I'd expect the 6600 is faster. I know the GT variant blew it out of the water often being 25-30% faster and sometimes getting near +50%.
Even if the regular 6600 only matches the FX in speed it's still a better card regarding heat, noise and reliability. Imo the 5950 Ultra belongs to a display case and not a retro gaming rig.

RandomStranger wrote on 2020-12-04, 17:57:

I'd expect the 6600 is faster. I know the GT variant blew it out of the water often being 25-30% faster and sometimes getting near +50%.
Even if the regular 6600 only matches the FX in speed it's still a better card regarding heat, noise and reliability. Imo the 5950 Ultra belongs to a display case and not a retro gaming rig.

The 5950U can be limited in Windows 98 till about 3.2-3.3Ghz with a Core2 Extreme x6800. (3dmark testing)

And you have stuff like palleted textures for those games that use it.

For DX8 you want an FX series. For DX9 get something newer.

Much worse in DX8 games or below. Slightly or significantly better in DX9 games.

Thanks. This is giving me much better idea what to do with my systems. Just one more question.
Does dx9 compatibility stay as good even with more modern graphics cards that there would be no point in limiting yourself to 6600 for dx9 games?

RandomStranger wrote on 2020-12-04, 17:57:

I'd expect the 6600 is faster. I know the GT variant blew it out of the water often being 25-30% faster and sometimes getting near +50%.
Even if the regular 6600 only matches the FX in speed it's still a better card regarding heat, noise and reliability. Imo the 5950 Ultra belongs to a display case and not a retro gaming rig.

Err it's the best win98 gpu that exists, 3dfx stuff aside.

Baoran wrote on 2020-12-05, 02:48:

Thanks. This is giving me much better idea what to do with my systems. Just one more question.
Does dx9 comp
atibility stay as good even with more modern graphics cards that there would be no point in limiting yourself to 6600 for dx9 games?

No point in limiting yourself to a 6600. Even brand new video cards will do DX9 just fine.

For a Windows XP machine, a 780Ti is one of the fastest though you can get up use up.to the 980Ti as well. On the AMD side, the HD7970 works fine.

If you want the fastest video card that only supports up to DX9, then an nVidia 7950GX2 should be the fastest.

Fastest DX9 card without any compromises is Radeon X1950XTX. SLI based solutions are flawed.

Note: Only DX9 (or below) hardware have proper dithering support in 16-bit color modes.

kolderman wrote on 2020-12-05, 03:03:

Err it's the best win98 gpu that exists, 3dfx stuff aside.

I'd say it's the fastest, but being the best takes more than speed for me. I think the best is the GF4 Ti 4600/4800. Or if accessibility and price are taken into account maybe even 4200.
Those have plenty of power for DX8 games, run much cooler, less noisy and less likely to fail than high-end FX cards while in DX8 easily hold their own against anything slower than an FX5700.

Baoran wrote on 2020-12-05, 02:48:

Does dx9 compatibility stay as good even with more modern graphics cards that there would be no point in limiting yourself to 6600 for dx9 games?

Compatibility, yes. Speed, not that much. The Geforce 6 had an early implenemtation of Shader Model 3. They held up better than the Radeon R400 which only supported SM2 (or 2.5?) in later titles, but still could be slow.
Maybe going for a 7600 for DX9 in this case would be better, or as others said, DX9 is fast and has no compatibility issues in more modern games. Imo the best XP/DX9 cards are the Geforce 8800GT, 9600GT and GT240. You can likely get them for 10$ or less. They have plenty of power for anything that's not Crysis offering usually close to if not over 100fps in DX9. Though if you want AGP then yes, either go with the Radeon X1950 series or the Geforce 7800GS if you want green.

RandomStranger wrote on 2020-12-05, 07:48:

kolderman wrote on 2020-12-05, 03:03:

Err it's the best win98 gpu that exists, 3dfx stuff aside.

I'd say it's the fastest, but being the best takes more than speed for me. I think the best is the GF4 Ti 4600/4800. Or if accessibility and price are taken into account maybe even 4200.
Those have plenty of power for DX8 games, run much cooler, less noisy and less likely to fail than high-end FX cards while in DX8 easily hold their own against anything slower than an FX5700.

I have literally never seen a FX die before, I have seen too many Ti4600s die. And you might want the power of the FX5900 if you want to play DX8 games and lower with decent res and anti-aliasing. Are they expensive? Can be, but I would say working Ti4600s usually go for more due to rarity.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-12-05, 04:46:

Fastest DX9 card without any compromises is Radeon X1950XTX. SLI based solutions are flawed.

Note: Only DX9 (or below) hardware have proper dithering support in 16-bit color modes.

I do have a sapphire radeon x1950 pro agp card. If I understood correctly it would mean that it would be more useful for old games to have windows xp system with that x1950 than it would be to have windows xp system with 780ti?

If I understood correctly it would mean that it would be more useful for old games to have windows xp system with that x1950 than it would be to have windows xp system with 780ti?

If you want to play some "borderline" games like KISS: Psycho Circus (2000), you'll need a card which can properly use dithering in 16-bit color.

GeForce 4 MX

GeForce GTS 250

https://www.old-games.ru/forum/threads/kiss-p … e-2#post-871387

It depends on what your goal is. A FX5950 is a very nice and rare high-end card, which handles all games from DX5 to DX8, with drivers for Win9x to WinXP.
If you are only interested in DX9 in WinXP or higher, a 6600 is clearly better, the one without GT should be a bit above the FX5950, the GT clearly. Compared to the FX5950, the 6600 series is rather ordinary to boring.
As described by cyclone3d above, for DX9, if DX8 is not important, all cards after the 6600 up to the mentioned cards (PCIe) would do a better job.
For AGP, the fastest cards available are the nVidia GeForce 7900GS and the ATI HD4670.

kolderman wrote on 2020-12-05, 08:07:

I have literally never seen a FX die before, I have seen too many Ti4600s die. And you might want the power of the FX5900 if you want to play DX8 games and lower with decent res and anti-aliasing. Are they expensive? Can be, but I would say working Ti4600s usually go for more due to rarity.

I have the opposite experience. I've never seen a dead Geforce 4 Ti, but more than half of the FX cards I've came across failed. Also, I don't think DX8 games necessarily need the power of an FX5900. Unless you are planning of playing on 1600x1200@60. Also, when it comes to high-end cards, they are both rarities, but as I see the Ti4600 is more accessible and less overpriced. The Ti4800 however even less common than the FX5950 Ultra.

RandomStranger wrote on 2020-12-08, 20:38:

kolderman wrote on 2020-12-05, 08:07:

I have literally never seen a FX die before, I have seen too many Ti4600s die. And you might want the power of the FX5900 if you want to play DX8 games and lower with decent res and anti-aliasing. Are they expensive? Can be, but I would say working Ti4600s usually go for more due to rarity.

I have the opposite experience. I've never seen a dead Geforce 4 Ti, but more than half of the FX cards I've came across failed. Also, I don't think DX8 games necessarily need the power of an FX5900. Unless you are planning of playing on 1600x1200@60. Also, when it comes to high-end cards, they are both rarities, but as I see the Ti4600 is more accessible and less overpriced. The Ti4800 however even less common than the FX5950 Ultra.

Unless they are equipped with absolutely over-kill cooling, the highest end (flagship) cards of any generation are usually the most thermally compromised, as the hardware is pushed to is limits (thermal and otherwise) in order to attempt to get a leg up on the competition's products . This tends to shorten lifespan, especially if adequate care is not taken to maintain the thermal dissipation solution in properly working order .

RandomStranger wrote on 2020-12-08, 20:38:

kolderman wrote on 2020-12-05, 08:07:

I have literally never seen a FX die before, I have seen too many Ti4600s die. And you might want the power of the FX5900 if you want to play DX8 games and lower with decent res and anti-aliasing. Are they expensive? Can be, but I would say working Ti4600s usually go for more due to rarity.

I have the opposite experience. I've never seen a dead Geforce 4 Ti, but more than half of the FX cards I've came across failed. Also, I don't think DX8 games necessarily need the power of an FX5900. Unless you are planning of playing on 1600x1200@60. Also, when it comes to high-end cards, they are both rarities, but as I see the Ti4600 is more accessible and less overpriced. The Ti4800 however even less common than the FX5950 Ultra.

The fun part about the Ti 4600 and 4800 is that the only real difference is that 4600 is 4x AGP and the 4800 is 8x AGP. The 4800 might use less power as well but the performance is pretty much identical from what I have found.

For AGP, the fastest cards available are the nVidia GeForce 7900GS and the ATI HD4670.

Fastest AGP cards available from Nvidia - GeForce 7800GS+ (Gainward) or GeForce 7950GT (XFX, Galaxy and few other vendors).
Fastest AGP cards available from AMD - Radeon HD 3850.
Fastest AGP cards available from ATi with proper 16-bit dithering - Radeon X1950XT.

The fun part about the Ti 4600 and 4800

8x AGP counterpart of 4600 practically doesn't exist. There's plenty of "4400" cards with 8x though, some had 2.8ns memory too (like on 4600).

But why would that even matter as the card doesn't benefit from AGP 8x in the first place? Are there benches out there showing the Ti 4800 beating a Ti 4600? From what little I can find they preform exactly the same.

Fun fact is that the Ti 4800 was originally going to be named the Ti 4600 8x but instead nVidia pulled a fast one and renamed it to the Ti 4800 and then named the Ti 4400 8x "Ti 4800 SE"

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1026/4

EVGA still has a page up for the Ti 4600 8x though it is definitely not working properly:
https://www.evga.com/articles/121.asp

I just double checked my Geforce 4 Ti cards. I have 6x cards ranging from Ti 4200 to Ti 4800 as well as 4x Quadro 4 cards.

I could do a benchmark run on all these cards at some point provided they all actually still work. A couple need caps replaced... 2 PNY branded and I think 1 other.

cyclone3d wrote on 2020-12-09, 05:52:

Fun fact is that the Ti 4800 was originally going to be named the Ti 4600 8x but instead nVidia pulled a fast one and renamed it to the Ti 4800 and then named the Ti 4400 8x "Ti 4800 SE"

I knnow the 4800 and 4600 are essentially the same, but I wouldn't consider the 4800SE and 4400 to be the same. The 4800SE had abysmally slow memory compared to the 4400 (SD RAM instead of DDR). It was even slower than the 4200 as a result.

cyclone3d wrote on 2020-12-09, 05:52:

I could do a benchmark run on all these cards at some point provided they all actually still work. A couple need caps replaced... 2 PNY branded and I think 1 other.

Those benchmark are always nice to see.

RandomStranger wrote on 2020-12-09, 06:31:

The 4800SE had abysmally slow memory compared to the 4400 (SD RAM instead of DDR).

Nope.