seems like a x850 might run on such a system?

Sphere478 wrote on 2023-08-16, 06:20:

seems like a x850 might run on such a system?

This could be the possible. Would the Ati Radeon x850 and the geforce 6 series of the card the most powerful chipset that would still make sense with my system configurations?

in case should go with a radeon card check out the games you want to play beforhand. These cards lack some legacy features to display some retro games in the proper fashion like table fog and palletised textures. The nvidia cards have not such issues until the FX series or even the GF 6 series. I am not sure.

Anyway you could check out the forum. There are some threads about that topic

like this one for exampe

Re: old games on cards with missing legacy features

I think FX was last to support those features.

If targeted resolutions are 800*600 and 1024*768 and games up to XP release date - which means DirectX 8 max - than a Radeon 9600Xt/geforce 5700 ultra should be more than enough and not break the bank! Period correct video cards such as geforce 3/4 and radeon 8000 series are not powerful enough to drive those games at max settings even with 1024*768 as maximum resolution. Not even geforce4 ti 4600 can not run some directx 8 games at max settings with an average of 60 fps!
As for Diablo 2 I play version 1.12 with software rendering in high resolution - 1280*1024 - or glide wrapper and both require a much stronger CPU!
I hope you have the 133mhz FSB variant of Athlon 1400 and the motherboard has the VIA KT266A chipset! And you got a period correct PSU because most of the power will be drawn from the 5V rail!

nd22 wrote on 2023-08-17, 09:14:

If targeted resolutions are 800*600 and 1024*768 and games up to XP release date - which means DirectX 8 max - than a Radeon 9600Xt/geforce 5700 ultra should be more than enough and not break the bank! Period correct video cards such as geforce 3/4 and radeon 8000 series are not powerful enough to drive those games at max settings even with 1024*768 as maximum resolution. Not even geforce4 ti 4600 can not run some directx 8 games at max settings with an average of 60 fps!
As for Diablo 2 I play version 1.12 with software rendering in high resolution - 1280*1024 - or glide wrapper and both require a much stronger CPU!
I hope you have the 133mhz FSB variant of Athlon 1400 and the motherboard has the VIA KT266A chipset! And you got a period correct PSU because most of the power will be drawn from the 5V rail!

Thanks for the information. I am going to use Athlon T Bird C. So it should have a 133 FSb . The motherboard that comes with the cpu is a MSI K7T266 Pro 2 . It is a mobo with the KT 266A chipset.

I am also fully aware of the psu situation. I am already researching and shopping around to find a decent CPU.

It also good to know tat Diablo 2 is demanding. Did not expect that.

800x600 and 1024-768 are indeed my prefered resolutions as I have already mentioned. I will look into the cards you have recommended.

I am bit abit confused about the Geforce FX situation though. The mixed reputation of that cards is very fascinating. They were not very well regarded among comtemporary gamers to say the leas but they seem to be quite nice for retro games.

The FX series seem to quite well regarded among retro gamers though. I personally would not mind giving the fx series a chance. These cards are not expensive after all and if the performance for retro gaming is alright there is no reason not to get one of them.

The 9600 series is also very interesting but I need to do some more research about the potential issues these cards could have. Just like the theiceman said.

gamefan_851 wrote on 2023-08-17, 10:23:

I am going to use Athlon T Bird C. So it should have a 133 FSb.

With that CPU, I wouldn't go any higher than a GeForce 4 Ti4200, especially if you're targeting the 1024x768 resolution. Unless you really want to crank up AA and AF, that card will serve you well for games released up to the tail end of 2001, while offering very good backward compatibility with older titles.

If you want to see how a more powerful CPU like an Athlon64 scales against an AthlonXP when both are using a GeForce 4 Ti4200, I posted some benchmarks here. The difference between those CPUs is very noticeable in lower resolutions, while it evens out around 1280x1024 which is when the GPU becomes the limiting factor. This is without AA and AF though. With those fully cranked up, you would hit the GPU limits even at lower resolutions.

I would recommend against a GF4, because it limits you to SM1.x
A Radeon 9600/9800 can do SM2.0, which gives you much better shading in games (and allows you to play newer games). They are also much better at using AA/AF.
My Radeon 9600XT ran most games at 4xAA and 16xAF on my TBird 1400 back in the day. I believe in most games the performance hit vs no AA/AF was less than 30%. They were incredibly efficient.

If you factor in price and availability, then Geforce 4 4200 or Radeon 9600 Pro are excellent choices. Both these cards are super cheap and easy to find. Geforce 4 for "older" games because of better compatibility, and the Radeon if you want to max out the settings in later games. You could also go with a Geforce FX for the best of both worlds (compatibility and performance), but the more desirable models (FX 5600 and up) are a bit harder to find and more expensive.

But in terms of authenticity, for me the ultimate card would be a Geforce 2. In the summer of 2001, just before the Athlon XP was released, AMD cut the price of the Athlon 1400 in half. Many people bought it as a cheap, final upgrade for their aging machine, and this would be the card that most people still had at that point.

Scali wrote on 2023-08-17, 13:14:

I would recommend against a GF4, because it limits you to SM1.x
A Radeon 9600/9800 can do SM2.0, which gives you much better shading in games (and allows you to play newer games).

The OP is aiming for pre 2002 Win9x games, where SM 2.0 has zero bearing. You'd have to play 2003-2004 titles like Halo and FarCry to see some use of that feature, and those are well within the WinXP era. Still, that could be useful for nGlide and similar wrappers under Win9x, but those would likely be bottlenecked by the Athlon Thunderbird CPU.

They are also much better at using AA/AF.

This is true, and it presents a valid reason to go for a Radeon 9000 series card. GeForce 4 cards aren't very efficient at handling high levels of AA/AF.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-08-17, 14:45:

The OP is aiming for pre 2002 Win9x games, where SM 2.0 has zero bearing. You'd have to play 2003-2004 titles like Halo and FarCry to see some use of that feature, and those are well within the WinXP era. Still, that could be useful for nGlide and similar wrappers under Win9x, but those would likely be bottlenecked by the Athlon Thunderbird CPU.

If you want to max out an Athlon 1400, then sticking to pre-2002 games doesn't seem to make sense.
Such a machine is perfectly capable of playing Far Cry, Half-Life 2 and even Doom 3.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-08-17, 14:45:

This is true, and it presents a valid reason to go for a Radeon 9000 series card. GeForce 4 cards aren't very efficient at handling high levels of AA/AF.

Yea, so even for your pre-2002 Win9x games, you could push the graphics quality further.
I really see no case for the GF4.

Another vote for Radeon 9600XT - 9800 Pro

asdf53 wrote on 2023-08-17, 14:05:

If you factor in price and availability, then Geforce 4 4200 or Radeon 9600 Pro are excellent choices. Both these cards are super cheap and easy to find. Geforce 4 for "older" games because of better compatibility, and the Radeon if you want to max out the settings in later games. You could also go with a Geforce FX for the best of both worlds (compatibility and performance), but the more desirable models (FX 5600 and up) are a bit harder to find and more expensive.

But in terms of authenticity, for me the ultimate card would be a Geforce 2. In the summer of 2001, just before the Athlon XP was released, AMD cut the price of the Athlon 1400 in half. Many people bought it as a cheap, final upgrade for their aging machine, and this would be the card that most people still had at that point.

Thanks a lot for your recommendation. Die Geforce 4200 or the Radeon 9600 seem to really nice cards indeed. Considering a geforce 2 to something peroid correct would be nice as well. I would not having a peroid card as well. Which geforce 2 model would you recommend to go for?

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-08-17, 11:18:

gamefan_851 wrote on 2023-08-17, 10:23:

I am going to use Athlon T Bird C. So it should have a 133 FSb.

With that CPU, I wouldn't go any higher than a GeForce 4 Ti4200, especially if you're targeting the 1024x768 resolution. Unless you really want to crank up AA and AF, that card will serve you well for games released up to the tail end of 2001, while offering very good backward compatibility with older titles.

If you want to see how a more powerful CPU like an Athlon64 scales against an AthlonXP when both are using a GeForce 4 Ti4200, I posted some benchmarks here. The difference between those CPUs is very noticeable in lower resolutions, while it evens out around 1280x1024 which is when the GPU becomes the limiting factor. This is without AA and AF though. With those fully cranked up, you would hit the GPU limits even at lower resolutions.

Thanks for your vote for the Geforce 4 as well. i will also check out the benchmark you posted. I am very curious about what more powerful athlon cpus can do.

@scali There are always options to expand the time frame of games I want to play.

You have a point using a cpu from 2001 to play games from 99 to 2001 is no the most abovous choice.

But I have to admit that th athlon 1400 and the msi mobo was impulse buy. I just found it a good price when shopping around for a system that can play 99 to 2001 games. From games from 97/98 and early 1999 I have my first rig. The Asus p2b with a p2 400 mhz.

Scali wrote on 2023-08-17, 14:54:

If you want to max out an Athlon 1400, then sticking to pre-2002 games doesn't seem to make sense.

Games made after 2001 can generally be played on much more powerful WinXP era hardware, at higher resolutions and with much smoother frame rates. My understanding is that the OP wants to create a Win9x era system.

Yea, so even for your pre-2002 Win9x games, you could push the graphics quality further.
I really see no case for the GF4.

The case for a GF4 is better compatibility with legacy features like table fog and paletted textures. For some people, those are important, while others prefer to turn up AA/AF to get improved image quality. Depending on one's preference, each card has some benefits and drawbacks.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-08-17, 15:07:

Games made after 2001 can generally be played on much more powerful WinXP era hardware, at higher resolutions and with much smoo […]
Show full quote

Scali wrote on 2023-08-17, 14:54:

If you want to max out an Athlon 1400, then sticking to pre-2002 games doesn't seem to make sense.

Games made after 2001 can generally be played on much more powerful WinXP era hardware, at higher resolutions and with much smoother frame rates. My understanding is that the OP wants to create a Win9x era system.

Yea, so even for your pre-2002 Win9x games, you could push the graphics quality further.
I really see no case for the GF4.

The case for a GF4 is better compatibility with legacy features like table fog and paletted textures. For some people, those are important, while others prefer to turn up AA/AF to get improved image quality. Depending on one's preference, each card has some benefits and drawbacks.

That's right . My plan is to get very powerful system to enjoy the win 98se games from 99 to 2001 in high quality in 800x600 or 1024x768.

Having a card that supports these legacy features is quite important. I read through the forum as recommended by another user and there quite few games I am into that uses these legacy features.

So having card with good backward compability is a must for me.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-08-17, 15:07:

The case for a GF4 is better compatibility with legacy features like table fog and paletted textures. For some people, those are important, while others prefer to turn up AA/AF to get improved image quality. Depending on one's preference, each card has some benefits and drawbacks.

But then you're talking WAY older games, and an Athlon 1400 would be total overkill for that, as would a GF4 for that matter.

Scali wrote on 2023-08-17, 16:25:

But then you're talking WAY older games

Not really. There are several games released in 1999 and 2000 which used table fog and/or paletted textures. Some examples of table fog use include Thief II (2000), 1nsane (2000), Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear (1999) and Need for Speed: High Stakes (1999). With regards to paletted textures, there are Final Fantasy VIII (2000) and Driver (1999). The latter in particular, used paletted textures in a fairly prominent manner, as can be seen in this video.

and an Athlon 1400 would be total overkill for that, as would a GF4 for that matter.

While not super demanding, both NFS: High Stakes and Thief II will benefit from a GeForce 4 at the 1024x768 resolution, especially if you crank up AF (but not AA) and still want 60+ FPS.

Then again, some aspects of GeForce 4 Ti 3D rendering quality are just subpar, compared to Radeon cards.

gamefan_851 wrote on 2023-08-14, 12:51:

I am interested in playing games like […]
Show full quote

stef80 wrote on 2023-08-14, 12:08:

There are many options. What late Win98 games are you targeting?

I am interested in playing games like

Drakan
Unreal Tournment
Quake 3
Heavy Metal Fak 2
Deus Ex
Diablo 2
Star Voyager Elite Force
Noctourne
Vampire the Masquarede Redemption
No one lives Forever

I also want to play the orginal versons of Half Life and the Add Ons despite teh fact I have these games on steam fully playable on my modern day Pc.

and also maybe some 2001/2002 games like Return to castle wolfenstein, Max Payne, Nolf 2 , MOH Allied Assault and Jedi Knight 2.

I play the same games on a P4 2.8ghz and a ti4200 is really good at it. It's a great over clocker to so you can push it to 4400 level is and it would be more than enough for those game. I would say a fx5500 or better a 5700 will do the same and more for the 5700 (AA filter and and AF). The 4200 is great and readily available the 5700 is better but harder to find !

Good value Win98 Graphic Card. Fx5900

For those with an unlimited budget and brand loyalty
Athlon XP 1600+ vs Athlon XP 2100+ for a Voodoo 5 5500