theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-17, 19:36:

your win xp system talk made me curious. I think I have mentioned my old xp pc already that is at my grand parents house that I […]
Show full quote

your win xp system talk made me curious. I think I have mentioned my old xp pc already that is at my grand parents house that I might use in the future for a second xp build. in the future. I am there at the moment until Friday. As expected it is still working because my grandparents did not use it that often.

Would a pc with these specs

Intel Pentium D 930 3.GHZ

Asus P5WD2 Socket 775

Radeon Xt 1800 512 Mb graphics card
HP 512 MB DDR SDRAM

already a solid late xp gaming machine

or should I change some parts in the future when I am going start with the xp project to get most out of the core parts I have here?

Your cut-off point will be very early in the XP era. The X1800XT is a good card as part of a collection, but very underpowered past 2008. If you want consistently good performance up to games from 2010, then I think the lowest you should go is a GTX280/HD4890 performance level (GTX460, GTX750, HD6850, HD7770), and a few games can still struggle above 900p.

You'd also need a fast dual core, either a 3+GHz Core2 Duo E8000 series or any i3. There are some speed sensitive games, and there are some that don't like more than 2 cores. You don't benefit much from 4 cores in XP anyway.

As for RAM, just go for 4GB. RAM is cheap and even if XP can't use more than 3-3.5GB without PAE enabled, it's enough even for late XP titles.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-05-18, 06:26:

Your cut-off point will be very early in the XP era. The X1800XT is a good card as part of a collection, but very underpowered p […]
Show full quote

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-17, 19:36:

your win xp system talk made me curious. I think I have mentioned my old xp pc already that is at my grand parents house that I […]
Show full quote

your win xp system talk made me curious. I think I have mentioned my old xp pc already that is at my grand parents house that I might use in the future for a second xp build. in the future. I am there at the moment until Friday. As expected it is still working because my grandparents did not use it that often.

Would a pc with these specs

Intel Pentium D 930 3.GHZ

Asus P5WD2 Socket 775

Radeon Xt 1800 512 Mb graphics card
HP 512 MB DDR SDRAM

already a solid late xp gaming machine

or should I change some parts in the future when I am going start with the xp project to get most out of the core parts I have here?

Your cut-off point will be very early in the XP era. The X1800XT is a good card as part of a collection, but very underpowered past 2008. If you want consistently good performance up to games from 2010, then I think the lowest you should go is a GTX280/HD4890 performance level (GTX460, GTX750, HD6850, HD7770), and a few games can still struggle above 900p.

You'd also need a fast dual core, either a 3+GHz Core2 Duo E8000 series or any i3. There are some speed sensitive games, and there are some that don't like more than 2 cores. You don't benefit much from 4 cores in XP anyway.

As for RAM, just go for 4GB. RAM is cheap and even if XP can't use more than 3-3.5GB without PAE enabled, it's enough even for late XP titles.

Yes you certainly have a point. I have checked the specs and the games of the xp era I am into and I really need way more power than my old rig would offer. Especially some 2010 games I would be interested in like S.T.A.L.K.E.R will need need as much as possible.

Games I like Crysis and Fear are also quite power hungry. Especially Crysis.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-18, 07:57:

Yes you certainly have a point. I have checked the specs and the games of the xp era I am into and I really need way more power than my old rig would offer. Especially some 2010 games I would be interested in like S.T.A.L.K.E.R will need need as much as possible.

Games I like Crysis and Fear are also quite power hungry. Especially Crysis.

FEAR not so much. You can get away with something like an 8800GT or HD5670 or equivalent for around 90fps in 900p. For Crysis, that's GTX670 or HD7950 for 60fps assuming you want to max them out. Mass Effect is also a demanding game, my GTS450 (around 8800 Ultra performance level) can't do 60fps on average in 1280×1024 and often drops to 30fps.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-05-18, 09:07:

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-18, 07:57:

Yes you certainly have a point. I have checked the specs and the games of the xp era I am into and I really need way more power than my old rig would offer. Especially some 2010 games I would be interested in like S.T.A.L.K.E.R will need need as much as possible.

Games I like Crysis and Fear are also quite power hungry. Especially Crysis.

FEAR not so much. You can get away with something like an 8800GT or HD5670 or equivalent for around 90fps in 900p. For Crysis, that's GTX670 or HD7950 for 60fps assuming you want to max them out. Mass Effect is also a demanding game, my GTS450 (around 8800 Ultra performance level) can't do 60fps on average in 1280×1024 and often drops to 30fps.

Thanks for the info. Mass Effect would be indeed another game I am interested in and one that is better played with possible specs. Going as high as the GTX670 or HD 7950 sounds really reasonable for games like Crysis. The hardware I am going to build should be able to max out Crysis and other high demanding games. Checked Ebay already and the such cards would not cost a fortune. At least not not yet. That's good because it buys some time . The cards for my win 98 rig are more expensive already so I need to snatch the components soon before they are getting even mor expensive.

The parts for the xp rig are priced in a decent way so there is some hope that they are also going to be priced decently in the future when I am gonna start my second build.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-05-18, 09:07:

FEAR not so much.

*enables Soft Shadows*

Do you guys know if the Intel D865GBF motherboard with p4 is good and stable platform for windows 98 gaming? Found a offer an trading plattform nearby that is way cheaper than the ebay prices for the intel board. In connection with a decent P4 Northwood (which are also very cheap right now) this could be a great starting point for my windows 98 project.

What do you think about that motherboard?

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-19, 16:07:

Do you guys know if the Intel D865GBF motherboard with p4 is good and stable platform for windows 98 gaming? Found a offer an trading plattform nearby that is way cheaper than the ebay prices for the intel board. In connection with a decent P4 Northwood (which are also very cheap right now) this could be a great starting point for my windows 98 project.

What do you think about that motherboard?

That's an 865PE board IIRC, should be very solid. At least mine is.

Drivers can be found on Phil's site

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-19, 16:28:

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-19, 16:07:

Do you guys know if the Intel D865GBF motherboard with p4 is good and stable platform for windows 98 gaming? Found a offer an trading plattform nearby that is way cheaper than the ebay prices for the intel board. In connection with a decent P4 Northwood (which are also very cheap right now) this could be a great starting point for my Windows 98 project.

What do you think about that motherboard?

That's an 865PE board IIRC, and should be very solid. At least mine is.

Drivers can be found on Phil's site

Thanks for the info. Good to hear that you had no problems with yours. And thanks for letting me know where you can find the driver.

@all It possibly makes no difference for set of applications (windows 98 gaming) but would be preferable to get the higher clocked p4 (3. GHZ) or is a 2.5 GHZ more than sufficient? Both variants would be very cheap to get so it would not make a difference from a financial standpoint. But maybe the extra heat of the higher clocked p4 could hurt the durability that's why I am asking.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-19, 16:56:

@all It possibly makes no difference for set of applications (windows 98 gaming) but would be preferable to get the higher clocked p4 (3. GHZ) or is a 2.5 GHZ more than sufficient? Both variants would be very cheap to get so it would not make a difference from a financial standpoint. But maybe the extra heat of the higher clocked p4 could hurt the durability that's why I am asking.

I'm assuming the 2.5GHz is a Northwood. The 3GHz one may be a Northwood or a Prescott. The Prescott runs hotter and is not faster than Northwood clock for clock (some variation is there, depending on the software used). I'd pick a Northwood over Prescott whenever I have a choice.
Between the 2.5GHz and 3GHz and both being Northwood, I'd probably pick the 3GHz one but it really depends. The 2.5GHz probably runs at a lower FSB or stress the board less and if you don't need the extra performance, the 2.5GHz may actually be a solid pick.
If both are cheap, just get both of them. Doesn't hurt to have some extra spare parts laying around right? 😜

If you want to know how hot any P4 can run, see this list and look at the TDP value of each CPU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_P … um_4_processors

Higher TDP basically means it can produce more heat and needs more cooling (which may include the need for a beefier/more loud HSF).

What are the part numbers of these CPUs?

Tetrium wrote on 2023-05-20, 10:47:

I'm assuming the 2.5GHz is a Northwood. The 3GHz one may be a Northwood or a Prescott. The Prescott runs hotter and is not faste […]
Show full quote

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-19, 16:56:

@all It possibly makes no difference for set of applications (windows 98 gaming) but would be preferable to get the higher clocked p4 (3. GHZ) or is a 2.5 GHZ more than sufficient? Both variants would be very cheap to get so it would not make a difference from a financial standpoint. But maybe the extra heat of the higher clocked p4 could hurt the durability that's why I am asking.

I'm assuming the 2.5GHz is a Northwood. The 3GHz one may be a Northwood or a Prescott. The Prescott runs hotter and is not faster than Northwood clock for clock (some variation is there, depending on the software used). I'd pick a Northwood over Prescott whenever I have a choice.
Between the 2.5GHz and 3GHz and both being Northwood, I'd probably pick the 3GHz one but it really depends. The 2.5GHz probably runs at a lower FSB or stress the board less and if you don't need the extra performance, the 2.5GHz may actually be a solid pick.
If both are cheap, just get both of them. Doesn't hurt to have some extra spare parts laying around right? 😜

If you want to know how hot any P4 can run, see this list and look at the TDP value of each CPU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_P … um_4_processors

Higher TDP basically means it can produce more heat and needs more cooling (which may include the need for a beefier/more loud HSF).

What are the part numbers of these CPUs?

Thanks for the link and the info

According to the seller the 3.0 GHZ is from the Northwood line too. The part number is SL6WK SL6WU und from the P4 2.50. GHZ the number is SL6PN. Both models would cost the same about 10 Euro. So it would not really hurt to get both to have some spare parts lying around.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-20, 11:13:

Tetrium wrote on 2023-05-20, 10:47:

I'm assuming the 2.5GHz is a Northwood. The 3GHz one may be a Northwood or a Prescott. The Prescott runs hotter and is not faste […]
Show full quote

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-19, 16:56:

@all It possibly makes no difference for set of applications (windows 98 gaming) but would be preferable to get the higher clocked p4 (3. GHZ) or is a 2.5 GHZ more than sufficient? Both variants would be very cheap to get so it would not make a difference from a financial standpoint. But maybe the extra heat of the higher clocked p4 could hurt the durability that's why I am asking.

I'm assuming the 2.5GHz is a Northwood. The 3GHz one may be a Northwood or a Prescott. The Prescott runs hotter and is not faster than Northwood clock for clock (some variation is there, depending on the software used). I'd pick a Northwood over Prescott whenever I have a choice.
Between the 2.5GHz and 3GHz and both being Northwood, I'd probably pick the 3GHz one but it really depends. The 2.5GHz probably runs at a lower FSB or stress the board less and if you don't need the extra performance, the 2.5GHz may actually be a solid pick.
If both are cheap, just get both of them. Doesn't hurt to have some extra spare parts laying around right? 😜

If you want to know how hot any P4 can run, see this list and look at the TDP value of each CPU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_P … um_4_processors

Higher TDP basically means it can produce more heat and needs more cooling (which may include the need for a beefier/more loud HSF).

What are the part numbers of these CPUs?

Thanks for the link and the info

According to the seller the 3.0 GHZ is from the Northwood line too. The part number is SL6WK SL6WU und from the P4 2.50. GHZ the number is SL6PN. Both models would cost the same about 10 Euro. So it would not really hurt to get both to have some spare parts lying around.

The SL6PN is a 400FSB chip, it will be considerably slower. I would pass on that one (especially if your board supports 800FSB. If not, there is a 533 version that runs at 2.5ghz)

I'm not sure what the difference between the SL6WK and the SK6WU is, cpuworld says they're the same, stepping and all.

I would get the SL6WK, that's the Northwood 3.0 that runs at 800 fsb with hyperthreading. That's the one I'm using now. No real reason to pick the 2.5 over the 3.0 imo - they both work the same compatibility wise, just the 3.0 is faster and you get hyperthreading support (you can turn it off for 98 but if you ever wanted to run XP dual boot, it can make use of the HT). If your board supports adjusting the CPU clock ratio, you could even run it at 2.5 if you wanted to.

The P4 got a bad rap for it's heat mainly because many cases were beige sweat boxes with a few 80mm tiny fans in it. The chip itself ran warm but still very cool-able. Good airflow design was still in it's infancy, it existed but nowhere near as widespread as it is today . Mine rarely ever goes above 45 deg C in a Fractal Core 1100 with the stock copper slug cooler. It's really when you went to 3.4ghz and above that the P4 ran into un-coolable territory.

P4 gained bad rep after Prescott was released, which in no way, shape or form could compete with new Athlon64 cores on TDP scale. But Northwood core and contemporary Athlon XP CPU family had comparable TDP/performance ratio. And Intel had better stock coolers.

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-20, 14:12:

The SL6PN is a 400FSB chip, it will be considerably slower. I would pass on that one (especially if your board supports 800FSB. […]
Show full quote

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-20, 11:13:

Tetrium wrote on 2023-05-20, 10:47:

I'm assuming the 2.5GHz is a Northwood. The 3GHz one may be a Northwood or a Prescott. The Prescott runs hotter and is not faste […]
Show full quote

I'm assuming the 2.5GHz is a Northwood. The 3GHz one may be a Northwood or a Prescott. The Prescott runs hotter and is not faster than Northwood clock for clock (some variation is there, depending on the software used). I'd pick a Northwood over Prescott whenever I have a choice.
Between the 2.5GHz and 3GHz and both being Northwood, I'd probably pick the 3GHz one but it really depends. The 2.5GHz probably runs at a lower FSB or stress the board less and if you don't need the extra performance, the 2.5GHz may actually be a solid pick.
If both are cheap, just get both of them. Doesn't hurt to have some extra spare parts laying around right? 😜

If you want to know how hot any P4 can run, see this list and look at the TDP value of each CPU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_P … um_4_processors

Higher TDP basically means it can produce more heat and needs more cooling (which may include the need for a beefier/more loud HSF).

What are the part numbers of these CPUs?

Thanks for the link and the info

According to the seller the 3.0 GHZ is from the Northwood line too. The part number is SL6WK SL6WU und from the P4 2.50. GHZ the number is SL6PN. Both models would cost the same about 10 Euro. So it would not really hurt to get both to have some spare parts lying around.

The SL6PN is a 400FSB chip, it will be considerably slower. I would pass on that one (especially if your board supports 800FSB. If not, there is a 533 version that runs at 2.5ghz)

I'm not sure what the difference between the SL6WK and the SK6WU is, cpuworld says they're the same, stepping and all.

I would get the SL6WK, that's the Northwood 3.0 that runs at 800 fsb with hyperthreading. That's the one I'm using now. No real reason to pick the 2.5 over the 3.0 imo - they both work the same compatibility wise, just the 3.0 is faster and you get hyperthreading support (you can turn it off for 98 but if you ever wanted to run XP dual boot, it can make use of the HT). If your board supports adjusting the CPU clock ratio, you could even run it at 2.5 if you wanted to.

The P4 got a bad rap for it's heat mainly because many cases were beige sweat boxes with a few 80mm tiny fans in it. The chip itself ran warm but still very cool-able. Good airflow design was still in it's infancy, it existed but nowhere near as widespread as it is today . Mine rarely ever goes above 45 deg C in a Fractal Core 1100 with the stock copper slug cooler. It's really when you went to 3.4ghz and above that the P4 ran into un-coolable territory.

Thanks again for your reply. You have point. If both p4 are at the same price there would be no harm if I take the faster one

in a 3 GHZ System would be a gf3 or gf 4 a super bottleneck or is just slowing down the whole system a bit? The reason why i am into the GF3 or 4 are the legacy features like table fog and pallated textures. But in case a Gf3 or GF4 slows everything down I need to look into something else. Like the later gen ati radeon 9000 series cards.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-20, 15:21:

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-20, 14:12:

The SL6PN is a 400FSB chip, it will be considerably slower. I would pass on that one (especially if your board supports 800FSB. […]
Show full quote

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-20, 11:13:

Thanks for the link and the info

According to the seller the 3.0 GHZ is from the Northwood line too. The part number is SL6WK SL6WU und from the P4 2.50. GHZ the number is SL6PN. Both models would cost the same about 10 Euro. So it would not really hurt to get both to have some spare parts lying around.

The SL6PN is a 400FSB chip, it will be considerably slower. I would pass on that one (especially if your board supports 800FSB. If not, there is a 533 version that runs at 2.5ghz)

I'm not sure what the difference between the SL6WK and the SK6WU is, cpuworld says they're the same, stepping and all.

I would get the SL6WK, that's the Northwood 3.0 that runs at 800 fsb with hyperthreading. That's the one I'm using now. No real reason to pick the 2.5 over the 3.0 imo - they both work the same compatibility wise, just the 3.0 is faster and you get hyperthreading support (you can turn it off for 98 but if you ever wanted to run XP dual boot, it can make use of the HT). If your board supports adjusting the CPU clock ratio, you could even run it at 2.5 if you wanted to.

The P4 got a bad rap for it's heat mainly because many cases were beige sweat boxes with a few 80mm tiny fans in it. The chip itself ran warm but still very cool-able. Good airflow design was still in it's infancy, it existed but nowhere near as widespread as it is today . Mine rarely ever goes above 45 deg C in a Fractal Core 1100 with the stock copper slug cooler. It's really when you went to 3.4ghz and above that the P4 ran into un-coolable territory.

Thanks again for your reply. You have point. If both p4 are at the same price there would be no harm if I take the faster one

in a 3 GHZ System would be a gf3 or gf 4 a super bottleneck or is just slowing down the whole system a bit? The reason why i am into the GF3 or 4 are the legacy features like table fog and pallated textures. But in case a Gf3 or GF4 slows everything down I need to look into something else. Like the later gen ati radeon 9000 series cards.

Yea, it'll bottleneck a bit but it won't be too bad in the case of a GF4 Ti. I wouldn't worry about it.

It won't 'slow the system down' any, just the CPU will not run at it's full potential. Just means it'll run cooler and the card will be at it's peak performance. But at least you'll have CPU resources left over for other tasks in the background if you wanted (fraps, daemon tools, etc).

edit: one thing to note: don't run the 'latest driver' you can find. Nvidia slowed down performance in later releases. Best bet is to run the earliest driver that supports your card.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-03-08, 07:53:

Since you specifically mention compatibility, 3DFX cards are the king there [...]

Are they, though? I would argue that there are A LOT of games (too many) that (most) 3dfx cards cannot handle well at more appropriate (higher) resolutions - especially since the OP mentioned a 'late 1997 to late 2000' interval.

So, as we've discussed many times before, 'compatibility' is quite relative, since it heavily depends on what games you want to play, the resolution you'll play them at and what experience you are aiming for ('nostalgic' approach with low resolutions and framerates, or... a high framerate, high resolution, no compromise experience?) . For me personally, most of the time, when I just want to have a bit of retro fun for a couple of hours, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 feels like it's A LOT more compatible (when using it on a fast platform, where CPU bottlenecking is not a concern).

So, regarding the OP's question, my recommendation f0r a first retro build is the same as always: a 'time machine' / 'do-it-all' / 'all-in-one' PC, which can play most Win98 and DOS games (HINT: even if right now you are not seriously considering DOS, it's very likely that you will eventually change your mind, so might as well be prepared and not have to spend even more money if that does happen):

CPU: an Athlon XP Thoroughbred (it doesn't have to be one of the faster SKUs, even an 1700+ would be fine for most purposes)
Motherboard: a good board with a VIA chipset (Asus A7V600 / A7V600-X are excellent boards). The VIA chipset is a must for DOS compatibility!
RAM: 256MB or 512 MB
VGA1: GeForce 4 Ti 4200
VGA2: Voodoo 2 (this will give you even more compatibility, allowing you to play most Glide games - however, it will be quite expensive, so you don't have to purchase it since the get-go, you can wait & hunt for a better deal)
Sound 1 (for Windows): Audigy 2 / Sound Blaster Live 5.1
Sound 2 (for DOS): Yamaha YMF724 / 744
PSU: this one is a bit more tricky, and it will depend on the CPU you choose. Ideally, it should be a good quality PSU with at least 20 Amps on the 5V & 3.3V rails, in order to be on the safe side.

This system is incredibly powerful, compatible, flexible in terms of speed, allowing you to play at least 98% of all Win98 & DOS games released between 1981 - 2001. Furthermore, depending on where you live, these parts can still be had for a reasonable amount of money (except for the Voodoo 2 card, of course). Having the speed flexibility is very important if you start getting into DOS gaming, and that's where you'd find that a Pentium 4 is not a good option at all.

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-20, 17:19:

Are they, though? I would argue that there are A LOT of games (too many) that (most) 3dfx cards cannot handle well at more appropriate (higher) resolutions - especially since the OP mentioned a 'late 1997 to late 2000' interval.

For sure, if higher resolutions at 60+ FPS are desirable, Voodoo cards are not the best choice. What I meant was that nearly every game from that time period will render correctly (no visual glitches) and work fine (no crashes) with a Voodoo card. Of course, there are some games from 1999 and 2000 which do look better in 32-bit color depth. And a GeForce 4 Ti will deliver much better performance when paired with a powerful CPU.

For me personally, most of the time, when I just want to have a bit of retro fun for a couple of hours, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 feels like it's A LOT more compatible (when using it on a fast platform, where CPU bottlenecking is not a concern).

Yup, that's the card which I always end up recommending when people ask about Win9x GPUs. It's powerful enough to run many games even at 1600x1200 while remaining very compatible with older stuff as well.

will render correctly (no visual glitches)

Eh, depends. Subpixel precision was hit or miss on early Voodoo cards and they had to compress textures with lossy paletted format.

@Gen-Angry thanks for your warning about the drivers. I will follow your advice for sure.

@bloodem Thanks for your objections. you might be right. P4 was not my first choice but I just got an offer for the p4 motherboard and the p4 CPU that was too inviting to ignore as a starting point. In case it ends a dead end I need to start over with recommended athlon xp build. But time will tell if that's necessary. I will keep it as an alternative in my head. Or maybe it will end up as my first choice. The p4 motherboard I almost got for nothing was declared as untested.after all. Luckily I have a pal that can put it into one of his machines to test the motherboard or not. In case it should be unusable I will go for Athlon xp right now.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-05-20, 17:45:

For sure, if higher resolutions at 60+ FPS are desirable, Voodoo cards are not the best choice. What I meant was that nearly eve […]
Show full quote

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-20, 17:19:

Are they, though? I would argue that there are A LOT of games (too many) that (most) 3dfx cards cannot handle well at more appropriate (higher) resolutions - especially since the OP mentioned a 'late 1997 to late 2000' interval.

For sure, if higher resolutions at 60+ FPS are desirable, Voodoo cards are not the best choice. What I meant was that nearly every game from that time period will render correctly (no visual glitches) and work fine (no crashes) with a Voodoo card. Of course, there are some games from 1999 and 2000 which do look better in 32-bit color depth. And a GeForce 4 Ti will deliver much better performance when paired with a powerful CPU.

For me personally, most of the time, when I just want to have a bit of retro fun for a couple of hours, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 feels like it's A LOT more compatible (when using it on a fast platform, where CPU bottlenecking is not a concern).

Yup, that's the card which I always end up recommending when people ask about Win9x GPUs. It's powerful enough to run many games even at 1600x1200 while remaining very compatible with older stuff as well.

Compatibility would be important factor for me because I am not only interested in mains stream games but I also want to try out some console ports like RE 2, RE 3, Dino Crisis, FF7 and FF8 and a glide card could be good choice if they can render every game correct because glide was very common API back then. A funny thing I noticed is that glide even seems to be a thing at time when 3dfx was dead or almost dead already.

When I play Return to Castle Wolfenstein on my old asus rog gaming laptop to game only runs over nglide. It looks quite good though considering the fact that the nglide is emmulating a vodoo 2 with metabyte drivers.

The same can be said about another 2001 gog game. Clive Barker's Undying only runs via glide. The Direct 3d mode is not working. Really interesting how common the glide code was even back in 2001 when 3dfx was already in the ropes.

The GF 4 4200 seems to be really good card that is recommended quite often and for a good reason I think.

I do not have one yet but is the card I am planning to use. An second place is the normal GF 3 but it is hard to find one at a good price. So the chances are hight that i am going for the 4200.

GeForce 4 Ti can emulate Glide more or less feature correct (not with 1-to-1 accuracy). It has some issues with overall image quality though, but that's general problem of all old GeForce cards.

That's actually a pretty hard question OP. The BEST 97-2000 gaming PC in my opinion would be something like this:

Athlon XP 2800+ / P4 2.8GHz
VIA KT400A/KT600/KT880 for AMD and Intel i865/i875 chipsets for intel
256Mb DDR400
Geforce 4 Titanium 4200 (the 4600's seem unreliable - all 5 of my cards started artefacting)
2x Voodoo 2 SLi
Aureal Vortex 2 or Yamaha DS-XG (YMF724) for Windows audio

But... some of these parts can be rater hard to track down (pair of matching Voodoo 2 cards + SLi cable for example) and quite expensive. Also rather unnecessary. For example - Glide support for games is nice, but only a very few games of that time require Glide, the rest are very happy with openGL or Direct3D, so those two Voodoo 2 cards are more of a luxury then anything else. Plus there's Glide wrappers like dgVoodoo. A bit of a pain to set up, won't work with every game, but are free. That geforce 4 titanium is fast, and great to have, but a Radeon 9600XT performs slightly better, has direct X 9 support (not that it matters for games of that era) and costs a lot less.

In essence, if you want something that just works, you can pick up any Athlon/Athlon XP/Athlon 64 with AGP or fast pentium 3 (at least 1GHz) / pentium 4 (even LGA775) with AGP, get a Radeon 9600XT or even a Geforce FX5700 (just not the 5700LE), a Yamaha 724 and build a great inexpensive retro PC. Just stay away from nvidia chipsets when using windows 98 - they have win9x drivers but over the years I found them to be pretty finicky and unstable under anything other then windows XP.

Another piece of advice - don't bother with CF-IDE, SD-IDE or SATA SSDs with SATA to IDE adapters. If you pick up a motherboard that only has IDE, get an IDE hard disk drive. If you have SATA, any SATA3 SSD should do - just be mindful that some SATA1 boards have compatibility issues with SATA3 devices. Adapters and converters are often a pain to set up and are not 100% stable on every motherboard, where as a new old stock IDE HDD can be had on ebay for a fair price and it just works.

Good luck!