Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

brostenen wrote:

If you are going for a geForce4 on a P-III, why not just go all the way for a FX-5XXX card? I understand if someone would pick a […]
Show full quote

If you are going for a geForce4 on a P-III, why not just go all the way for a FX-5XXX card?
I understand if someone would pick a geForce2 card, for a more correct P-III build (600 to 800mhz).
Or even better.... Pick a TNT2 Ultra 32mb, or the best V3 avaliable. (just to keep it in the 90's)
On the other hand, someone should clearly pick a 5500/5900 card over a 4.

Eighter do an era correct build, or pick parts for a maxed out build, within the spectrum of a P-III-Build.

I failed to see where it says "era correct build", but speaking of it...Why limit yourself? Why not to mix the best from both worlds? Many of you pick "era correct" parts, but still come up with an excuse to have a modern case or a modern hard drive or a modern CDRW/DVD drive...I don't get why people go crazy about crappy TNT cards when you can hit a jackpot by going with one of the GeForce series. May be this person doesn't have much money to burn and he could really cut corners with the GeForce4 instead of the GeForce2. It will also allow him to max graphics out in many OpenGL based games. Both chipsets either the GeForce3 or the GeForce4 are superior to the GeForce2. Later on he could pair a such card with Athlon XP or Pentium IV. A GeForce4 based video card Is future proof it's like a good investment. Who cares about a fail such as the FX series? I don't even know if you can pair this crap with a slot 1 motherboard since it has the AGP 8x bus. At the end of the day it comes to whatever he can get. Any GeForce card will work.

Wow!!! Whatever did I say or do to piss you off. 😳

I use a GeForce FX in my Super Socket 7 machine 😀

But more because it has DVI output which is awesome for capturing DOS stuff.

alexanrs wrote:

The reason for wanting a TNT or Savage4 is NT3.51 drivers... There is a VESA driver arround the internet but I've never had much luck with it.
Also, wouldn't most games that would benefit from a GF FX run better on my Athlon64 + GF 6600 anyway? I might build a P4 with a Ti 4x00 try Splinter Cell out in the future, though.

You can get most Win98 games working on FX cards and down.
From GF-6XXX series, they dropped some old technology.
As of right now, I simply can not remember the explanation on what and why.
Just try the vogons wiki for checking this out.

brostenen wrote:

You can get most Win98 games working on FX cards and down. From GF-6XXX series, they dropped some old technology. As of right no […]
Show full quote

You can get most Win98 games working on FX cards and down.
From GF-6XXX series, they dropped some old technology.
As of right now, I simply can not remember the explanation on what and why.
Just try the vogons wiki for checking this out.

Drivers for Win98 are apparently not perfect for GF6 (I've never personally tested it but have read about it repeatedly over the years (which has kept me from wanting to test it 🤣 )), whereas the FX series has a range of options (especially pre-NV35). FX also supports paletted textures and (ostensibly) the shadow buffer thing that Splinter Cell uses, which GF6 do not. I would agree with going FX over GF3/4 if you want pixel shaders - it'll offer better performance. Also afaik there was never a concern over the VGA output filters on FX cards, and the lower to midrange cards (5200-5700) are generally easy to find and don't cost too much. I'd go with GF2 or FX depending on what your build goals are, assuming you aren't going V3/4/5. 😀

alexanrs wrote:

Also, wouldn't most games that would benefit from a GF FX run better on my Athlon64 + GF 6600 anyway? I might build a P4 with a Ti 4x00 try Splinter Cell out in the future, though.

Better? Sure, especially if we're talking PS2.0-heavy DX9 titles (like say Oblivion). But for DX7/8 and early DX9 games (like Halo) the FX will be perfectly suitable, and has broader old driver support than the GF6. They're also universal AGP cards (which means they don't require 8x, 1.5V, etc) unlike most GeForce 6/7 boards, so they will have broader compatibility with motherboards. Basically, the FX cards are great for DX7/8 and have fairly broad compatibility, and they're also fairly easy to find. I'm not sure if they have NT 3.x or 4.0 drivers though, so if that's a problem for you it should be noted. Basically it comes down to what your end-goals are - I'd agree with the suggestion to go with FX over GF4 if you want shaders, DVI, etc, but if you need more backwards compatibility the GF2, or maybe even TNT2, would be a better choice. 😎

obobskivich wrote:

Drivers for Win98 are apparently not perfect for GF6 (I've never personally tested it but have read about it repeatedly over the years (which has kept me from wanting to test it 🤣 )), whereas the FX series has a range of options (especially pre-NV35). FX also supports paletted textures and (ostensibly) the shadow buffer thing that Splinter Cell uses, which GF6 do not. I would agree with going FX over GF3/4 if you want pixel shaders - it'll offer better performance. Also afaik there was never a concern over the VGA output filters on FX cards, and the lower to midrange cards (5200-5700) are generally easy to find and don't cost too much. I'd go with GF2 or FX depending on what your build goals are, assuming you aren't going V3/4/5. 😀

Thanks. 😀

obobskivich wrote:

Better? Sure, especially if we're talking PS2.0-heavy DX9 titles (like say Oblivion). But for DX7/8 and early DX9 games (like Halo) the FX will be perfectly suitable, and has broader old driver support than the GF6. They're also universal AGP cards (which means they don't require 8x, 1.5V, etc) unlike most GeForce 6/7 boards, so they will have broader compatibility with motherboards. Basically, the FX cards are great for DX7/8 and have fairly broad compatibility, and they're also fairly easy to find. I'm not sure if they have NT 3.x or 4.0 drivers though, so if that's a problem for you it should be noted. Basically it comes down to what your end-goals are - I'd agree with the suggestion to go with FX over GF4 if you want shaders, DVI, etc, but if you need more backwards compatibility the GF2, or maybe even TNT2, would be a better choice. 😎

Yeah... Just as I am stating.
For retro gaming prior to 99/00, then go for TNT2 or V2 (SLI/non-SLI) or V3.
If games are newer/younger than 00/01 (after that period), then go for Gf2/3/4/FX-5XXX, and V4/V5.

In other words, forget BF-1942 and those alike, when having a pure 90's P3 machine.
For games like that, a GF4 or FX-5XXX is better.

alexanrs wrote:

The reason for wanting a TNT or Savage4 is NT3.51 drivers... There is a VESA driver arround the internet but I've never had much luck with it.
Also, wouldn't most games that would benefit from a GF FX run better on my Athlon64 + GF 6600 anyway? I might build a P4 with a Ti 4x00 try Splinter Cell out in the future, though.

No Problem with the Voodoo 3 😁
It has drivers for Win 3.1, NT, 9x etc.
You can get them here:
http://falconfly.de/voodoo3.htm

It should work fine!

Arctic wrote:

No Problem with the Voodoo 3 :D It has drivers for Win 3.1, NT, 9x etc. You can get them here: http://falconfly.de/voodoo3.htm […]
Show full quote

No Problem with the Voodoo 3 😁
It has drivers for Win 3.1, NT, 9x etc.
You can get them here:
http://falconfly.de/voodoo3.htm

It should work fine!

Yeah, nice to see Windows 3.x drivers... but from the README in the NT drivers it seems they require NT 4 =(

Btw the seller of the only 440BX board I can find (not internationally) is giving me a very bad impression. He's got under 3% bad feedback, but for some reason the site shows a red sign claiming he's got a bad reputation. Also he's got the same board listed twice with different prices (but the listings are exactly the same, down to the very last word), doesn't show pictures of the actual board (uses stock images) and asks that the shipping fee be deposited directly on his bank account in advance. I might get a VIA Apollo 133A untested board for now (price+shipping under US$20) and keep prowling that site untill I find a nice CUBX or a P3B-F from a more trustworthy seller.

Is the Apollo 133A a bad chipset? The VIA chipset on my Athlon 64 system hasn't given me much trouble (except for SATAII compatibility), but the one on my C2D system makes me want to curse sometimes (weird compatibility issues and other limitations). The board I'm considering (Pt-694x-a) has a universal AGP slot, 4 PCI and one shared PCI+ISA slot. From the pictures it appears to be well preserved (no marks, no dirt, no weird looking caps) but I cannot find neither the manufacturer (seems to be a company called Pretech that doesn't have a website anymore) nor reviews.

alexanrs wrote:

and asks that the shipping fee be deposited directly on his bank account in advance.

That right there is where I'd be getting off that ride. 🤣

Is the Apollo 133A a bad chipset? The VIA chipset on my Athlon 64 system hasn't given me much trouble (except for SATAII compatibility), but the one on my C2D system makes me want to curse sometimes (weird compatibility issues and other limitations). The board I'm considering (Pt-694x-a) has a universal AGP slot, 4 PCI and one shared PCI+ISA slot. From the pictures it appears to be well preserved (no marks, no dirt, no weird looking caps) but I cannot find neither the manufacturer (seems to be a company called Pretech that doesn't have a website anymore) nor reviews.

I've never owned one, but from reviews and word of mouth the biggest complaint I remember for the Apollo 133A was just generally lower performance than the 440. I'd be more worried about going with a mystery-meat board than a VIA chipset honestly. 😊

There is a reason why everyone recommends BX440 😀

Just wait for a board to become available. Also consider Socket 370 stuff with Intel 815 chipset. And consider OEM boards, I have two awesome Acer Boards, Socket 370, 815 chipset, Pentium III-S support.

On OEM, I like my Dell S370 815 aside from it needing a weird PSU pinout (adapters do exist to use normal ATX PSU).

Yea they work quite well. They might not have as many BIOS options, but that's really a non issue IMO. I don't overclock and the BIOS defaults usually do the trick. I rather have stability over a bit of extra performance.

alexanrs wrote:

Yeah, nice to see Windows 3.x drivers... but from the README in the NT drivers it seems they require NT 4 =( […]
Show full quote

Arctic wrote:

No Problem with the Voodoo 3 :D It has drivers for Win 3.1, NT, 9x etc. You can get them here: http://falconfly.de/voodoo3.htm […]
Show full quote

No Problem with the Voodoo 3 😁
It has drivers for Win 3.1, NT, 9x etc.
You can get them here:
http://falconfly.de/voodoo3.htm

It should work fine!

Yeah, nice to see Windows 3.x drivers... but from the README in the NT drivers it seems they require NT 4 =(

Btw the seller of the only 440BX board I can find (not internationally) is giving me a very bad impression. He's got under 3% bad feedback, but for some reason the site shows a red sign claiming he's got a bad reputation. Also he's got the same board listed twice with different prices (but the listings are exactly the same, down to the very last word), doesn't show pictures of the actual board (uses stock images) and asks that the shipping fee be deposited directly on his bank account in advance. I might get a VIA Apollo 133A untested board for now (price+shipping under US$20) and keep prowling that site untill I find a nice CUBX or a P3B-F from a more trustworthy seller.

Is the Apollo 133A a bad chipset? The VIA chipset on my Athlon 64 system hasn't given me much trouble (except for SATAII compatibility), but the one on my C2D system makes me want to curse sometimes (weird compatibility issues and other limitations). The board I'm considering (Pt-694x-a) has a universal AGP slot, 4 PCI and one shared PCI+ISA slot. From the pictures it appears to be well preserved (no marks, no dirt, no weird looking caps) but I cannot find neither the manufacturer (seems to be a company called Pretech that doesn't have a website anymore) nor reviews.

I would give it a try!
Maybe the NT4 drivers work. According to the "Web", Voodoo 1 and 2 drivers for NT4 work fine with NT 3.51.
http://www.win31.de/board/showtopic.php?threadid=677

obobskivich wrote:

I've never owned one, but from reviews and word of mouth the biggest complaint I remember for the Apollo 133A was just generally lower performance than the 440. I'd be more worried about going with a mystery-meat board than a VIA chipset honestly. 😊

Well, I think I just found a better Apollo 133a board, the Asus P3V-4X. Once VIA updated their GART drivers, AnandTech was drooling all over the board. They kept praising how rock-solid its stability is. The one I found is, once again, untested.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Just wait for a board to become available. Also consider Socket 370 stuff with Intel 815 chipset. And consider OEM boards, I have two awesome Acer Boards, Socket 370, 815 chipset, Pentium III-S support.

It seems that most i815 boards did not bother with ISA slots =( Do you guyus know good i815 boards with ISA?

Well, putting it bluntly, but on a fast 815 machine, I mean we are talking Pentium III running at over 1 GHz, missing sound is not that much of an issue.

PCI cards such as the Aureal Vortex 2 work very well with late DOS games. Yes Fate of Atlantis might crash with speech, but really, not the most suitable game for such a machine 😀

Quick update: Decided to look for full systems as well, and spotted a Pentium 3 700MHz with a motherboard that has 1 AGP (and I think I can see a notch, so it is probably AGP 2x), 4 PCI and 3 ISA (1 shared) and a chip with "Intel" written on it, coupled with 3x 128MB RAM. It seems to come bundled with an AGP vídeo card (with TV-out), a PCI modem (useless), an AWE64, a 30GB HDD and two optical drives. I assume it is a 440BX board (AGP 2x, 3 memory banks, good amount of ISA slots). Unfortunately the seller didn't take pictures of the components by themselves, so it is hard to identify everything, so I sent him the question just now asking the model of the motherboard and videocard. Are there any 440BX boards I should avoid? Manufacturers with crappy BX boards? If the board is nice and the vídeo card is decent, I can just replace the modem with a NIC and be done with it.

After going though all the trouble of looking for individual parts, I'm surprised to find such a promising system already assembled, and reasonably cheaper than what I was aiming for.

Sounds great! And over time you might get a few more systems which means you will have a lot more options. This is how my adventure started, a seller from the Eastern states sold me an entire retro collection. It was boxes of motheboards, graphics cards, processors... Still the foundation of what I have now 😀

I'm sure there are crappy BX boards but you next to never come across people having problems. Most issues come from early boards not supporting later CPU's. P3 700 is pretty late so you should be fine.
There was also the cheaper ZX based boards but really the things that were left off you'll never need anyway. Does sound promising indeed