I would choose the 3D blaster banshee. But only because I don't have it. 😜 Otherwise I would choose the Voodoo 3 as it's much faster.

My main reason for putting a good graphics (but still era appropriate) is that I want to enjoy NFS:porsche and Gran Prix 3 at their best. As far as I learnt, I might also upgrade the CPU for a K6-2+ or K6-3+ if I get my hands on one...

The 1.04 revision of the P5A should not have problems with the + versions of AMD K6's right?

Also I dont remember really if there is any advantage putting 2 or 3 ram sticks in the motherboard? Would be better to go for a single 128MB? Or a dual/tripple 64MB (maybe even 2/3 x 128MB... but this would be way too much for a period exact machine... 😀

When it comes to memory sticks the higher the capacity means its higher density which can have a latency tax.
Aim for as many megabytes or gigabytes of system RAM you truly need because too much excess will only add a slightly noticeable handbrake on your motherboards performance.
You can get either single sided or double sided ram chip modules single sided low capacity are gamers choice as the balance of capacity and density is sweeter being less work for memory controller keeping best possible stability and performance.
Sometimes you can have more ram than the motherboard chipset memory controller can cache thus degrading performance further than anticipated.
If populating more than 2 ram slots try getting one stick that’s rated slower than other 2 it will stabilise the use of 3.(sometimes even improving performance beyond expectation) and you can swap around the modules until you find the best places.
With 4 memory slots 2 slower 2 faster.
The performance ratings are marginal and almost not noticeable overlooked my most normal users thus my comments are for those who really wanna make things interesting.

IMO the board and CPU work fine with the Banshee. Also tried a Voodoo 3 but the performance increase is quite meager (I'd rather pair the V3 with a Pentium 3 or similar to use it's potential). When using the K6-2 without integrated L2 cache it is recommended to not exceed the cacheable area of 128 MB to avoid a possible performance loss (assuming the board has 512 kB cache). Otherwise with 1MB board cache using more RAM without performance penalty is possible, but if the software can really benefit is arguable...depending on the software. I have this setup with a K6-2+ and the said Banshee going along very well together.

I believe Banshee will struggle to play NFS: Porsche.

Banshee (1998), NFS: Porsche (2000), that two years gap.

I have NFS: Porsche on my Windows 98SE test system and I have run a LOT of cards in that game for several years. I really wouldn't expect great performance from a K6-II or even K6-III+, but I guess it depends how picky you are about smoothness.

My tester was running a Pentium III 850Mhz for most of its life (now running a 1.1Ghz) and it seems basically sufficient for that game, but that is somewhere around 3 times as fast as a 400-500Mhz K6 2\III (depending on the benchmark). If I remember correctly, on that system even a Voodoo3 3000 is not smooth enough for me at 1024x768. With that config the game seems to suffer from fluctuating frame rates and "surging" (movement speeding up or jumping ahead unexpectedly).

I would consider NFS:Porsche more suited to a high end PIII or Athlon\AthlonXP build with a beefier GPU. At least a Geforce 2 GTS or Geforce 3.

But again, if you aren't real picky and don't mind the frame rate going up and down and your car jumping ahead 20 feet suddenly, you can probably play it on even a Voodoo Banshee and a K6-II. Just expect to turn settings down to make it playable.

If you save NFS:Porsche for a different computer and want a somewhat balanced K6-2\3 system to run games up to 1998 and maybe less heavy games from 1999, a Banshee would be okay but a V3 would allow you to run at higher resolutions with better performance.

EDIT: I found a nice thread all about the performance of NFS: Porsche and this post in particular has some useful benchmark numbers. Pay attention to the average vs low frame rates. This is on a Pentium Dual Core E5800 running at 3.8Ghz... so, zero chance of CPU bottlenecks. Even a Geforce 2 MX 400 has lows in the 20s at 1024x768, which I wouldn't find acceptable.

A Geforce 4 MX 440 (without a fan) is a good choice if you want something low cost, low noise, good performance, with max compatibility. It has the same amount of VRAM as your system though.

I recommend at least a TNT2 Ultra / Geforce 1 as minimum... but those are expensive now

With regards to the memory latency aspect of the discussion - the latency figure of a DIMM is primarily determined by its CL-rating, not its size. If you are looking for low latency, make sure you look for CL2 sticks, regardless of size. Remember that the latency is rated differet for different frequencies.

Putting maximum supported RAM and thereby exceeding the max cacheable range of the memory subsystem is an obvious cause of lower memory performance. However, a less obvious cause with a less obvious impact, but an impact nonetheless, is just the total amount of installed RAM, even when under the cacheability limit. Multitasking operating systems manage most of the available memory in a paged manner and keeps track of which virtual addresses can be found in which memory pages in a data structure called the page tables. Since free RAM is typically used as disk cache, most physical memory is therefore always used, which increases the size of the page tables. Larger page tables can slightly slow down memory accesses from programs on TLB misses when the page tables must be walked to find data, as well as on new memory allocations and frees when the structure must be updated. This supposedly imperceptible invisible background work can have an effect on the perceived snappiness of a system, especially an older, slower one.

While having too little RAM is definitely the slowest option due to necessary swapping and ineffective caching, having too much for a system with a purpose for less (as much as the game needs) can also be slightly detrimental.

With regards to NFS Porsche on a 586... what sadism is this?

Voodoo3 will give you the best chance to play later games on K6-2 due to lower CPU overhead, but the reality is the poor FPU performance and cache situation means it will struggle with 3D games afer 1998/1999. The issue is a lack of CPU power rather than a lack of GPU power.

A K6-3/2+/3+ all perform pretty similar but you get a good boost with the onboard cache which makes quake 3, unreal tournament and nfs high stakes/porche unleashed just enough to be playable (IMO). If you do want one, get whatever the highest clock of them you can get (usually a 2+).

A single 128MB SDRAM stick is also usually the sweet spot.

I'd expect the Voodoo3 to be CPU bottlenecked with the K6-2. I'd keep it for a Pentium III.

Hey guys, thank for so much input... As most of you said, the V3 2000 would be bottlenecked, so I really might keep it for a P3 machine. I could also upgrade the cpu to a K6-3 (+ or not) and see if the Banshee is in any way the culprit for slow performance. As I have a wish to own every single CPU model (not by speed, but by architecture) I will keep the V3 2000 for the future. Right now I have a P3 machine (a HP Vectra) with a P3 600MHz at home, but I never liked the look of that machine, also the main board is really limited in terms of upgrading and OC.

I actually never had the opportunity as a kid to own a Voodoo card, so now in my 40's I can finally try and play games with native software and hardware. 😀 The only missing thing on this machine is a side panel for the case. I have no idea how it went missing...

Banshee will play Porsche just fine. Just don't expect 1600x1200 at full details, but it will play ok.

Back in the day the first PC I played it through was Pentium MMX @ 188 MHz, Voodoo2, 64MB RAM.

The CPU is not bottlenecking the Voodoo 3... The Voodoo 3 is similar to a TNT2 M64/ultra at 640x480, 800x600. Made in 1998. 250nm process. Suitable for Half-life, Quake 3, UT.

The K6-2 CPU is 1998 also. Same 250nm process.

Banshee/Voodoo 2 is a Quake 2 era product. 1997. 350nm process. 1/2 to 1/3 the speed.

Such a CPU won't limit Voodoo3, a 1999 product, if you venture above ~1024x768. At those resolutions, there is quite a gap between TNT2 M64/ultra. And Voodoo3 can still take the lead when paired with a strong CPU. Does not mean I recommend using it only with strong CPUs, there is a lot of fun to be had on the low-end as well.
So why bother with bottlenecking? Balance has merit as well, and PC games usually offer options to achieve it.