Another round of benchmarks, this time with different cards & different (faster) platform (a Leadtek A350XT GeForce FX 5900XT rev A2 128 MB and a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256 MB).
Both were tested on the same platform (Asrock 775i65g + Pentium Dual Core E5800 @ 3.6 GHz).

There is something VERY funky going on with the AA + AF benchmarks at resolutions above 1280 x 1024. Results are all over the place and there's definitely a bug somewhere (probably the driver).
Since the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra has 256 MB of RAM and it also suffers from the same performance issues with AA/AF in certain titles, we can safely discard the memory capacity as being a potential bottleneck.
The Wolfdale Pentium Dual Core is way overkill for these cards (the Athlon 64 is a better match). A Radeon X800/X850 XT is more adequate for the Pentium Dual Core.
The A350XT rev A2 seems to be a bit slower in certain instances, but more testing is required to eliminate other possible causes.

MB: ASROCK 775i65g rev 2.03
CPU: Pentium Dual Core E5800 OC @ 3.6 GHz (FSB 225 x 16)
VGA: GeForce FX 5900 Ultra (450MHz core / 900MHz memory) / Driver 45.23
RAM: PQI 2 X 512 MB DDR400 Dual Channel (OC @ 450 MHz)
SOUND: Audigy 2 ZS
DirectX 8.1

13DMark99 Max: 37023 / 90643
23DMark2000:   24555 3D marks / 1371 CPU marks
33DMark2001:   22859 3D marks
4
5GLQuake  320 x  240 x 16 (window): 2825.4 FPS
6GLQuake  400 x  300 x 16 (window): 2044.1 FPS
7GLQuake  512 x  384 x 16 (window): 1353.3 FPS
8GLQuake  640 x  480 x 16: 1034.9 FPS
9GLQuake 1024 x  768 x 16:  512.5 FPS
10GLQuake 1024 x  768 x 32:  504.8 FPS
11GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 16:  335.4 FPS
12GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 32:  331.9 FPS
13GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 32:  134.6 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
14GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 32:   59.5 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
15GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 16:  240.6 FPS
16GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 32:  232.1 FPS
17GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 32:  108.8 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
18GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 32:   46.2 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
19
20Quake 2 Sofware Mode  640 x  480 x 16: 181.7 FPS
21Quake 2 Sofware Mode 1024 x  768 x 16:  85.3 FPS
22Quake 2  320 x  240 x 16: 997.1 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
23Quake 2  400 x  300 x 16: 997.1 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
24Quake 2  512 x  384 x 16: 998.6 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
25Quake 2  640 x  480 x 16: 989.9 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
26Quake 2 1024 x  768 x 16: 581.4 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
27Quake 2 1024 x  768 x 32: 557.3 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
28Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 16: 400.3 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
29Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 32: 386.9 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
30Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 32: 182.7 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)
31Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 32:  59.2 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)    ???????
32Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 16: 271.5 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
33Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 261.9 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
34Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 124.1 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)
35Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 119.8 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)
36
37Quake 3  320 x  240 x 16: 610.8 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
38Quake 3  400 x  400 x 16: 609.0 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
39Quake 3  512 x  384 x 16: 604.8 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
40Quake 3  640 x  480 x 16: 602.0 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
41Quake 3 1024 x  768 x 16: 548.5 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
42Quake 3 1024 x  768 x 32: 538.9 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
43Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 16: 430.9 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
44Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32: 415.7 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
45Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32: 334.7 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
46Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32: 156.9 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
47Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32:  49.8 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)   ???????
48Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 16: 319.1 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
49Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32: 302.5 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
50Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32: 247.8 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
51Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32: 120.6 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
52Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32: 145.0 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
53
54MDK2  640 x  480 x 16: 741.28 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
55MDK2 1024 x  768 x 16: 597.47 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
56MDK2 1024 x  768 x 32: 556.15 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
57MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 16: 412.64 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
58MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32: 381.28 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
59MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32: 362.32 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
60MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32: 150.62 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)

61MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32:  48.67 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
62MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 16: 298.72 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
63MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 273.60 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
64MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 261.90 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
65MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 108.49 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
66MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 101.81 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
67MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 16: 213.82 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
68MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32: 195.45 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
69MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32: 187.96 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
70MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32: 105.78 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
71MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32:  69.44 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
72
73Expendable  640 x  480 x 16: AVG 463.87 FPS / HIGH 646 FPS / LOW 342 FPS
74Expendable 1024 x  768 x 16: AVG 438.04 FPS / HIGH 555 FPS / LOW 319 FPS
75Expendable 1024 x  768 x 32: AVG 433.00 FPS / HIGH 521 FPS / LOW 320 FPS
76Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 16: AVG 340.09 FPS / HIGH 403 FPS / LOW 294 FPS
77Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 327.05 FPS / HIGH 396 FPS / LOW 280 FPS
78Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 198.98 FPS / HIGH 265 FPS / LOW 153 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
79Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG  67.49 FPS / HIGH  82 FPS / LOW  45 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
80Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 16: AVG 247.80 FPS / HIGH 325 FPS / LOW 211 FPS
81Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG 236.38 FPS / HIGH 315 FPS / LOW 201 FPS
82Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG 116.00 FPS / HIGH 150 FPS / LOW  81 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
83Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG  86.85 FPS / HIGH 110 FPS / LOW  63 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
84Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 16: AVG 179.95 FPS / HIGH 245 FPS / LOW 151 FPS
85Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG 170.92 FPS / HIGH 224 FPS / LOW 142 FPS
86Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  82.97 FPS / HIGH 107 FPS / LOW  58 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
87Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  62.01 FPS / HIGH  79 FPS / LOW  39 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
88
89Unreal  640 x  480 x 16: AVG 459.54 FPS / HIGH 1011.72 FPS / LOW 220.18 FPS
90Unreal 1024 x  768 x 16: AVG 399.57 FPS / HIGH  751.06 FPS / LOW 196.12 FPS
91Unreal 1024 x  768 x 32: AVG 365.61 FPS / HIGH  682.51 FPS / LOW 182.42 FPS
92Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 16: AVG 330.32 FPS / HIGH  586.65 FPS / LOW 178.90 FPS
93Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 292.02 FPS / HIGH  472.82 FPS / LOW 165.22 FPS
94Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 165.30 FPS / HIGH  265.94 FPS / LOW  89.24 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
95Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG  59.21 FPS / HIGH   85.97 FPS / LOW  37.66 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
96Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 16: AVG 272.57 FPS / HIGH  421.51 FPS / LOW 156.60 FPS
97Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG 234.79 FPS / HIGH  366.06 FPS / LOW 138.23 FPS
98Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG 103.56 FPS / HIGH  151.70 FPS / LOW  62.38 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
99Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG  74.21 FPS / HIGH  119.14 FPS / LOW  40.73 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
100Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 16: AVG 211.38 FPS / HIGH  313.21 FPS / LOW 124.62 FPS
101Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG 179.55 FPS / HIGH  285.34 FPS / LOW 101.99 FPS
102Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  74.08 FPS / HIGH  113.20 FPS / LOW  41.42 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
103Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  52.44 FPS / HIGH   86.25 FPS / LOW  27.21 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)

MB: ASROCK 775i65g rev 2.03
CPU: Pentium Dual Core E5800 OC @ 3.6 GHz (FSB 225 x 16)
VGA: Leadtek Winfast A350XT GeForce FX 5900XT (390MHz core / 700MHz memory) / Driver 45.23
RAM: PQI 2 X 512 MB DDR400 Dual Channel (OC @ 450 MHz)
SOUND: Audigy 2 ZS
DirectX 8.1

13DMark99 Max: 34099 / 90635
23DMark2000:   21055 3D marks / 1349 CPU marks
33DMark2001:   19604 3D marks
4
5GLQuake  320 x  240 x 16 (window): 2284.5 FPS
6GLQuake  400 x  300 x 16 (window): 1635.1 FPS
7GLQuake  512 x  384 x 16 (window): 1082.5 FPS
8GLQuake  640 x  480 x 16: 877.3 FPS
9GLQuake 1024 x  768 x 16: 432.0 FPS
10GLQuake 1024 x  768 x 32: 417.6 FPS
11GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 16: 280.9 FPS
12GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 32: 271.8 FPS
13GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 32: 100.0 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
14GLQuake 1280 x 1024 x 32:  47.9 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
15GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 16: 200.4 FPS
16GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 32: 189.3 FPS
17GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 32:  80.4 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
18GLQuake 1600 x 1200 x 32:  36.2 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
19
20Quake 2 Sofware Mode  640 x  480 x 16: 181.5 FPS
21Quake 2 Sofware Mode 1024 x  768 x 16:  85.2 FPS
22Quake 2  320 x  240 x 16: 997.1 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
23Quake 2  400 x  300 x 16: 997.1 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
24Quake 2  512 x  384 x 16: 995.7 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
25Quake 2  640 x  480 x 16: 909.0 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
26Quake 2 1024 x  768 x 16: 464.3 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
27Quake 2 1024 x  768 x 32: 425.6 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
28Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 16: 319.6 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
29Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 32: 292.4 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
30Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 32: 127.9 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)
31Quake 2 1280 x  960 x 32:  45.5 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)    ???????
32Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 16: 216.1 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
33Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 196.6 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
34Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 32:  81.3 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)
35Quake 2 1600 x 1200 x 32:  86.6 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF / DEFAULT DETAILS)
36
37Quake 3  320 x  240 x 16: 609.6 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
38Quake 3  400 x  400 x 16: 609.0 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
39Quake 3  512 x  384 x 16: 607.2 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
40Quake 3  640 x  480 x 16: 598.3 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
41Quake 3 1024 x  768 x 16: 492.4 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
42Quake 3 1024 x  768 x 32: 458.3 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
43Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 16: 350.3 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
44Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32: 314.8 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
45Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32: 239.6 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
46Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32: 107.4 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
47Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32:  37.8 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)   ???????
48Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 16: 251.6 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
49Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32: 225.2 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
50Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32: 176.1 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
51Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32:  79.4 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
52Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32:  98.5 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER) -- MOST LIKELY REVERTING TO AA 2X
53
54MDK2  640 x  480 x 16: 731.64 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
55MDK2 1024 x  768 x 16: 501.88 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
56MDK2 1024 x  768 x 32: 435.83 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
57MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 16: 336.23 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
58MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32: 290.95 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
59MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32: 271.12 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
60MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32: 103.19 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)

61MDK2 1280 x 1024 x 32:  40.25 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
62MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 16: 241.26 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
63MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 206.19 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
64MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32: 193.65 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
65MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32:  72.08 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
66MDK2 1600 x 1200 x 32:  73.03 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
67MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 16: 172.35 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
68MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32: 146.23 FPS (DEFAULT DETAILS)
69MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32: 138.71 FPS (MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
70MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32:  69.24 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
71MDK2 1920 x 1440 x 32:  51.64 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF + MAX TEXTURE DETAIL + TRILINEAR TEXTURE FILTER)
72
73Expendable  640 x  480 x 16: AVG 463.30 FPS / HIGH 599 FPS / LOW 346 FPS
74Expendable 1024 x  768 x 16: AVG 405.11 FPS / HIGH 495 FPS / LOW 304 FPS
75Expendable 1024 x  768 x 32: AVG 385.72 FPS / HIGH 487 FPS / LOW 305 FPS
76Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 16: AVG 280.50 FPS / HIGH 368 FPS / LOW 238 FPS
77Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 263.73 FPS / HIGH 339 FPS / LOW 223 FPS
78Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 138.45 FPS / HIGH 185 FPS / LOW  98 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
79Expendable 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG  55.07 FPS / HIGH  69 FPS / LOW  35 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
80Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 16: AVG 203.56 FPS / HIGH 277 FPS / LOW 170 FPS
81Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG 189.38 FPS / HIGH 250 FPS / LOW 159 FPS
82Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG  85.02 FPS / HIGH 117 FPS / LOW  58 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
83Expendable 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG  67.83 FPS / HIGH  90 FPS / LOW  46 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
84Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 16: AVG 148.46 FPS / HIGH 206 FPS / LOW 121 FPS
85Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG 136.48 FPS / HIGH 185 FPS / LOW 110 FPS
86Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  60.84 FPS / HIGH  83 FPS / LOW  37 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
87Expendable 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  48.32 FPS / HIGH  63 FPS / LOW  22 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
88
89Unreal  640 x  480 x 16: AVG 458.30 FPS / HIGH 943.69 FPS / LOW 212.93 FPS
90Unreal 1024 x  768 x 16: AVG 366.91 FPS / HIGH 654.19 FPS / LOW 180.51 FPS
91Unreal 1024 x  768 x 32: AVG 314.72 FPS / HIGH 513.04 FPS / LOW 175.47 FPS
92Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 16: AVG 282.31 FPS / HIGH 447.96 FPS / LOW 145.27 FPS
93Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 233.66 FPS / HIGH 354.94 FPS / LOW 135.68 FPS
94Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG 114.99 FPS / HIGH 189.21 FPS / LOW  61.59 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
95Unreal 1280 x 1024 x 32: AVG  44.53 FPS / HIGH  66.34 FPS / LOW  27.93 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
96Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 16: AVG 219.49 FPS / HIGH 333.80 FPS / LOW 127.18 FPS
97Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG 178.43 FPS / HIGH 280.93 FPS / LOW  98.57 FPS
98Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG  74.78 FPS / HIGH 113.23 FPS / LOW  43.78 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
99Unreal 1600 x 1200 x 32: AVG  53.02 FPS / HIGH  86.82 FPS / LOW  29.27 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)
100Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 16: AVG 166.96 FPS / HIGH 254.78 FPS / LOW  93.85 FPS
101Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG 132.03 FPS / HIGH 205.24 FPS / LOW  73.66 FPS
102Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  53.08 FPS / HIGH  82.00 FPS / LOW  29.96 FPS (4x AA + 8x AF)
103Unreal 1920 x 1440 x 32: AVG  37.34 FPS / HIGH  60.12 FPS / LOW  19.84 FPS (8x AA + 8x AF)

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-14, 18:20:

The A350XT rev A2 seems to be a bit slower in certain instances, but more testing is required to eliminate other possible causes.

Very interesting! I think my results match your A2 card. Maybe the C2 revision is higher clocked by default? Or it could be due to the newer BIOS version on that card or something like that. In any case, I did manage to do some benchmarks with my card using 45.23 and 53.04 drivers:

45.23

53.04

3DMark comparison

My preliminary tests indicate that 53.04 may be the fastest driver for FX cards under Win9x, except for the lowest resolutions like 640x480 which are somehow slower. However, that driver version has a nasty bug with one of my favorite games, so it's a no go for me. I'll stick to 45.23 despite the slightly slower results.

Also, there's an insane jump in Quake 2 software rendering performance with 53.04. No idea what's going on there, but I double and triple checked, and the results are valid.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-14, 18:39:

Very interesting! I think my results match your A2 card. Maybe the C2 revision is higher clocked by default? Or it could be due to the newer BIOS version on that card or something like that. In any case, I did manage to do some benchmarks with my card using 45.23 and 53.04 drivers:

Both cards have identical clock speeds, I've actually mentioned them:

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-08, 12:24:

VGA: Leadtek Winfast A350XT GeForce FX 5900XT 128 MB (default clocks: 390 MHz Core / 700 MHz memory)

The VGA BIOS might be (partially) related to the C2's apparent improved performance (one possible explanation: tighter memory timings).
Either way, it's not a meaningful difference, definitely not game changing. 😀

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-14, 18:39:

My preliminary tests indicate that 53.04 may be the fastest driver for FX cards under Win9x, except for the lowest resolutions like 640x480 which are somehow slower. However, that driver version has a nasty bug with one of my favorite games, so it's a no go for me. I'll stick to 45.23 despite the slightly slower results.

Yeah, 45.23 seems to be the best, although it also has its fair share of issues (NFS Porsche 🙁 ).

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-14, 18:39:

Also, there's an insane jump in Quake 2 software rendering performance with 53.04. No idea what's going on there, but I double and triple checked, and the results are valid.

I confirm, tested it myself right now and the jump is very noticeable:
Quake 2 Sofware Mode 640 x 480 x 16: 266.3 FPS
Quake 2 Sofware Mode 1024 x 768 x 16: 124.8 FPS

This is probably due to a DirectDraw optimization (or bug fix) that nVIDIA did, starting with the 5x.xx drivers.

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-15, 06:19:

The VGA BIOS might be (partially) related to the C2's apparent improved performance (one possible explanation: tighter memory timings).

Can you check the speed of the memory chips on the C2 card?

If I'm not mistaken, the A2 revision uses 2.8 ns chips. According to old forum posts, some later 5900XT cards were built on 5950 PCBs and use faster 2.2 ns memory chips.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-15, 07:05:

Can you check the speed of the memory chips on the C2 card?
If I'm not mistaken, the A2 revision uses 2.8 ns chips. According to old forum posts, some later 5900XT cards were built on 5950 PCBs and use faster 2.2 ns memory chips.

Well, both cards come with what appears to be identical chips: Hynix HY5DU283222 AF-28 (so, 2.8 ns memory used on both).

However, this does not necessarily tell the whole story. The BIOS on earlier revisions of the card might have had more conservative memory timings.
Even though the frequency is essentially the same, tighter timings will improve performance in certain memory limited scenarios.

What I do know for sure is that, even though the memory chips are virtually the same, the memory on the C2 revision can easily be overclocked to 950+ MHz (almost 2ns capability), while the memory on the A2 can barely hit 800 MHz (more like 780).
Same with the core. The C2 works perfectly at 475 MHz, while the A2 is unstable at anything past 420.
This might just be silicon lottery, or better core/memory yields on the newer revision. Unfortunately, I can't find any dates imprinted on the cards/memory, so can't know for sure. There might be a date code on the GPU itself, however removing the glued on heatsink is a pain (and not needed, since it does a very good job at keeping the GPU properly cooled).

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-15, 09:10:

This might just be silicon lottery, or better core/memory yields on the newer revision.

Yeah, it's probably that. I'm satisfied with the performance of the A2 revision since it does what I wanted. Meaning, it allows me to play Win9x games in 1280x1024 at 60+ FPS with maxed AF and low to moderate AA, while retaining legacy feature compatibility.

There might be a date code on the GPU itself, however removing the glued on heatsink is a pain (and not needed, since it does a very good job at keeping the GPU properly cooled).

Yup, the cooler is excellent, and it's not worth messing with it just to get that sort of information.

BTW, how are your temperatures on the A2 card? Idle and full load? I just ordered two Noctua case fans which should hopefully help a bit with mine.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-15, 09:29:

Yup, the cooler is excellent, and it's not worth messing with it just to get that sort of information.

BTW, how are your temperatures on the A2 card? Idle and full load? I just ordered two Noctua case fans which should hopefully help a bit with mine.

Very good question! I didn't do any comprehensive measurements, however I did notice that the power delivery circuitry on the C2 card seems to run cooler (tested using the ultra-scientific "finger method").
The GPU and memory, on the other hand, have more or less the same temps on both cards (~60 degrees GPU temp after a 30 minute loop of the 3DMark2001 Nature demo). This is actually a very decent temperature and the only way to get better results is by using an Arctic NV Silencer (I have it on the GeForce FX5900 Ultra and it keeps the GPU at 45 - 50 degrees and the memory at 30 - 40 degrees, while also being almost completely silent).

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-15, 11:47:

The GPU and memory, on the other hand, have more or less the same temps on both cards (~60 degrees GPU temp after a 30 minute loop of the 3DMark2001 Nature demo).

Nice! That's pretty much what I was getting after an hour of playing Splinter Cell at 1280x1024 with all details fully maxed out. The frame rate jumps between 20 and 60 at those settings, but I'll gladly take that for maximum eye candy. 😁 Especially in a slow paced stealth game.

Back in the day, I played Splinter Cell on a GeForce3 Ti200, also fully maxed out but using a much lower resolution of 640x480, and had similar results. Come to think of it, that card was Leadtek branded too.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-15, 12:20:

Back in the day, I played Splinter Cell on a GeForce3 Ti200, also fully maxed out but using a much lower resolution of 640x480, and had similar results. Come to think of it, that card was Leadtek branded too.

Same 😁! I finished Splinter Cell on a Palit Daytona GeForce 3 Ti 200, but did it at 1280 x 1024 😁 I remember being completely in awe when I first saw how the pixel shader water looked in the oil rig level (Morrowind also used pixel shader effects for the water, but to my eyes the water in Splinter Cell looked completely 'real' 😁 ).
Back in the day, my perception of "playable framerates" was quite distorted, and I always preferred quality over framerate. I kinda do the same nowadays, but in 2022 I need at least 40 - 45 FPS for a "playable" experience. 😀

Well, looks like I found another minor compatibility issue with FX cards. Gothic inventory icons render incorrectly as shown here.

I wasn't expecting this, since the icons worked fine on my GeForce4 Ti4200, but it looks like some of the architectural changes in the FX series caused this. It's not driver related since I ran the game using the same 45.23 drivers on a GeForce4 and it worked fine.

For some reason, I thought this issue first cropped up with the GeForce6 series of cards, but it looks like the FX line started it. Very odd.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-15, 13:07:

Well, looks like I found another minor compatibility issue with FX cards. Gothic inventory icons render incorrectly as shown here.

I wasn't expecting this, since the icons worked fine on my GeForce4 Ti4200, but it looks like some of the architectural changes in the FX series caused this. It's not driver related since I ran the game using the same 45.23 drivers on a GeForce4 and it worked fine.

For some reason, I thought this issue first cropped up with the GeForce6 series of cards, but it looks like the FX line started it. Very odd.

Too bad. Yeah, it's still a software/driver issue (partly caused by the newer architecture, probably).

The thing is that, a newer architecture obviously requires completely new driver code. So, even though the driver is essentially the same (45.23 in this case), the core code for the GeForce 4 Ti series is most likely vastly different than that for the FX series. The problem should've been perfectly fixable in software, but nobody bothered to do it. The fix could be done either at the driver level or even from within the game itself, since newer ATI cards seem to have the same problem - which makes me think that it might actually be the game itself that was using some unorthodox approach for displaying the inventory icons (which might have been a dirty workaround that somehow worked with older architectures).

Still, irrelevant where the problem lies and how it could've been fixed. What matters is that, as it stands, the GeForce 4 Ti seems to be the last true Win98 compatible series of cards from nVIDIA.

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-15, 13:51:

Still, irrelevant where the problem lies and how it could've been fixed. What matters is that, as it stands, the GeForce 4 Ti seems to be the last true Win98 compatible series of cards from nVIDIA.

Yeah, it does seem that way.

Gothic might be an outlier, but I'll be on the lookout for more games which may have rendering issues on the FX, just in case. I still like the improved AA/AF performance that the 5900XT brings, so I'll keep it in this build. And when I decide to replay Gothic the next time, I can always switch back to my trusty Ti4200.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-15, 14:53:

Gothic might be an outlier, but I'll be on the lookout for more games which may have rendering issues on the FX, just in case. I still like the improved AA/AF performance that the 5900XT brings, so I'll keep it in this build. And when I decide to replay Gothic the next time, I can always switch back to my trusty Ti4200.

Yes, the FX will work for most games, that's for sure. But still annoying that there are a few (NFS Porsche remains a big issue for me, in particular), that have problems with it.

I also hate the fact that the FX 59xx has issues with some DOS games (i.e. Aladdin runs abnormally fast on it - even if I slow the CPU down to 386 / 486 speeds). And it's a real shame, because these Core 2 Duo/Pentium Dual Core CPUs are surprisingly flexible in DOS, even more so when paired with a sound card like the Audigy 2, with its SB/FM emulation (which actually has a - probably - unintended effect of bypassing certain issues like the Turbo Pascal division by zero error).

The case fans arrived today. I mounted the 92mm one as an intake fan on the side panel of the case. That way, it blows cool air straight onto the GPU. The 120mm one is used as an exhaust fan at the back of the case, to further help with the airflow. With these two installed, my GPU temperatures are now 36C when idle and 55C under full load. The CPU temperature dropped by a few degrees as well, so it now hovers around 47C at full load. Not bad at all.

The pictures in the initial post of this thread have been updated, as have the benchmarks. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the end result, so I think I'm done upgrading this rig. Time to play some games on it I guess. 😀

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-15, 06:19:

Yeah, 45.23 seems to be the best, although it also has its fair share of issues (NFS Porsche 🙁 ).

You can try nGlide with patched game.

And BTW, great thread 😀. s754/AGP is my favourite platform.
@Joseph_Joestar, are you using VIA southbridge SATA ports to run SSDs, or is there other controller ?

stef80 wrote on 2022-08-16, 21:09:

And BTW, great thread 😀. s754/AGP is my favourite platform.
@Joseph_Joestar, are you using VIA southbridge SATA ports to run SSDs, or is there other controller ?

Cheers! And yeah, just the VIA southbridge, no other controllers

This works because my board uses the VT8237R Plus chip. That revision fixed an incompatibility with SATA3 drives which previous versions of this southbridge suffered from.

stef80 wrote on 2022-08-16, 21:09:

You can try nGlide with patched game.

Uhm, if I were to do that, might as well just do it on a modern rig with Windows 10/11 (which, in fact, I have already done years ago) 😀

When it comes to Win98 retro gaming, for me personally, using something like nGlide kinda defeats the purpose (and I've had limited success with it when I did try it in the past, because it actually requires quite a bit of CPU power and the Athlon 64 is not powerful enough for a lag-free/ 60+ FPS experience in a game like NFS Porsche).

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-17, 00:30:

This works because my board uses the VT8237R Plus chip. That revision fixed an incompatibility with SATA3 drives which previous versions of this southbridge suffered from.

I was about to ask 😁.
I have similar config with K8V SE Deluxe and ClawHammer, running PATA drives.

bloodem wrote on 2022-08-17, 04:45:

When it comes to Win98 retro gaming, for me personally, using something like nGlide kinda defeats the purpose (and I've had limited success with it when I did try it in the past, because it actually requires quite a bit of CPU power and the Athlon 64 is not powerful enough for a lag-free/ 60+ FPS experience in a game like NFS Porsche).

Will try today. (ClawHammer 3400+, stock clock). This is probably one of the last games to support Glide ??
BTW, 45.23 driver is very nGlide-unfriendly on FX5900 (memory violations and such). I'm using 71.89, skipped 5x.xx which may also work.

stef80 wrote on 2022-08-17, 05:39:

BTW, 45.23 driver is very nGlide-unfriendly on FX5900 (memory violations and such). I'm using 71.89, skipped 5x.xx which may also work.

Even more reason to not use it. 😁
Even if it fixes one game, hundreds of others will stop working with 71.89.

LucasArts, UT99 and Quake2 work, though 😀.