I'd also hazard to say that a lot of people here are not playing games at the same resolution we did back in the day. I had a P3 800EB in 2000 paired with a Voodoo 5. I had a 17" CRT that was pretty common at the time. It could do 1280x1024, but I played most games at 1024x768 or 800x600 depending on what I needed. I didn't have a frame counter up and I wasn't measuring the minimums (that wasn't really something that people did until HardOCP switched its review method to graph FPS with FRAPS). I just played the game and if it felt too slow, then I would change settings (including screen res) until I had a smooth experience.

Deus Ex, which people seem to be singling out in this thread, ran great on my system (admittedly, Unreal games all ran well on the Voodoo 5). I never felt like I needed a faster CPU. I knew plenty of people playing it on lessor hardware.

So I would recommend speccing your system based on what you're trying to do. If you ask Vogons, we're going to tell you to overspec because we're buying 25-year-old hardware that is basically trash and doesn't cost that much. But if you want to play a game the way it would have been played back in the day, you can just build a period correct system and play it the way it was played. Enjoy playing your games from an era before micro-transactions, online-authentication, and grind-to-keep-you-adjacent-to-micro-transactions.

smtkr wrote on 2023-06-06, 01:42:

I'd also hazard to say that a lot of people here are not playing games at the same resolution we did back in the day. I had a P3 800EB in 2000 paired with a VBut if you want to play a game the way it would have been played back in the day, you can just build a period correct system and play it the way it was played. Enjoy playing your games from an era before micro-transactions, online-authentication, and grind-to-keep-you-adjacent-to-micro-transactions.

That's my plan exactly. I want to enjoy games from 97 to 99 in the best possible quality with back then common resolutions lik 800x600 or 1024x768.

Higher resolutions and highest possible frame rates are nie of course so I can fully understand why many people here prefer overkill specs but I think that the old games just do not look in way over the top resolutions. the interface was not made for that high resolutions.

When toying arround with old games on my modern laptop i figured out that these games look the best in either 800x600 or 1024x768. My upcoming p3 8000mhz or 1 GHZ in case I decide to swap cpu should handle these resolutions just fine in high settings I think.

Edit :Sorry for the off topic talk @Joseph_Joestar. That was the last time from me. Have no further questions anyway but if I should think of some i will ask at different thread.

At least try to keep the discussion on the topic at hand - GeForce 4 vs. FX.

Unless your upcoming build has one of those cards, you should talk about it in a different thread.

smtkr wrote on 2023-06-06, 01:42:

Deus Ex, which people seem to be singling out in this thread, ran great on my system (admittedly, Unreal games all ran well on the Voodoo 5). I never felt like I needed a faster CPU. I knew plenty of people playing it on lessor hardware.

See this thread: Is Deus Ex supposed to be so slow in Glide? That game is heavily CPU limited, especially in large outdoor areas. Liberty Island (the first level when starting a new game) is a good example of this.

I was able to get 60+ FPS on Liberty Island with an Athlon64 3400+ and a GeForce FX 5900XT while running the game at 1600x1200 (no AA or AF). Not saying those are the minimum specs for that level of performance, just that this system can do it. With lower resolutions, it might be possible to achieve 60+ FPS in that area on less powerful GPUs and CPUs. That said, indoor areas in Deus Ex are far less demanding.

I have a ti 4200 in my 98SE machine now, is it worthwhile at all to seek out a FX 5700? For them later titles that can run on 98 but give me poor FPS I move to my XP machine. Farcry being an example of this.

FX 5700 was released after major driver revamp, which is considered to be less compatible with older games.

You shouldn't play Far Cry on a W98 PC. To have decent performance with maxed out graphics in period correct resolutions, you'd have to max out your options, meaning top-end P4 or Athlon XP and a top-end GPU from the last two generations (Radeon 9700/9800/X700/X800 or Geforce FX5800/5900/6600/6800 series). I'd just play everything released from 2002 on an XP PC.

Also, the FX series are not very good DX9 cards. Far Cry was patched to improve performance, but on the expense of the image quality.

Thanks for the replies, I'll stick with my ti 4200 for 98 and take the heavy hitters to my way over powered XP machine. Only game I wish I could get more performance out of that has issues on XP is Drakan but how many more times am I gotta beat game. Why I'm here, what is the best driver version got my ti4200 under 98? I do use the DVI out so I need them scaling options

Demo85 wrote on 2023-06-30, 18:24:

Why I'm here, what is the best driver version got my ti4200 under 98? I do use the DVI out so I need them scaling options

In my experience, 45.23 drivers provide the highest performance with GeForce 4 Ti cards, if paired with a powerful CPU like an Athlon64. Also, that driver version has all the relevant DVI scaling options.

But on less powerful CPUs, without SSE2 instructions, you may want to use slightly older drivers.

GeForce FX is still Windows 98 territory, even with a more powerful CPU. My 7600GT is three times as powerful as FX 5600 in Windows XP on Athlon 64 3400+. If you want to take advantage of GeForce FX performance, especially the high end cards, you need an Athlon XP or P4. An Athlon or Tualatin will most likely not unlock the full potential unless it's a low end FX 5200 / 5500. I'm not using a ti 4200 in my PIII rig only because they are very rare and more expensive than GeForce FX.

well I can add that one Test-app , I got better score from MX440-64mb than Asus FX5200-128mb so....(it's true I recapped FX with 16v caps...may be the reason for low score)

ediflorianUS wrote on 2023-07-01, 09:24:

well I can add that one Test-app , I got better score from MX440-64mb than Asus FX5200-128mb so....(it's true I recapped FX with […]
Show full quote

well I can add that one Test-app , I got better score from MX440-64mb than Asus FX5200-128mb so....(it's true I recapped FX with 16v caps...may be the reason for low score)

That's my experience as well. The MX is usually faster and/or more consistent.
Re: GPU for pentium 4 win 98SE/XP gaming machine: MX 440 or Radeon 9250?
Partly because it runs the games in DX7 mode while the FX defaults to DX8 or DX9 for which it lacks power.

AlexZ wrote on 2023-07-01, 09:06:

GeForce FX is still Windows 98 territory, even with a more powerful CPU. My 7600GT is three times as powerful as FX 5600 in Windows XP on Athlon 64 3400+. If you want to take advantage of GeForce FX performance, especially the high end cards, you need an Athlon XP or P4. An Athlon or Tualatin will most likely not unlock the full potential unless it's a low end FX 5200 / 5500. I'm not using a ti 4200 in my PIII rig only because they are very rare and more expensive than GeForce FX.

That mostly depends on resolution. FX5600 is hardly record breaking in 1600x1200, especially with added anti-aliasing. Tualatin is more than enough.

BTW , I am a bit off-topic , but one of my GPU's-
The black pcb (made in Taiwan ) GF4 MX 440-SE - now give's a Not optimum mode : recomanded mode 1280x1024 60hz (after recap) so not sure what that means. (What else could be broken on it? first had black screen)

ediflorianUS wrote on 2023-07-01, 11:50:

BTW , I am a bit off-topic , but one of my GPU's-
The black pcb (made in Taiwan ) GF4 MX 440-SE - now give's a Not optimum mode : recomanded mode 1280x1024 60hz (after recap) so not sure what that means. (What else could be broken on it? first had black screen)

If you've recapped it already, I assume that you've looked for cracked or missing smd capacitors?

Kahenraz wrote on 2023-07-01, 13:42:

ediflorianUS wrote on 2023-07-01, 11:50:

BTW , I am a bit off-topic , but one of my GPU's-
The black pcb (made in Taiwan ) GF4 MX 440-SE - now give's a Not optimum mode : recomanded mode 1280x1024 60hz (after recap) so not sure what that means. (What else could be broken on it? first had black screen)

If you've recapped it already, I assume that you've looked for cracked or missing smd capacitors?

can a smd cause such problems? I will check .

ediflorianUS wrote on 2023-07-01, 09:24:

Asus FX5200-128mb

In my opinion, FX is a synchronous design.
Those maximum performance is achieved when the memory runs at the GPU frequency.
My ASUS 9520TD goes up to 270/270MHz without voltmod, which is higher than 5500, but not up to Ultra.
Me will need to check this test.
PS. As far as I remember, all FX ultra are -synchronous.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-06-30, 20:42:

In my experience, 45.23 drivers provide the highest performance with GeForce 4 Ti cards, if paired with a powerful CPU like an A […]
Show full quote

Demo85 wrote on 2023-06-30, 18:24:

Why I'm here, what is the best driver version got my ti4200 under 98? I do use the DVI out so I need them scaling options

In my experience, 45.23 drivers provide the highest performance with GeForce 4 Ti cards, if paired with a powerful CPU like an Athlon64. Also, that driver version has all the relevant DVI scaling options.

But on less powerful CPUs, without SSE2 instructions, you may want to use slightly older drivers.

Thanks, I run a core duo CPU in my 98SE machine so CPU power is not a problem for me