Depends on what kind of P3 you have. TNT2 ultra might fit fine. But don't expect miracles with higher resolutions. You can go up to GF4 .. Ti4200 is very good and usually not expensive.

AcidJazz wrote on 2021-09-21, 13:35:

Hi there, I'm having some doubts about which graphic card might fit this context. I'm planning to upgrade my graphic card for a […]
Show full quote

Hi there, I'm having some doubts about which graphic card might fit this context.
I'm planning to upgrade my graphic card for a Pentium III - 256 to 512MB Ram - currently with an ATI Rage 128 Pro.
I'm mostly using it for Windows 9x games, so to say, but also for some DOS games as well.
So far the ATI is working well, but I thought about upgrading it for a better "late 90s" performance, would a Riva TNT 2 Ultra be considered an upgrade or the two cards are equivalent?
I'm also considering a Hercules 3D Prophet FDX 8500LE 64MB, wouldn't this be overkill?
Didn't manage to find a Geforce 256 at a decent price, but I would definitely consider other options.

You did not mention what Pentium 3 you have. It's one thing to have a Pentium 3 Katmai 450 MHz, and a completely different thing with a Coppermine 1 GHz... or, even faster, a Tualatin 1.4 GHz . 😀
The ATI Rage 128 Pro is slower than the TNT2, especially in 16 bit, but it depends on the game. In some games it's just a tad slower, in others it's MUCH slower. However, in 32 bit @ resolutions such as 1024 x 768 it's very similar.

I would say that a GeForce 2 GTS would be a real upgrade (even for a slower CPU like the 450 Katmai). I wouldn't bother with a TNT2 Ultra, unless you want to build a "1999 dream PC" or something (and you are willing to spend the money on what is usually a very expensive card, without expecting anything special in return). 😀
If you have a faster CPU, like a Coppermine 800 MHz or above, I would go for a GeForce 4 MX 440 / 460. It's much faster than the GeForce 2 GTS at higher resolutions, it's also cheaper than the GeForce 2 GTS (you can frequently buy it for $15 or even less) and it's compatible with both Win98 and DOS games. In DOS it will be slower than the GeForce 2, but it's not something you'll notice anyway.

You're right 😀 It's a Pentium 3 866 MHZ.

To keep it period correct, there is also Geforce 2MX (not MX 200), generally cheaper than both GF2 GTS and GF4 MX440. Slower than GF2 GTS but not by that much.
On the Ati side, you´ve got the original Radeon (R6), both SDR and DDR versions (the latter being superior, of course but also harder to find and not always inexpensive).

Lots of options for that CPU. Likely depends on what you can get and for what price.

MX440, Radeon 7500, Relatively common cards and can be found easily and cheaply enough.

You could also go Voodoo 3 or even something from Matrox or PowerVR, more exotic and more pricey but more interesting.

If you just want to play some games and don't care much about the API in question, Some kind of Geforce MX or Radeon 7000, I would avoid SDR version of the Radeons.
Even a Radeon 9200SE can be a decent choice as long as you confirm it is a 128bit card. Same for the Geforce MX cards though....

Thank you all for your inputs.
I saw some Voodoo 3 but at "insane" prices only, unfortunately.
While the GeForce 2 MX/4 MX or 2 GTS, but also the Radeon 7500, eventually, look like a more viable options 😉

I would get a MX440 over a GF1 or GF2 (of any variant), unless you are collecting high end GPUs. Just stay away from the SE model as most (but not all) have a 64bit bus width. These cards are found easily and are very cheap. At the time it would outperform a GF2 ultra in games that didn't utilise the additional TMUs of the GF2Ultra.

One of my rigs is P 3 800MHz@900MHz, with GF4MX440 it is much faster in 3D compared to GF2Pro.

DundyTheCroc wrote on 2021-09-28, 07:02:

One of my rigs is P 3 800MHz@900MHz, with GF4MX440 it is much faster in 3D compared to GF2Pro.

The good MX440 / 460 versions can actually be many times faster than a GF2 GTS/Pro, particularly in some titles at higher resolutions. I remember testing Expendable on a powerful CPU (I think it was a Core 2 Duo) at 1024 x 768 with a GeForce 4 MX 440, and I was shocked to see 400+ FPS from this card.
For Windows 98 I recommend these cards over an FX5200/5500 any day... especially because they are often extremely cheap or even free.
Yes, the Ti 4200/4400/4600 are clearly a much better choice (unless your motherboard has AGP power delivery issues, in which case it's better to stick to a GeForce 2 GTS/Pro/Ti), but these cards (the GeForce 4 Tis) are getting a bit harder to come by at a decent price.

On late drivers the Rage 128 Pro is not bad compared to the TNT2.
ATI had the tendency of releasing with fast hardware and crap drivers and as drivers improve they closed the performance to Nvidia or even took over. It was like this for the Rage 128 and Rage 6 (Radeon R100) and the Radeon 8000 series (R200).

As for what to upgrade to:
+1 for the MX440. Cheap, easy to find and fast in late 90s games.