ATI 9700/9800 Pro seems to be rare in the retro community. Not entirely sure why, seems like many may not have survived.

The standard options would be GF4s, GF FX5900s, etc.

Note that Civilization 3 does not use 3D graphics; if it's slower than you'd like, that's a CPU issue, not a GPU issue. And I hate to say this, but I believe that it runs just fine on a modern system (you just need to edit the .ini file to make it run at your system resolution), at least the Steam version...

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:04:

ATI 9700/9800 Pro seems to be rare in the retro community. Not entirely sure why, seems like many may not have survived.

The standard options would be GF4s, GF FX5900s, etc.

Note that Civilization 3 does not use 3D graphics; if it's slower than you'd like, that's a CPU issue, not a GPU issue. And I hate to say this, but I believe that it runs just fine on a modern system (you just need to edit the .ini file to make it run at your system resolution), at least the Steam version...

Oh i see. I play 3D games as well of course, i just mentioned my experience so far on with some newer XP games. So its CPU problem. 😉

I`ve also heard that GF FX5900s heats a lot, and many of them do not survive long time.

I'd go with either a GeForce 3 or GeForce 4. Personally I use a GeForce 4 4200 Ti in my multi-OS P4 build. It delivers good gaming performance under XP up to about 2003 era of games, as well as good Win 9x and DOS compatibility.

I wouldn't bother trying to do dual AGP / PCI. There isn't really a good AGP / PCI solution that doesn't have a performance/compatibility hole around the late 90s/early 2000s. And the AGP GPUs that are fast enough to start to have compatibility issues with Win9X wouldn't be a good pairing with a 1.4GHz Tualatin under XP.

A GeForce FX is overkill when paired with Tualatin CPU. IMHO, it would be better paired with a Pentium 4 or Athlon XP processor.

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:18:

Oh i see. I play 3D games as well of course, i just mentioned my experience so far on with some newer XP games. So its CPU problem. 😉

Civilization III isn't a newer XP game though. It came out in 2001, same year as XP released. It should run quite decently on a Pentium III system.

Caesar IV on the other hand came out in 2006. A Pentium III is below the minimum system requirements for that game, so performance won't be the greatest on that CPU.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:23:

I'd go with either a GeForce 3 or GeForce 4. Personally I use a GeForce 4 4200 Ti in my multi-OS P4 build. It delivers good gaming performance under XP up to about 2003 era of games, as well as good Win 9x and DOS compatibility.

I wouldn't bother trying to do dual AGP / PCI. There isn't really a good AGP / PCI solution that doesn't have a performance/compatibility hole around the late 90s/early 2000s. And the AGP GPUs that are fast enough to start to have compatibility issues with Win9X wouldn't be a good pairing with a 1.4GHz Tualatin under XP.

A GeForce FX is overkill when paired with Tualatin CPU. IMHO, it would be better paired with a Pentium 4 or Athlon XP processor.

Thanks for the info provided. I will search for these GeForce cards.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:31:

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:18:

Oh i see. I play 3D games as well of course, i just mentioned my experience so far on with some newer XP games. So its CPU problem. 😉

Civilization III isn't a newer XP game though. It came out in 2001, same year as XP released. It should run quite decently on a Pentium III system.

I played it on a PIII... 900, I think it was, laptop and briefly on a PIII 700 desktop. My recollection is that, like all the Civ games, the time it takes to do all the computing between turns can get... quite substantial... as you get towards the end of the game.

I think back then, we just accepted that that was how it was.

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:55:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:31:

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:18:

Oh i see. I play 3D games as well of course, i just mentioned my experience so far on with some newer XP games. So its CPU problem. 😉

Civilization III isn't a newer XP game though. It came out in 2001, same year as XP released. It should run quite decently on a Pentium III system.

I played it on a PIII... 900, I think it was, laptop and briefly on a PIII 700 desktop. My recollection is that, like all the Civ games, the time it takes to do all the computing between turns can get... quite substantial... as you get towards the end of the game.

I think back then, we just accepted that that was how it was.

I had the same experience playing such a games back then, but my knowledge of high end P3 machines is pretty limited, so i wanted to examine does it became better with better CPU/GPU.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:31:

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:18:

Oh i see. I play 3D games as well of course, i just mentioned my experience so far on with some newer XP games. So its CPU problem. 😉

Civilization III isn't a newer XP game though. It came out in 2001, same year as XP released. It should run quite decently on a Pentium III system.

Caesar IV on the other hand came out in 2006. A Pentium III is below the minimum system requirements for that game, so performance won't be the greatest on that CPU.

I would just add if i can push to play above 2003 i would be happy to try with bit better GPU`s if the Pentium 3 and Tualatan 1.4 can handle it. This Asus 9250 GE 256MB i currently use is from 2004 and work pretty fine for most of games i currently play. But i would like to try to see if i can get decent performance from some games made in 2004/5/6 if possible. If not, i`m still fine thou. 😀

"the best AGP card" is also super subjective. For win98 you'll be tied with either a x850 or a gf6800, but then xp's best is a bit higher past the dx10 gen (i.e. HD4650) and XP doesn't even support dx10 so it wouldn't be the best for dx9 games either (there's very subtle visual changes as DX10 represented a major leap for GPUs). and then there' s missing features like fog table and paletted textures for older games you'd need an older card for like fx or kyro or rage128pro

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-06, 00:06:

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:55:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:31:

Civilization III isn't a newer XP game though. It came out in 2001, same year as XP released. It should run quite decently on a Pentium III system.

I played it on a PIII... 900, I think it was, laptop and briefly on a PIII 700 desktop. My recollection is that, like all the Civ games, the time it takes to do all the computing between turns can get... quite substantial... as you get towards the end of the game.

I think back then, we just accepted that that was how it was.

I had the same experience playing such a games back then, but my knowledge of high end P3 machines is pretty limited, so i wanted to examine does it became better with better CPU/GPU.

Well, as already discussed, GPU won't help. CPU should.

But I come back to my earlier point - I am pretty sure you can play CivIII (at least from Steam, or maybe the version in the Civ chronicles set) on a modern system. Or on a late-XP system like a sandy/ivy bridge. So... if you want the best CivIII performance, any of those will give you a much much much bigger boost than a fast PIII.

leileilol wrote on 2024-10-06, 00:09:

"the best AGP card" is also super subjective. For win98 you'll be tied with either a x850 or a gf6800, but then xp's best is a bit higher past the dx10 gen (i.e. HD4650) and XP doesn't even support dx10 so it wouldn't be the best for dx9 games either. and then there' s missing features like fog table and paletted textures for older games you'd need an older card for like fx or kyro or rage128pro

I see it gets complicated. 😀 Well personally i`m not too demanding person in terms of graphics, i`m not into how much detailed it will run, rather will it slow too much during playing.

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-06, 00:10:

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-06, 00:06:

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-05, 23:55:

I played it on a PIII... 900, I think it was, laptop and briefly on a PIII 700 desktop. My recollection is that, like all the Civ games, the time it takes to do all the computing between turns can get... quite substantial... as you get towards the end of the game.

I think back then, we just accepted that that was how it was.

I had the same experience playing such a games back then, but my knowledge of high end P3 machines is pretty limited, so i wanted to examine does it became better with better CPU/GPU.

Well, as already discussed, GPU won't help. CPU should.

But I come back to my earlier point - I am pretty sure you can play CivIII (at least from Steam, or maybe the version in the Civ chronicles set) on a modern system. Or on a late-XP system like a sandy/ivy bridge. So... if you want the best CivIII performance, any of those will give you a much much much bigger boost than a fast PIII.

I happen to have GOG version , so i will play it on modern machine, thats not a problem. Either way i really wanted to make fast P3 as a project and use it as it is, but i never had such a machine, thats way i made a post just to see how far i can push it from experiences of people who tried such a thing.

I use a Radeon 9700 (non-Pro) on my P3-S 1266 system. It works just fine. I have had good luck with 9700s, none of the 3 I have show any problems at all after many years of use. Of course YMMV.

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-06, 00:07:

I would just add if i can push to play above 2003 i would be happy to try with bit better GPU`s if the Pentium 3 and Tualatan 1.4 can handle it. This Asus 9250 GE 256MB i currently use is from 2004 and work pretty fine for most of games i currently play. But i would like to try to see if i can get decent performance from some games made in 2004/5/6 if possible. If not, i`m still fine thou. 😀

If you're playing non-demanding games (esp. 2D games), then games from mid-2000's might be okay. But for any 3D games from 2004 to 2006, I'd set up a dedicated XP machine with a Core2Duo at minimum.

Even a Pentium 4 starts to get underwhelming by the time you get to the 2006 era of games.

Wasnt there somebody working on a driver that would get the 7 series nvidia cards running on XP?

People have mentioned the 9700 Pro but I would like to suggest one of the 9600XT/9800XT cards, both have big improvements over the older 9700/9800 pro cards including thermal protection and improved cooler design. Being based on the newer RV360/R360 they also run cooler and have plenty of extra head room if one wants to tweak their speeds a bit.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-10-06, 02:02:

Wasnt there somebody working on a driver that would get the 7 series nvidia cards running on XP?

They already do . .perhaps you mean 98 ? The only 7 series cards that dont work under 98 are the 7950 GX2 and the PCIe 7900GTX the GX2 because its SLI which doesn't work under 98 and the GTX because its PCIe and it never got official drivers for 98. IIRC there are unofficial drivers for the 7900GTX that allow it to work under 98SE, pretty sure they are just inf tweaks.

The rest of the 7 series work just fine under 98SE.

stamasd wrote on 2024-10-06, 01:49:

I use a Radeon 9700 (non-Pro) on my P3-S 1266 system. It works just fine. I have had good luck with 9700s, none of the 3 I have show any problems at all after many years of use. Of course YMMV.

Good to know. 😀 Thanks for let me know.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-06, 01:54:

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-10-06, 00:07:

I would just add if i can push to play above 2003 i would be happy to try with bit better GPU`s if the Pentium 3 and Tualatan 1.4 can handle it. This Asus 9250 GE 256MB i currently use is from 2004 and work pretty fine for most of games i currently play. But i would like to try to see if i can get decent performance from some games made in 2004/5/6 if possible. If not, i`m still fine thou. 😀

If you're playing non-demanding games (esp. 2D games), then games from mid-2000's might be okay. But for any 3D games from 2004 to 2006, I'd set up a dedicated XP machine with a Core2Duo at minimum.

Even a Pentium 4 starts to get underwhelming by the time you get to the 2006 era of games.

I guess for Pentium 4 specs games i will use just modern machine then. I`m not into having too much computers. I got this old machine for very nostalgic reasons that i could never even dream to afford Pentium 3 as kid in time of civil war in my country. I want to make overkill machine and enjoy in DOS/95/98 and early XP games so i fullfill my childhood dreams so to speak.