Depends on what you want to play, but generally speaking, something like a GeForce2 would be more period correct on the Coppermine 800.

On my Tualatin 1.4 I run a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, the next flagship after the GeForce4 Ti cards, just because I really enjoy running games at high resolutions (think 1600x1200) with anti-aliasing. At this point, it becomes an interesting balance of CPU bottlenecks and GPU bottlenecks. Otherwise, that card would be completely CPU bottlenecked.
If you like what you hear so far, then go for the GeForce4.

Otherwise, tell us what sort of games you plan on playing on that system 😀.

F2bnp wrote:

Depends on what you want to play, but generally speaking, something like a GeForce2 would be more period correct on the Coppermi […]
Show full quote

Depends on what you want to play, but generally speaking, something like a GeForce2 would be more period correct on the Coppermine 800.

On my Tualatin 1.4 I run a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, the next flagship after the GeForce4 Ti cards, just because I really enjoy running games at high resolutions (think 1600x1200) with anti-aliasing. At this point, it becomes an interesting balance of CPU bottlenecks and GPU bottlenecks. Otherwise, that card would be completely CPU bottlenecked.
If you like what you hear so far, then go for the GeForce4.

Otherwise, tell us what sort of games you plan on playing on that system 😀.

Ah that's an interesting point, I can push into high resolution on newer cards and I am using a sony 4:3 LCD 1600x1200 display. I have no specific games in mind, it's just a general purpose rig at this point and honestly mostly just ms-dos and messing with a game engine I've actually written for ms dos mode 13h, which runs on anything.

I've been playing Diablo 2 on it (which unfortunately requires XP now for the latest online patch), which drops down to 15FPS easily against mobs using a GeForce 3 (original, non Ti) but I'm assuming that's the CPU, and the game only runs at 640x480. If a GeForce 4 would get a few more frames out of D2 then I may try it. I'm also curious if it can handle Serious Sam First & Second Encounters as well.

I'm really just into benching as a curiosity right now and was wondering if anybody has compiled such data using later graphics cards on a slot 1 board. Perhaps Quake benchmarks or anything of the sort. I have a Pentium 4 and cards all the way up to HD 3850 I can run on that if I really need extra power, but don't want to sacrifice my ISA slots 😎

yes the resolution aspect is also important, back in 99-2000 when the Coppermine was quite good you would often play at 800x600 or 1024x768, if you are using a newer display those resolutions tend to look not great with scaling

if I'm not mistaken Diablo is all software rendering

Diablo 2 has D3D and Glide support also. My Voodoo 3 runs the game flawlessly at 800x600 using Glide.

Increasing resolution will not really demand more CPU performance, only GPU.

It's kinda odd that Diablo 2 runs only at 15fps, it's probably a case of the latest patch that you're using, I'm thinking Blizzard tweaked some things for newer systems and removed some legacy code which is why it probably runs that bad. Out of curiosity, try a more period correct patch and see 😀.

1600x1200 is such a cool resolution, but it does demand a hefty GPU. Go for a GeForce 4 Ti and if that doesn't satisfy you look even further down the line. Serious Sam should run pretty okay on that Coppermine and GeForce 4 😉.

BeginnerGuy wrote:

I've been playing Diablo 2 on it (which unfortunately requires XP now for the latest online patch)

Same problem with my AMD K6-2 550AGR + 3Dfx Voodoo 3 2000 AGP.
You must use an old patch! 😉
I used 113d: Problem solved!