VOGONS


Reply 20 of 46, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
darry wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:28:
andre_6 wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:19:
mothergoose729 wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:07:

If you are benchmarking in windows 98, the geforce 4 cards tend to perform best because of the driver overhead of later cards. This is true even if you are using a faster CPU.

I don't have much experience as you probably realised, so would you recommend a GeForce 4 Ti variant over an FX5900 for example? I have a GeForce 4 MX440, but Vogons thaught me that the MX line it's not the same as the other Geforce 4 ones

I'm looking for the best possible performance to respect the CPU speed, I'm particularly curious to see the difference in playing SimCity 3000 and Quake III Arena after I complete the build. Even Outlaws ran slowly in my previous Celeron 600mhz / obscure Supergrace board/ GeForce 4 MX440 build.

The Geforce FX 5900 is definitely a faster card than the Geforce 4 Ti . However they will both likely be bottlenecked by the CPU (which is what you want if you want maximize the CPU's abilities) , so it's hard for me to say what the speed difference would be on your CPU . I'm almost certain somebody has compared these graphics chips with a Tualatin and posted results on Vogons .

Given the same CPU, if you benchmark quake III in windows 98 and then in XP I would expect you would get better results in windows XP. So when choosing a graphics card for windows 98, there is an important distinction between the fastest graphics card that will run well in windows 98, and what graphics card give you the best performance in windows 98. I would recommend a Geforce FX card, but the gerforce 4 ti cards are usually faster in that operating system because of drivers.

Reply 21 of 46, by andre_6

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
pixel_workbench wrote on 2020-08-29, 02:13:

I always put a rice grain sized drop of thermal paste in the center of the cpu, and place the cooler on top, which will spread it out.

As far as video cards, if you're not dead set on having the ultimate possible hardware just for the sake of having it, a Gf4 mx is a decent card for windows 98 games. Gf6 requires a later driver, which causes buggy graphics in some games, like Need for Speed 3, for example. And a Pentium3 is too slow to fully utilize a Gf6, so you'll never see it perform like a Gf6 would in a faster system. A Geforce4 ti4200 would be a more useful choice for a Pentium3, and not crazy expensive. You can also try a Radeon 9600pro, it as fast as the most expensive Geforce 4, but typically even cheaper.

You are right about the price, it is way cheaper indeed. The annoying part is that I used to have that same graphics card, and I think I threw it away a while ago. *sigh*

I saw ads with Radeon 9600 Pro with 128 and 256mb versions. Is that difference relevant for this Win98se build?

Reply 22 of 46, by andre_6

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
mothergoose729 wrote on 2020-08-29, 02:21:
darry wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:28:
andre_6 wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:19:

I don't have much experience as you probably realised, so would you recommend a GeForce 4 Ti variant over an FX5900 for example? I have a GeForce 4 MX440, but Vogons thaught me that the MX line it's not the same as the other Geforce 4 ones

I'm looking for the best possible performance to respect the CPU speed, I'm particularly curious to see the difference in playing SimCity 3000 and Quake III Arena after I complete the build. Even Outlaws ran slowly in my previous Celeron 600mhz / obscure Supergrace board/ GeForce 4 MX440 build.

The Geforce FX 5900 is definitely a faster card than the Geforce 4 Ti . However they will both likely be bottlenecked by the CPU (which is what you want if you want maximize the CPU's abilities) , so it's hard for me to say what the speed difference would be on your CPU . I'm almost certain somebody has compared these graphics chips with a Tualatin and posted results on Vogons .

Given the same CPU, if you benchmark quake III in windows 98 and then in XP I would expect you would get better results in windows XP. So when choosing a graphics card for windows 98, there is an important distinction between the fastest graphics card that will run well in windows 98, and what graphics card give you the best performance in windows 98. I would recommend a Geforce FX card, but the gerforce 4 ti cards are usually faster in that operating system because of drivers.

Thanks for the explanation, at this point I think I will choose between the FX5900 or the Radeon 9600 Pro for the adaptability in Win98se and price. If I buy the FX5900 it will be largely for the fact that it's hard to accept buying the same card that you threw away in the past (9600 Pro)!

Reply 23 of 46, by pixel_workbench

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
andre_6 wrote on 2020-08-29, 02:22:

You are right about the price, it is way cheaper indeed. The annoying part is that I used to have that same graphics card, and I think I threw it away a while ago. *sigh*

I saw ads with Radeon 9600 Pro with 128 and 256mb versions. Is that difference relevant for this Win98se build?

128MB is plenty for Windows 98 gaming.

My Videos | Website
P2 400 unlocked / Asus P3B-F / Voodoo3 3k / MX300 + YMF718

Reply 24 of 46, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
andre_6 wrote on 2020-08-29, 02:29:
mothergoose729 wrote on 2020-08-29, 02:21:
darry wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:28:

The Geforce FX 5900 is definitely a faster card than the Geforce 4 Ti . However they will both likely be bottlenecked by the CPU (which is what you want if you want maximize the CPU's abilities) , so it's hard for me to say what the speed difference would be on your CPU . I'm almost certain somebody has compared these graphics chips with a Tualatin and posted results on Vogons .

Given the same CPU, if you benchmark quake III in windows 98 and then in XP I would expect you would get better results in windows XP. So when choosing a graphics card for windows 98, there is an important distinction between the fastest graphics card that will run well in windows 98, and what graphics card give you the best performance in windows 98. I would recommend a Geforce FX card, but the gerforce 4 ti cards are usually faster in that operating system because of drivers.

Thanks for the explanation, at this point I think I will choose between the FX5900 or the Radeon 9600 Pro for the adaptability in Win98se and price. If I buy the FX5900 it will be largely for the fact that it's hard to accept buying the same card that you threw away in the past (9600 Pro)!

Depending on what games you want to play, the Radeon 9600 may have some issues/limitations to consider . Does the Radeon 9xxx series support 8-bit palletized textures?

Reply 25 of 46, by Oetker

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I feel the GPU choice for such a system is a bit difficult. The Tualatin is the killer Win98 processor, but unless you're planning to really crank up games' resolutions, even a matching (let alone fastest supported) GPU is wasted on such a system. Cards like the 6800 were made to play Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Far Cry at high settings, while on Win98 even a Geforce3 would be wasted as you won't be playing games that use shaders. I'd focus on something that has hardware T&L and good backward compatibility.

The MX440 is a great choice IMO. There's a few different version of the MX440 I believe, I don't know how the slower ones are but the faster cards are faster than anything that was around in ~2000 and should do fine for Win98 games.

For my own Tualatin system I actually went with a slower, but really compatible, card: a Voodoo 3. It's bottlenecked by the CPU, but it's good enough for Win98 games and works with all early ones. Meanwhile, the CPU has enough power for any software rendered game I might want to play.

Reply 26 of 46, by Oetker

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
andre_6 wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:19:

Even Outlaws ran slowly in my previous Celeron 600mhz / obscure Supergrace board/ GeForce 4 MX440 build.

Were you using a hardware-accelerated version of the game?

Reply 27 of 46, by cde

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
darry wrote on 2020-08-28, 21:20:

Geforce 6 family cards (6600 and 6600GT at least) are unstable under Windows 98SE on my 815EP with all driver versions I have tried.

Geforce FX 5900 is fine . FX 5900 XT , which also work fine, can be found easily at, IMHO, decent prices .

Have you applied https://archive.org/details/PATCHMEM ? With more than 512 MB on my KT7A 32-bit color does not work with a 6800 GT (unless I apply PATCHMEM).

darry wrote on 2020-08-28, 21:52:

And that bridge chip gets hot too . It probably isn't worth it for my setup (Tualatin 1400 512K), but if I could get my hands on an early non-bridged AGP Geforce 6800 family member, I would definitely try it .

So I realize I have the non bridged version (it also has a molex connector). I remember trying the bridged version (to be noted, has a 6-pin connector) and the PC wouldn't even POST, had to return it.

Reply 28 of 46, by bloodem

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

My advice for a Pentium 3 Tualatin 1.4 (and for Windows 98 in general) is to stick with GeForce FX or older cards.
On my Pentium 3 Tualatins I have cards such as GeForce 2 Pro, GeForce 3 Ti 200 and GeForce 4 Ti 4200. They all have more or less the same performance at lower resolutions (although the GeForce 2 Pro does seem to have an edge in certain titles), however if you want to play games at 1280 x 1024 / 1600 x 1200, a GeForce 4 Ti will be better.
And if you really want to go for very high resolutions in conjunction with Anisotropic filtering & Antialiasing, then a GeForce FX 5900/5950 would probably be the best choice in terms of speed and compatibility (although I think these are better for ultimate overkill Windows 98 builds such as Athlon 64 4000+ or Core 2 Duo 😁 PCs). If you prefer raw speed over full compatibility, then a Radeon 9800PRO/XT is even faster (and, it's still very compatible - with a few exceptions like, for example, Final Fantasy 7). The Radeon also has other advantages for retro builds (such as very good/sharp DVI signal, extremely fast DOS performance compared to later nVidia cards, driver support for GPU scaling). But, again, such cards are mostly wasted on a Tualatin (unless you want to play games at 1440p and all quality settings cranked up to the max).

Last edited by bloodem on 2020-08-29, 13:37. Edited 1 time in total.

2 x PGA132 / 5 x Socket 3 / 9 x Socket 7 / 12 x SS7 / 1 x Socket 8 / 14 x Slot 1 / 5 x Slot A
5 x Socket 370 / 8 x Socket A / 2 x Socket 478 / 2 x Socket 754 / 3 x Socket 939 / 7 x LGA775 / 1 x LGA1155
Current rig: Ryzen 5 3600X
Backup rig: Core i7 7700k

Reply 29 of 46, by andre_6

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Oetker wrote on 2020-08-29, 12:04:

I feel the GPU choice for such a system is a bit difficult. The Tualatin is the killer Win98 processor, but unless you're planning to really crank up games' resolutions, even a matching (let alone fastest supported) GPU is wasted on such a system. Cards like the 6800 were made to play Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Far Cry at high settings, while on Win98 even a Geforce3 would be wasted as you won't be playing games that use shaders. I'd focus on something that has hardware T&L and good backward compatibility.

The MX440 is a great choice IMO. There's a few different version of the MX440 I believe, I don't know how the slower ones are but the faster cards are faster than anything that was around in ~2000 and should do fine for Win98 games.

For my own Tualatin system I actually went with a slower, but really compatible, card: a Voodoo 3. It's bottlenecked by the CPU, but it's good enough for Win98 games and works with all early ones. Meanwhile, the CPU has enough power for any software rendered game I might want to play.

Oetker wrote on 2020-08-29, 12:08:
andre_6 wrote on 2020-08-29, 00:19:

Even Outlaws ran slowly in my previous Celeron 600mhz / obscure Supergrace board/ GeForce 4 MX440 build.

Were you using a hardware-accelerated version of the game?

I'm sorry I really couldn't tell you, and I can't confirm that now as that build was disassembled.

I bought the MX440 because they are everywhere and was dirt cheap and most things ran smoothly there, but I was particularly disappointed for example in Pharaoh and SimCity 3000 being slow, even more because in 1999/2000 I remember playing them with no issues and we didn't have high end PC's around the house. As for Outlaws it was just weird to see it so slow in this build, didn't expect that. Age Of Empires II, on the other hand, ran quite well. Colin McRae I never even managed to it ro run, no matter what "version" I got, but that is another issue.

I already have an HP Pentium Pro as my DOS games and Win95 build, and a Pentium IV build with a very fast graphics card for the era. Every build has the games and software that I used in those eras. So this P III-S build is another chapter on this gaming archive that can stay inbetween the two. I don't need to play Quake 3 in maximum settings on this build, as I have the Pentium IV one for that. The same for DOS/Win 95 games and Win95 build.

All of these builds have hardware from the era i.e. keyboard and mouse, so I have a Samsung SyncMaster 15GLe CRT that I share between this build and the Win95 build. I just want to play the games smoothly with good quality and normal resolutions as I would in a good PC at the time, I'm not particularly picky about most aspects that an enthusiast would probably be.

Last edited by andre_6 on 2020-08-29, 14:00. Edited 3 times in total.

Reply 30 of 46, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
cde wrote on 2020-08-29, 12:15:
Have you applied https://archive.org/details/PATCHMEM ? With more than 512 MB on my KT7A 32-bit color does not work with a 6800 […]
Show full quote
darry wrote on 2020-08-28, 21:20:

Geforce 6 family cards (6600 and 6600GT at least) are unstable under Windows 98SE on my 815EP with all driver versions I have tried.

Geforce FX 5900 is fine . FX 5900 XT , which also work fine, can be found easily at, IMHO, decent prices .

Have you applied https://archive.org/details/PATCHMEM ? With more than 512 MB on my KT7A 32-bit color does not work with a 6800 GT (unless I apply PATCHMEM).

darry wrote on 2020-08-28, 21:52:

And that bridge chip gets hot too . It probably isn't worth it for my setup (Tualatin 1400 512K), but if I could get my hands on an early non-bridged AGP Geforce 6800 family member, I would definitely try it .

So I realize I have the non bridged version (it also has a molex connector). I remember trying the bridged version (to be noted, has a 6-pin connector) and the PC wouldn't even POST, had to return it.

My Windows 98 SE setup has 512MB RAM, so I do not think the mem patch would help in this case.

AFAICR, my main stability issue was in 2D mode when scrolling in a an Explorer or browser window . An easy way to reproduc that quickly was to scroll up and down quickly for about 10 seconds in a window with a scrollbar . Guaranteed crash or extreme slowdown of 2D until reboot (depending on driver version).

Reply 31 of 46, by Katmai500

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I’ll second that a GF4 MX440 is a decent choice for a Win 98 Tualatin build, as long as it’s the 128-bit memory interface version. There are gimped 64-bit OEM versions that are slow. A Ti 4200 is even better, and can be found pretty easily for $25 if you know what to look for. Even if you don’t use the DX8 shaders, the Ti will be faster than the MX.

Reply 32 of 46, by andre_6

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Katmai500 wrote on 2020-08-29, 14:31:

I’ll second that a GF4 MX440 is a decent choice for a Win 98 Tualatin build, as long as it’s the 128-bit memory interface version. There are gimped 64-bit OEM versions that are slow. A Ti 4200 is even better, and can be found pretty easily for $25 if you know what to look for. Even if you don’t use the DX8 shaders, the Ti will be faster than the MX.

Thanks to everyone now I understand the particular position inbetween generations that the Tualatin is in. As the thread title says, I really thought it would be more straightforward at first. I can get an Fx5900, Ti4200 and 9600 Pro Radeon / 9800 for decent prices. The Ti4200 sounds like the most optimized choice regarding Win98. Is the 64mb/128mb memory difference between Ti4200 cards relevant for what I'm looking for?

Last edited by andre_6 on 2020-08-29, 14:52. Edited 2 times in total.

Reply 33 of 46, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I’ll second that a GF4 MX440 is a decent choice for a Win 98 Tualatin build

No it isn't and never was.

I can get an Fx5900, Ti4200 and 9600 Pro Radeon / 9800 for decent prices.

FX5900.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 34 of 46, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Paired with a 1+ GHz CPU, a GeForce4 ti4200 can run almost any Win9x game (up to the year 2001) in 1280x1024 @60+ FPS. But, if you also want to max out AA and AF and/or play at 1600x1200, you might want to go for the FX5900.

Personally, I prefer to play Win9x games at lower resolutions on a CRT as that's what I did as a kid. If you stick to 640x480 or 800x600 and don't care about AA/AF, even an MX440 will give you 60+ FPS.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / OPTi 82C930 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 1700+ / Abit KT7A / Voodoo3 / Audigy1 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy1
PC#4: i5-3550P / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 650Ti / X-Fi

Reply 35 of 46, by andre_6

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2020-08-29, 16:25:

Paired with a 1+ GHz CPU, a GeForce4 ti4200 can run almost any Win9x game (up to the year 2001) in 1280x1024 @60+ FPS. But, if you also want to max out AA and AF and/or play at 1600x1200, you might want to go for the FX5900.

Personally, I prefer to play Win9x games at lower resolutions on a CRT as that's what I did as a kid. If you stick to 640x480 or 800x600 and don't care about AA/AF, even an MX440 will give you 60+ FPS.

Exactly, that is how I want to play the games. A friend of mine says he can give me his MSI GeForce FX 5600 Extreme - 256 MB - AGP for free...

Reply 36 of 46, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Go for it. GeForce FX 5600 is faster or on par with GeForce 4 Ti series.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 37 of 46, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

An FX5600 is also overkill. You can't beat free, I would take it. Honestly, my favorite card for windows 98 is a voodoo 3. You don't need that much performance, and the more demanding games that "can run" on windows 98 can also run on XP or even modern windows with whatever stupid overkill hardware you want.

Reply 38 of 46, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

As it was already stated, there's no such as overkill here. You can always use better quality options like higher resolution, anti-aliasing or filtering.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 39 of 46, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-08-29, 18:26:

As it was already stated, there's no such as overkill here. You can always use better quality options like higher resolution, anti-aliasing or filtering.

I agree . At worst, there are diminishing returns when using ever faster cards but there is nearly always something to be gained .