😒

Keep in mind the "Ryzen Windows 98 attempt" Kugee (the youtube who did that video) did was only an experiment and was never meant to be a serious project, he was aware of many of the limitations of Windows 9x in such modern system and he tried to counter some issues with workarounds, but still didn't run that well considering DOS Disk Access kills a LOT of perfomance, especially in newer CPUs.

He currently uses Windows 7 on his Ryzen PC and mentioned 7 ran much better on his Ryzen than 98 ever did

Ok the subject is a bit out of date now but seems to be a bit of confusion. We have moved on from a Ryzen system all together.
OP is now building a win9x box using a P3 with no AGP (hence the GF FX PCI)

Tanman9990 Maybe create another post with the P3 build if you have any more questions, feel free to put a link in this thread though.

oeuvre wrote:

just cause you can doesn't mean you should...

"With great power comes great responsibility"

I generally don't consider a computer being win98 computer unless all devices in the pc have win9x drivers installed and working in win98.

Hmmm, USB boot drive running windows using INT 13 real mode drivers would definitely kill performance and add to stuttering, along with generally anaemic performance of most USB drives under random workloads. Would probably work a lot better just using a small SATA hard drive and INT 13 real mode drivers.
'
Power Managerment - It is cool it never crashed for you. When I was trying WIndows 98 on a PCIe nForce Athlon X2 system, I got crashes whenever power management tried to kick in.

Heh, I use the corner of my desk as a test bench, hang the PCI/PCIe/ISA cards off the edge of the desk and monitor behind. Sit on a towel to minimise desk scratches. Doesn't get more ghetto then that.

An FX5500 is equivalent to what AGP Geforce card ?

infiniteclouds wrote:

An FX5500 is equivalent to what AGP Geforce card ?

GF 6200 in DX9.
It can do a good bit better if DX7/8 is needed (since it should have 128-bit bus vs. 64-bit on 6200).

agent_x007 wrote:

infiniteclouds wrote:

An FX5500 is equivalent to what AGP Geforce card ?

GF 6200 in DX9.
It can do a good bit better if DX7/8 is needed (since it should have 128-bit bus vs. 64-bit on 6200).

Not familiar with the 6200 AGP. I imagine the FX5500 is slower than any of the AGP FX cards (up to 5900) ... is it faster than say Geforce 3s or G4 ti series?

infiniteclouds wrote:

agent_x007 wrote:

infiniteclouds wrote:

An FX5500 is equivalent to what AGP Geforce card ?

GF 6200 in DX9.
It can do a good bit better if DX7/8 is needed (since it should have 128-bit bus vs. 64-bit on 6200).

Not familiar with the 6200 AGP. I imagine the FX5500 is slower than any of the AGP FX cards (up to 5900) ... is it faster than say Geforce 3s or G4 ti series?

Most AGP 6200s are 64 bit generally, i'd say in many cases a 9250 128 bit, a 3ti or any of the 4 tis should be able to outperform it, i don't know about the 128 bit 6200, such variant existed which is generally a cut down 6600, also the original 128 bit NV43 model is the least common 6200 variant, notably the AGP version of it (most 6200s are ethier the NV44A based AGP model which is 64 bit only or the Turbocache variant for PCI-e).

Edit: from what i heard, Geforce 4 Ti 4200 crushes FX 5200/5500 in DX7/DX8, maybe can catch 5600 or even 5700 series, Geforce 3 is probably faster than a FX 5500 too, i do know the Radeon 9000/9200/9250 cards (128 bit variants of course) could rival and/or outperform the FX 5200/5500 in DX7/DX8 games

Carlos S. M. wrote:

Edit: from what i heard, Geforce 4 Ti 4200 crushes FX 5200/5500 in DX7/DX8, maybe can catch 5600 or even 5700 series, Geforce 3 is probably faster than a FX 5500 too, i do know the Radeon 9000/9200/9250 cards (128 bit variants of course) could rival and/or outperform the FX 5200/5500 in DX7/DX8 games

Oof.. if an PCI FX5500 is more like a Geforce 2 then a W98 system without AGP sounds out of the question for me. Particularly pointless if you're using a post-AGP era CPU. What good is all that CPU power if you're heavily bottlenecked by the GPU.

Dumb question, but what about a PCI-E GeForce FX series or a Quadro equivalent?

The Win98 support would be pretty bad

Can't you just force PCX 5900 driver on Quadro FX 1300 under Win98 ?

I'd go with this parts for best comatibility and best parts:
- CPU - Pentium III-S Tualatin 1.4GHz with Lin-Lin adapter
- Motherboard - Slot1 Asus P3B-F or Socket 370 Abit BX133- RAID
- RAM - Micron 143MHz or better of your choice
- Graphics card - Nvidia Geforce FX5950 Ultra
- Sound card - Creative Sound Blaster AWE64 GOLD
- HDD Controller - ULTRA133 TX2 EIDE Ultra ATA-133PCI
- HDD - IDE SSD or any standard UDMA133 HDD of your choice

- USB2.0 - NEC PCI USB 2.0 card
- Video accelerator - 3DFX Voodoo 1 if playing old games or Voodoo 3 3000 PCI SGRAM if used mostly in Windows.

That sould be enough I think.

From what I know, if You will change the FSB, you will also change it on AGP and PCI bus, not every card will handle higher FSB.
Try lower the RAM memory clocks it helps sometimes.

Ozzuneoj wrote:

Dumb question, but what about a PCI-E GeForce FX series or a Quadro equivalent?

The FX 1300 has official win 98 drivers. I know of two users who have tried it. One had a decent amount of success, the other couldn't get hardly anything to work. I think it probably comes down to how the motherboard chipsets handles PCIE-AGP bridging. Something like a socket 478 with PCIE is more likely to work than a more modern socket.

Speaking in general, of all the platforms I have tried under windows 98, my socket 478 board has been by far the most stable and best supported. My Asus 865PE chipset has SATA, gigabit LAN, USB 2.0 ect and it cost me next to nothing on ebay. Almost completely painless, even better than my slot 1 boards in that way.

mothergoose729 wrote on 2019-10-09, 17:18:

My Asus 865PE chipset has SATA, gigabit LAN, USB 2.0 ect and it cost me next to nothing on ebay. Almost completely painless, even better than my slot 1 boards in that way.

Sorry for the bump, but what's the model of your Asus motherboard?