AGP-LP Radeon 7000 <- Works with Windows 95 (DX7), GeForce/GeForce 2 MX competitor performance wise
AGP-LP Radeon 7500 <- Works with Windows 95 (DX7), comparable performance to GF2 GTS/Ultra
AGP-LP Radeon 9200 256MB 128BIT <- Requires Windows 98 (DX8/8.1), faster than GF2GTS, slower than GF3 series
AGP-LP Radeon 9550se <- Requires Windows 98 (DX9), performance wise trades blows with the FX5200/GeForce 4 MX/GF2 GTS/Ultra
AGP-LP Radeon 9600 le/se <- Requires Windows 98 (DX9), performance probably on par with a Radeon9200/GF3?
AGP-LP Radeon 9600M-T64 <- Requires Windows 98 (DX9), if it's a neutered 64-bit model, probably slower than Radeon9200/GF3
AGP-LP ATI FireGL-T2 <- Don't know about these
AGP-LP GeForce 440mx <- Works with Windows 95 (DX7), performance ~ GeForce 2 GTS/Ultra class
AGP-LP GeForce MX4000 <- Works with Windows 95 (DX7), somewhat faster than the MX440
AGP-LP GeForce FX5200 <- Works with Windows 95 (DX8), but better on 98 (DX9), performs like a GeForce 4 MX440/GF2 GTS
AGP-LP GeForce 6200 <- Works with Windows 95 (DX8?) but better on 98 (DX9), GF4Ti4200/Radeon 9600Pro weight class, if not a castrated version of the 6200
Here's some summary about performance, compatibility, and performance in relation to the other players.
I can't say I was a fan of the naming and numbering conventions ATi and nVidia adopted around this time.
Radeon 9200 was slower than a 9000, which was slower than a 8500.
The GeForce went the same way with MX being faster than a MX200 being faster than a MX400 etc.
Stupid, inconsistent naming. 😁 nVidia has better support for Windows 95 across the board, but ATi typically had more robust hardware level stuff (for example the Radeon 9600 Pro which traded blows with the GeForce 4 Ti-series had hardware level DirectX 9-support, whereas the GF4 Ti only had DX8.1)...
edit: Fixed some details I clearly got wrong the first time around.