 6500, you're not missing out on anything by using it instead of a 9600. "Better" isn't very well defined unless you use "high performance" as the definition... which would tell you to throw all your PCI PowerMacs away to make room for a $250 PC from NewEgg! Let's not do that, let's instead just follow what's enjoyable to use.
Voodoo3 as a 2d card: Voodoo3 cards are quite common and easy to flash to the Mac. In addition to having what's probably the best 3d performance relative to cost of any PCI card for old Macs, the 2d performance is quite respectable. 16MB of VRAM lets it drive gigantic monitors easily, too. The drawback is that there's no QuickTime or DVD acceleration, so the Voodoo3 isn't a good choice for playing back QuickTime movies on fullscreen zoom.
Unknown_K
Well-known member
Personally I am for people learning the hard way. I say buy up every card you can and see what happens. If a site dedicated to 6400's cannot answer your question back when it was relevant to many users, people here cannot help you.
Using google and asking around here you have seen what was done in the past. You also need to understand that most of what was mentioned on that 6400 website was done back when the 6400 had considerable value back in 2000 (newer more capable machines were very costly). Most sane people do not spend lots of money on a system when a newer one would be better for the task at hand, and cheaper as well. The video cards mentioned are cheap enough to buy and mess around with these days, so go ahead and see what you can do with them.
The only card I ever used was a cheap ATI 4MB in my 6400, nothing special but it worked. Since I have all the upgrades outside of a G3 (video input, video out, tv tuner) and they need the built in video to operate I decided to just put a 6500 motherboard in and live with it.
alk
Well-known member
Regarding dual processor 604e machines and gaming, it should be noted that having multiple 604e processors will be a performance HIT for gaming, not an improvement. I am aware of no games that run on Mac OS 8/9 that take advantage of multiple CPUs. This means that the operating system is in charge of the MP arrangement, and given Mac OS 9's poor MP performance (it is a demonstrated and verifiable fact that System 7 through OS 9 are _slower_ on dual CPUs), you end up with an overall slower system for gaming than going with just a single 604e when it comes to gaming. A few niche applications were written to take advantage of multiple CPUs, but no games of which I am aware were...
Peace,
Drew
Peace,
Drew
Quadraman
Well-known member
I wouldn't go overboard with a video card on a 6400. You will be limited by how much information the 603 can send across the bus and something like a Radeon 9200 will only get bottlenecked waiting on the CPU. Remember that all of the G3 machines and some G4's still sold with variants of the ATi Rage chipset and they had much faster buses so they should be sufficient for a 6400 for most purposes. If a high end Rage card still isn't enough, try a Radeon 7000, but I doubt you'd see a big speed boost from anything more powerful.
madmax_2069
Well-known member
in my opinion the 6400/6500 wasn't a great Mac cause it's max amount of ram is 128mb which makes it very limited in what it could do (when compared to allot of other Mac's). if you run system 7 or Mac OS 8 then its not to bad of a system.
my friend has a G3 upgraded 6500 with a original radeon in it (it did play a few games well) and you seen a performance gain using the OS with the Radeon, but would crash allot due to lack or ram (if you ran to much at once or a game that took allot of ram).
my friend has a G3 upgraded 6500 with a original radeon in it (it did play a few games well) and you seen a performance gain using the OS with the Radeon, but would crash allot due to lack or ram (if you ran to much at once or a game that took allot of ram).
beachycove
Well-known member
Well, maybe it's time I returned here again, as I appear to have started the rain on aphetica's parade.
More positively, I rather like the 6400/6500, and applaud your efforts to breathe new life into one. Under OS 8.1/ 8.6 either of the two is rather snappy; the sound is great with (a couple of speakers and) the built-in subwoofer; they can be expanded to 128mb of ram, which is enough and more for running the software the 6400/6500 series was designed to run. They can serve as TVs with the add-in cards. The machines were essentially HOME multimedia stations for c. 1996-97, and they run the gaming software of the time nicely.
A decent graphics card will also make a world of difference to a 6400 in particular, the graphic capabilities of which were limited. So by all means, upgrade your unit. I merely suggested that it is not the sort of project that ought to absorb great wads of cash, as the high-end graphics cards and the 6400/6500 are not a good match. I agree with a previous post: an IXMicro Twin Turbo or similar would be a good match for the machine, and complement its native abilities very well. My 6500 with the Voodoo 3 runs very well, and will even play something like the early Tomb Raider games. It's best, however, in 2D mode.
More positively, I rather like the 6400/6500, and applaud your efforts to breathe new life into one. Under OS 8.1/ 8.6 either of the two is rather snappy; the sound is great with (a couple of speakers and) the built-in subwoofer; they can be expanded to 128mb of ram, which is enough and more for running the software the 6400/6500 series was designed to run. They can serve as TVs with the add-in cards. The machines were essentially HOME multimedia stations for c. 1996-97, and they run the gaming software of the time nicely.
A decent graphics card will also make a world of difference to a 6400 in particular, the graphic capabilities of which were limited. So by all means, upgrade your unit. I merely suggested that it is not the sort of project that ought to absorb great wads of cash, as the high-end graphics cards and the 6400/6500 are not a good match. I agree with a previous post: an IXMicro Twin Turbo or similar would be a good match for the machine, and complement its native abilities very well. My 6500 with the Voodoo 3 runs very well, and will even play something like the early Tomb Raider games. It's best, however, in 2D mode.
Similar threads
