For DX7 and earlier I have a Quadro FX600 PCI, I'm assured that Win98 will install and work on this MB, so the question was specifically for DX8 onwards. But yes there may be some DX8/9 games that might work better under 98, I can't imagine there being many though.

In compatibility a 2010s Radeon in XP is likely an improvement over an FX in 98. That comes back to the build of Radeon + 10 series, no one has come up with a downside or blind spot this build would have in the XP-Vista/7 range or a build that would do better. Add a PCI Voodoo of some version and passthrough to a Windows 9x VM for convenience and what else is left but the few speed sensitive DX games.

Phenom II X6 1100T will not benefit from GTX 980. I had one and it got replaced by Vishera in AM3+ board. Vishera FX-8370 is about 20% faster than Phenom II X6 with broken turbo. If you do not fix the broken turbo it is only very slightly faster than Phenom II X4 955.

During my testing of AM2+, I identified GTX 670/770 as more than enough for Phenom II X4 955 to play Windows Vista/7 era games at max details in 1920x1080. If your focus is just Windows XP, you will be fine with GTX 660/760. I wouldn't really bother with GTX 980 and fixing driver. GTX 660/760 are so numerous and cheap that people give them out for peanuts. You can even request lower price for fun. If you find GTX 670/770 for the same price then go for that. I'm using GTX 780 in AM2+ only because I already have it as I needed it for benchmarking. I also have another GTX 980 (non Ti and Ti) collecting dust in drawer because it isn't necessary.

I'm not suggesting older cards, because for Phenom II X6 1100T it makes sense to eventually dual boot Windows Vista/7 as well. Phenom II X4 955 is not powerful enough to play games with Physics, Phenom II X6 1100T will have the same problem. There is major drop in FPS that makes it not worth it. You will need Intel 3770K for that.

GTX 980 really deserves Intel 3770K or at least very fast Vishera. I have also FX-9370 but it isn't installed yet until I determine how it compares with FX-8370 TDP wise at low frequencies as I would undervolt it and under clock it.

vvbee wrote on 2025-10-05, 17:35:

In compatibility a 2010s Radeon in XP is likely an improvement over an FX in 98. That comes back to the build of Radeon + 10 series, no one has come up with a downside or blind spot this build would have in the XP-Vista/7 range or a build that would do better. Add a PCI Voodoo of some version and passthrough to a Windows 9x VM for convenience and what else is left but the few speed sensitive DX games.

I suppose only losing Physx under Vista/7. My current daily driver is a AMD and I noticed it does play better with older DX8/9 games in Windows 11 compared to my previous build with an Nvidia. But ideally I wanted something that was able to run earlier OS and avoid problems introduced by modern OS more than anything, plus its nice to have actual hardware rather than relying on emulation or patches. Part of the reason I went with a Phenom II / K-10 over a AM3+ CPU was because of cpuspd being able to slow it down considerably using P-states, this will be really good for those speed sensitive 98 games. CpuSpd - A Hardware Based CPU Speed Control Utility for DOS/Win9X Retro Gaming

I don't expect to be able to play everything but it should cover a hell of a lot with the ability to run nGlide and having access to the earlier 45.23 nvidia drivers, without having to pay insane prices for a voodoo card.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-10-05, 17:50:

Phenom II X6 1100T will not benefit from GTX 980. I had one and it got replaced by Vishera in AM3+ board. Vishera FX-8370 is abo […]
Show full quote

Phenom II X6 1100T will not benefit from GTX 980. I had one and it got replaced by Vishera in AM3+ board. Vishera FX-8370 is about 20% faster than Phenom II X6 with broken turbo. If you do not fix the broken turbo it is only very slightly faster than Phenom II X4 955.

During my testing of AM2+, I identified GTX 670/770 as more than enough for Phenom II X4 955 to play Windows Vista/7 era games at max details in 1920x1080. If your focus is just Windows XP, you will be fine with GTX 660/760. I wouldn't really bother with GTX 980 and fixing driver. GTX 660/760 are so numerous and cheap that people give them out for peanuts. You can even request lower price for fun. If you find GTX 670/770 for the same price then go for that. I'm using GTX 780 in AM2+ only because I already have it as I needed it for benchmarking. I also have another GTX 980 (non Ti and Ti) collecting dust in drawer because it isn't necessary.

I'm not suggesting older cards, because for Phenom II X6 1100T it makes sense to eventually dual boot Windows Vista/7 as well.

GTX 980 really deserves Intel 3770K or at least very fast Vishera. I have also FX-9370 but it isn't installed yet until I determine how it compares with FX-8370 TDP wise at low frequencies as I would undervolt it and under clock it.

Thanks, this is sort of what I expected. I don't really intend to run games beyond 1600x1200 or 1920x1080 @ 60Hz, and yeah like I said I didn't really intend to use a AM3+ CPU but I got this MB really cheap and it was confirmed working with 98SE (XP and onwards are already confirmed in the specs), so it ticks the boxes for older OS as well. The only thing I was maybe curious about was if certain games would benefit from a faster GPU if they are well optimized and don't rely heavily on CPU but probably not. Physx is the only other thing I was curious about, I'm not sure if the GPU or memory clock speeds have an impact on the Physx capabilities or its a separate thing on the GPU (I know in the earlier days when it was Ageia you had to buy a separate card to handle it) but it might have an easier time rendering that stuff on the faster/later cards.

Windows 98 games typically use DirectX 6 or 7 and will require compatibility patches.

You will not be able to play Windows Vista/7 era games with Physics on Phenom II X6 1100T comfortably. The performance drop I observed on Phenom II X4 955 was too much, Phenom II X6 1100T will have the same problem.

Vishera can have compatibility problems with Windows XP/Vista games, such as Crysis where a patch is needed otherwise it crashes due to lack of 3d now.

The main downside of Phenom II X6 1100T is very high power draw (6 cores) but insufficient performance for late games. See https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-i … amd,2810-9.html how much it draws power (total system power draw). It's about 250W in total. Phenom II X4 970 consumes 208W. Phenom II X4 955 could be at 190W. OCing it could destroy the board.

AaronS wrote on 2025-10-05, 15:32:

For DX7 and earlier I have a Quadro FX600 PCI, I'm assured that Win98 will install and work on this MB, so the question was specifically for DX8 onwards.

Even for Physx games released around 2007/8?

If you want to cover speed sensitive games, just make a DOS menu and add specific option with setmul utility set to disable L1/L2/L3 cache.
Dropping frequency is good, but disabling cache is better.

Playing 2008-2009 heavy PhysX games is going to be a pain on DX10 class hardware, mid range and better Fermi/Kepler should do just fine though.
Alternatively just add PhysX capable NV card.

I had in issue when playing the game Mirrors Edge, it was all fine till at one point when the NPC's shoot glass, and the whole game went crazy would drop to 1 frame every 4 seconds. Couldn't figure it out till i read on some forum to disable PhysX

Yeah Mirrors Edge uses it for flags and glass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFio7wMTQ2k
I did recently play this game again on my current AMD system (as well as Batman Arkham) and its a shame to miss out on these cool effects.

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-10-05, 22:07:

If you want to cover speed sensitive games, just make a DOS menu and add specific option with setmul utility set to disable L1/L […]
Show full quote

If you want to cover speed sensitive games, just make a DOS menu and add specific option with setmul utility set to disable L1/L2/L3 cache.
Dropping frequency is good, but disabling cache is better.

Playing 2008-2009 heavy PhysX games is going to be a pain on DX10 class hardware, mid range and better Fermi/Kepler should do just fine though.
Alternatively just add PhysX capable NV card.

Alright, I think just incase I ever "upgrade" to a intel 3rd/4th gen system or this Phenom II build doesn't work out, I'll go with a 970 or 980, they're all more or less priced the same. It's really too bad there's no speed/cache control on the intel core ix, they would tick every box at that point.

AaronS wrote on 2025-10-05, 18:19:

vvbee wrote on 2025-10-05, 17:35:

That comes back to the build of Radeon + 10 series, no one has come up with a downside or blind spot this build would have in the XP-Vista/7 range or a build that would do better. Add a PCI Voodoo of some version and passthrough to a Windows 9x VM for convenience and what else is left but the few speed sensitive DX games.

I suppose only losing Physx under Vista/7.

Not a downside of the GTX 1070. Obvious downsides are multiple monitor cables, primary display competition etc., but that seems to be about it, other than the drivers in Vista not being official. In my view the 1070 has too much overlap with modern systems but that's not what you can't say about the 980 Ti either. This way it's at least balanced out toward Windows 7 while something more compatible does XP. I don't expect you to build this, just taking the chance to flesh out a better alternative to the common 980 + XP build.

vvbee wrote on 2025-10-06, 07:28:

Not a downside of the GTX 1070. Obvious downsides are multiple monitor cables, primary display competition etc., but that seems to be about it, other than the drivers in Vista not being official. In my view the 1070 has too much overlap with modern systems but that's not what you can't say about the 980 Ti either. This way it's at least balanced out toward Windows 7 while something more compatible does XP. I don't expect you to build this, just taking the chance to flesh out a better alternative to the common 980 + XP build.

Yeah I understand. It makes more sense. I suppose it makes sense also to skip Vista and use 7 with some even more recent (definitely not on this board/CPU combo though), I'm not sure if there's anything that specifically prefers Vista over 7, otherwise for that I believe RTX 3xxx series is the limit.

Okay so I ended up getting a crazy bargain on a GTX 980 for £20, GTX 960s usually go for more than that! It will be nice to use if I ever build an Ivy Bridge system down the road.

Anyway I'm having a slight issue and a bit worried, so for this build I bought a brand new power supply which is a Cooler Master 750W Gold ATX 3.1 power supply. Upon inspecting the connector I got with it, the "square/circle" shapes do not match up with the connector on the top of the 980. I basically got 2 of these PCIe 6+2 cables with the PSU and I need to use 8 and another 6 on 980:

However this is what my cable looks like (the +2 on the left which can be separated):

The "6" connector on the right matches up fine, but the "8" on left do not

980:
square square circle circle
circle circle circle square
PCIe cable:
circle square circle circle
circle circle circle square

Sure enough the circle plugs into the square but that can't be right... do I need a different cable here?

AaronS wrote on 2025-10-22, 17:37:

Okay so I ended up getting a crazy bargain on a GTX 980 for £20, GTX 960s usually go for more than that! It will be nice to use […]
Show full quote

Okay so I ended up getting a crazy bargain on a GTX 980 for £20, GTX 960s usually go for more than that! It will be nice to use if I ever build an Ivy Bridge system down the road.

Anyway I'm having a slight issue and a bit worried, so for this build I bought a brand new power supply which is a Cooler Master 750W Gold ATX 3.1 power supply. Upon inspecting the connector I got with it, the "square/circle" shapes do not match up with the connector on the top of the 980. I basically got 2 of these PCIe 6+2 cables with the PSU and I need to use 8 and another 6 on 980:

The attachment 980 Power.png is no longer available

However this is what my cable looks like (the +2 on the left which can be separated):

The attachment Cable.png is no longer available

The "6" connector on the right matches up fine, but the "8" on left do not

980:
square square circle circle
circle circle circle square
PCIe cable:
circle square circle circle
circle circle circle square

Sure enough the circle plugs into the square but that can't be right... do I need a different cable here?

Maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly (happens all the time), but I think you have the wrong one circled if you are trying to indicate which one plugs into the circled one on the card. The connector would be reversed when you plug it in, so when viewing them from those angles, the upper right pin on the cable is the upper left pin on the card.

Doesn't solve your issue though, since the squares are still not correct. I'm not sure why they wouldn't match up. I've honestly never even looked at the shape of the PCI-E connectors before and have always just plugged them in whatever orientation made the clips align.

Dumb question... if the PSU is modular, are you looking at the correct end of the cable? If that is the end that's meant to go into the PSU and you have it backward that could explain it. Or, that could be the motherboard 12v power connector, not PCI-E. Just a thought.

I flipped the image so thats how it would go in (circle into square).

Also no the cable ends are labelled, one says "CM-PSU" and the other 2 ends are "PCI-e".

EDIT: Went ahead and plugged the PSU in and theres two little white LEDs above both connectors to let you know if its properly plugged in, powered on and getting an image. Now to install XP and the drivers and see how much it bottlenecks 🤣

AaronS wrote on 2025-10-22, 19:00:

I flipped the image so thats how it would go in (circle into square).

Also no the cable ends are labelled, one says "CM-PSU" and the other 2 ends are "PCI-e".

EDIT: Went ahead and plugged the PSU in and theres two little white LEDs above both connectors to let you know if its properly plugged in, powered on and getting an image. Now to install XP and the drivers and see how much it bottlenecks 🤣

Ah, yeah. The picture being flipped made it a bit confusing when you are talking about what is on the left\right and where the +2 pins are, etc.

Anyway, I'm glad it worked! That's nifty that there is an indicator for whether they are plugged in correctly. As for CPU bottlenecks, forced 8xSSAA at maximum resolution can help to keep the GPU balanced for the processor. 😁