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

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-03-08, 07:38:

But in the bigger picture a 3dfx PC is not what I want. I want the best compability for the windows 98 area. So getting Geforce 4 or a Radeon 8000 or 9000 is the most sane solution.

Since you specifically mention compatibility, 3DFX cards are the king there, but I simply cannot justify a purchase at their current prices. Nvidia's compatibility is decent too, while Radeon cards are missing some features which can make a difference in a couple of games. Check the Vogons wiki articles on Table Fog and Paletted Textures for more details. Still, that's not really a deal breaker, in my view.

However, if you really do want the most compatible non-3DFX card for a Win9x system with excellent performance and a reasonable price, go for a GeForce4 Ti4200. Use driver version 45.23 or older, since newer Nvidia drivers have compatibility issues with some Win9x games.

Yeah, I also feel that the Geforce Ti 4200 is the best choice for me.

And interesting that the 3dfx was the best choice for that area in general. I mean it was clear to me that from 1997 to 1999 the 3dfx cards would be the champ indeed. But i thought for some later 2000 games, like Deus Ex, Thief 2, Nolf for example that the Nvidia Cards might be a bit better.

That's just a theoretical question at this point though. I would not mind getting 3dfx card but not at the current price point.

Sorry for bringing back my old thread but it is better to discuss the matter here further instead of making my thread.

I have done much more research in the meantime and have some more questions.

I think I will go with the ASUS A7V600 as my main motherboard. You guys recommended either an Athlon XP 2000 or 2800 which seems to be a good choice. Also concerning the price. But during my research, I found out the motherboard also supports the Duron line from AMD. the Duron cpus are sometimes cheaper than the Athlon. As far as I know, the Duron is the budget version of the Athlon cpu. Are Duron also worth considering or should I stick to the Athlon class?

Concerning graphics cards the Nvidia 4200 seams to be a good choice performance-wise and also price-wise.

But how about the Geforce 3? Sometimes the normal gf3 from Hercules pops up during my research for a rather good price.

I know that gf3 cards are a bit weaker from a performance point of view but that does not really matter for me. Because for my prefered time frame 97 to late 2000 a gf3 would be rather futuristic. So it should run all the games I want to play in good quality.

I still consider the GF 4200 ti as my main card to go but I Just wanted to know that a gf3 could be seen as alternative in case I find own in good condition and at a good price?

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-14, 09:27:

Sorry for bringing back my old thread but it is better to discuss the matter here further instead of making my thread.

I have done much more research in the meantime and have some more questions.

I think I will go with the ASUS A7V600 as my main motherboard. You guys recommended either an Athlon XP 2000 or 2800 which seems to be a good choice. Also concerning the price. But during my research, I found out the motherboard also supports the Duron line from AMD. the Duron cpus are sometimes cheaper than the Athlon. As far as I know, the Duron is the budget version of the Athlon cpu. Are Duron also worth considering or should I stick to the Athlon class?

It really depends on the exact Athlon and exact Duron. Duron was a pretty solid budget CPU at the time compared to Athon and AthlonXP.

Concerning graphics cards the Nvidia 4200 seams to be a good choice performance-wise and also price-wise. […]
Show full quote

Concerning graphics cards the Nvidia 4200 seams to be a good choice performance-wise and also price-wise.

But how about the Geforce 3? Sometimes the normal gf3 from Hercules pops up during my research for a rather good price.

I know that gf3 cards are a bit weaker from a performance point of view but that does not really matter for me. Because for my prefered time frame 97 to late 2000 a gf3 would be rather futuristic. So it should run all the games I want to play in good quality.

I still consider the GF 4200 ti as my main card to go but I Just wanted to know that a gf3 could be seen as alternative in case I find own in good condition and at a good price?

If you can get a GF3 for a good price, I'd go for this. You can always get a second card later.

Most things have already been said.

If You really need to cover year 1997 to the end of the XP era then the route with the least hassle is probably an Asus P5PE-VM i865 motherboard with a low FSB high multiplier Core2 CPU. Add 2x1GB (overclockable) DDR PC3200 and a Gainward 7800Gs AGP or the AGP version of the 7950GT.

This still needs a mod BIOS for 45nm Core2 support or your (rational/optimal) choices are limited to the E4700 or X6800 which can be expe... less dirt cheap.

INF files needs to be modified for Geforce 7 support and the memory patch needs to be applied to Windows 98 but all this is still less hassle than trying to get late XP-era games to run well on Windows 98 era hardware.

ASRock probably still sells their 865g board with core2 support brand new but I have no first hand experience with those.

There are many reasons many of us end up with many systems...

Tetrium wrote on 2023-05-14, 16:55:

It really depends on the exact Athlon and exact Duron. Duron was a pretty solid budget CPU at the time compared to Athon and Ath […]
Show full quote

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-14, 09:27:

Sorry for bringing back my old thread but it is better to discuss the matter here further instead of making my thread.

I have done much more research in the meantime and have some more questions.

I think I will go with the ASUS A7V600 as my main motherboard. You guys recommended either an Athlon XP 2000 or 2800 which seems to be a good choice. Also concerning the price. But during my research, I found out the motherboard also supports the Duron line from AMD. the Duron cpus are sometimes cheaper than the Athlon. As far as I know, the Duron is the budget version of the Athlon cpu. Are Duron also worth considering or should I stick to the Athlon class?

It really depends on the exact Athlon and exact Duron. Duron was a pretty solid budget CPU at the time compared to Athon and AthlonXP.

Concerning graphics cards the Nvidia 4200 seams to be a good choice performance-wise and also price-wise. […]
Show full quote

Concerning graphics cards the Nvidia 4200 seams to be a good choice performance-wise and also price-wise.

But how about the Geforce 3? Sometimes the normal gf3 from Hercules pops up during my research for a rather good price.

I know that gf3 cards are a bit weaker from a performance point of view but that does not really matter for me. Because for my prefered time frame 97 to late 2000 a gf3 would be rather futuristic. So it should run all the games I want to play in good quality.

I still consider the GF 4200 ti as my main card to go but I Just wanted to know that a gf3 could be seen as alternative in case I find own in good condition and at a good price?

If you can get a GF3 for a good price, I'd go for this. You can always get a second card later.

Thanks a lot for your answer. I have thought about using either the athlon xp 2000+ or the athlon xp 2800+. A Duron cpu but might be interesting for price vice would be the AMD Duron 1300 but not sure if considering this cpu is good idea performance wise when I can get a athlon xp for a similar price.

@Skyscraper Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughs as well. I am not that much into the late xp area though. My cup of tea are the win 98 area games especially the 97 to 2000 area.

The xp era has many great games but most games of that area run rather well on modern machines. The same cannot be said about the win 98 gen and that's why i want a retro machine this focused to run this area games as good as possible

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-14, 18:08:

@Skyscraper Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughs as well. I am that much into the late xp area though. My cup of tea are the win 98 area games especially the 97 to 2000 area.

The xp era has many great games but most games of that area run rather well on modern machines. The same cannot be said about the win 98 gen and that's why i want retro machine this focused to run this area games as good as possible

Yea I almost figured. For games up to 2003 or so the Geforce FX 59x0 of any kind is probably optimal.

I would still argue that Intel 875p or 865p is the best chipset/platform choice but no need for core2 support. A Socket 478 board with a 2.8+ GHz Northwood P4 will do fine.

Skyscraper wrote on 2023-05-14, 18:45:

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-14, 18:08:

@Skyscraper Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughs as well. I am that much into the late xp area though. My cup of tea are the win 98 area games especially the 97 to 2000 area.

The xp era has many great games but most games of that area run rather well on modern machines. The same cannot be said about the win 98 gen and that's why i want retro machine this focused to run this area games as good as possible

Yea I almost figured. For games up to 2003 or so the Geforce FX 59x0 of any kind is probably optimal.

I would still argue that Intel 875p or 865p is the best chipset/platform choice but no need for core2 support. A Socket 478 board with a 2.8+ GHz Northwood P4 will do fine.

Ok thanks again for the advice. I will check both of them out. With Northwood P4 the 875p or 865p chipset could be interesting for me. Need to check out the price first. I am also not against using core2 chipset it just would not make any sense for my set up. As far as I know the games in the area I am interested in are not using more than single cpu core. So double core cpu would be useless.

I would not recommend the FX series. Too weak for XP games, and too limited in backwards compatible drivers for Win98. Oh, and the used market choice is between a weak fx5200 and laughably overpriced faster versions.

With Nvidia you want a card that can use a wide range of older drivers for Win98, because the backwards compatibility gets progressively worse. Right around the 45.xx series Nvidia also started doing various driver cheats and hacks that reduce image quality in an attempt to make their FX cards appear competitive.

So either a ti4200 or a GF3 would be my choice for Win98 gaming over the FX series.

pixel_workbench wrote on 2023-05-14, 21:54:

I would not recommend the FX series. Too weak for XP games, and too limited in backwards compatible drivers for Win98. Oh, and the used market choice is between a weak fx5200 and laughably overpriced faster versions.

With Nvidia you want a card that can use a wide range of older drivers for Win98, because the backwards compatibility gets progressively worse. Right around the 45.xx series Nvidia also started doing various driver cheats and hacks that reduce image quality in an attempt to make their FX cards appear competitive.

So either a ti4200 or a GF3 would be my choice for Win98 gaming over the FX series.

Thanks a lot for the warning. Yeah I have already figured out that the FX series is double edged sword. I can remember that were not very popular back then when they were new. The german gaming media was not a fan at all. So I was suprised at first that the fx cards are getting recommended from time to time for retro setup. It seems that they have some bennefits for a retro set up. The price difference between the lower and the higher specs is quite though like you said.

The driver cheats NV did is a big red flag for me. Perfect backwards compatibility is must have for me because I want the perfect late 90s gaming rig. A childhood/teenage dream I could not fullfill back then.

So having trouble witch backwards compatibility is the least thing I want. If I want trouble I could just keep playing the old stuff on my windows 11 Ryzen 7 5800X and the RTX 3070.

I'm pretty sure you can get the whole FX series to work with old enough drivers by editing the INF files. The FX5900 Ultra launched with the 44.xx series drivers so it's only for really late FX-cards INF file editing might be needed to get 44.xx/45.xx going.

When it comes to the hardware the FX series should be as compatible as Geforce 3 and 4. I use a FX5900 Ultra in my Windows 98 rig using the 45.23 driver and I have not had any issues.

If money is a factor then cards like the GF4 ti 4200 that you can get for 10 euro will always win. Some want the kind of hardware they had back then but others want the hardware they couldn't afford when they were young. Never be in a hurry and never pay stupid prices are winning strategies when building retro systems on the cheap with high end parts. 😁

I guess another factor that matters is if you are building the system only for playing games or if tinkering with the hardware is just as important! 😁

If we forget Windows XP altogether and aim for a resolution of max 1280*1024 then a Geforce 3 or Geforce 4 is all you need.

Skyscraper wrote on 2023-05-15, 06:55:

I'm pretty sure you can get the whole FX series to work with old enough drivers by editing the INF files. The FX5900 Ultra launc […]
Show full quote

I'm pretty sure you can get the whole FX series to work with old enough drivers by editing the INF files. The FX5900 Ultra launched with the 44.xx series drivers so it's only for really late FX-cards INF file editing might be needed to get 44.xx/45.xx going.

When it comes to the hardware the FX series should be as compatible as Geforce 3 and 4. I use a FX5900 Ultra in my Windows 98 rig using the 45.23 driver and I have not had any issues.

If money is a factor then cards like the GF4 ti 4200 that you can get for 10 euro will always win. Some want the kind of hardware they had back then but others want the hardware they couldn't afford when they were young. Never be in a hurry and never pay stupid prices are winning strategies when building retro systems on the cheap with high end parts. 😁

I guess another factor that matters is if you are building the system only for playing games or if tinkering with the hardware is just as important! 😁

If we forget Windows XP altogether and aim for a resolution of max 1280*1024 then a Geforce 3 or Geforce 4 is all you need.

Figering out the right specs is part of the fun for building a system. At least for me. So I am not in hurry. I research everything carefuly before I decide what parts to purchase.

Aiming for resolution of max 1280x1024 sounds indeed just like me. 1280x1024 is already generous. I think most games of that area I into look the best in 1024x768.

I need to research the xp area as well though. I have always asumed that the games from the xp area should work well enough on my modern rig because I cannot remember having any problems in the past with them.

But the "past" was already 10 years ago so maybe things are different with windows 11. I need to double check before I completely rule out early windows xp games well.

But like you said if windows xp is not a thing GF 3 or 4 is everything I need. That was also the result of my "research" about that topic.

Thanks a lot for your further input.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-15, 07:10:

I need to research the xp area as well though. I have always asumed that the games from the xp area should work well enough on my modern rig because I cannot remember having any problems in the past with them.

Native EAX support is one of the things that you lose when moving from WinXP to more modern Windows versions. Creative's ALchemy can remedy this to an extent, but not all games are supported. Some third-party wrappers can do a decent job with emulation, but it's not quite the same.

There are a lot of Win9x and WinXP era games which use EAX. In many cases, it can greatly enhance the overall atmosphere (take Doom 3 and Splinter Cell for example).

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-05-15, 09:10:

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-15, 07:10:

I need to research the xp area as well though. I have always assumed that the games from the xp area should work well enough on my modern rig because I cannot remember having any problems in the past with them.

Native EAX support is one of the things that you lose when moving from WinXP to more modern Windows versions. Creative's ALchemy can remedy this to an extent, but not all games are supported. Some third-party wrappers can do a decent job with emulation, but it's not quite the same.

There are a lot of Win9x and WinXP era games which use EAX. In many cases, it can greatly enhance the overall atmosphere (take Doom 3 and Splinter Cell for example).

Thanks for the info. Sound is a very important point for me. I never had EAX support on my then-gaming pc but I would be eager to try it out and get a good soundcard that is capable of EAX. I have heard that can enhance the atmosphere of many games in a really big way.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-15, 07:10:

[...]

I need to research the xp area as well though. I have always asumed that the games from the xp area should work well enough on my modern rig because I cannot remember having any problems in the past with them.

But the "past" was already 10 years ago so maybe things are different with windows 11. I need to double check before I completely rule out early windows xp games well.

Best thing to do is to check things you play. I can't recall finding any XP era stuff that doesn't work for me, but ymmv.

But like you said if windows xp is not a thing GF 3 or 4 is everything I need. That was also the result of my "research" about that topic.

Problem is that doing both well is going to get rather difficult. 9x doesn't support PCIe (and yes, you *can* get things running, but you don't want the complexity of that for your first build), and you're not going to run Crysis well on an AGP-era system. Compromise would be the very fastest AGP system you can build (Athlon64 or P4 dual-channel), but it will be that: a compromise.

I'd once again suggest focus for your first build. Better to build something that works 100% (and without needing hacks) for 75% of stuff you might ideally want to do, than build something that works 75% (and needs hacks for the rest) for 100% of what you might want to do. You're already stretching it by wanting to keep the DOS option open, stretching it further to also do XP is asking for problems. Either do a Win9x build or an XP build.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-15, 09:24:

Thanks for the info. Sound is a very important point for me. I never had EAX support on my then-gaming pc but I would be eager to try it out and get a good soundcard that is capable of EAX. I have heard that can enhance the atmosphere of many games in a really big way.

You might find this topic interesting then: EAX appreciation thread

The first post there has links to documentation and gameplay videos which showcase the difference that EAX can make.

dionb wrote on 2023-05-15, 09:27:

Best thing to do is to check things you play. I can't recall finding any XP era stuff that doesn't work for me, but ymmv. […]
Show full quote

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-15, 07:10:

[...]

I need to research the xp area as well though. I have always asumed that the games from the xp area should work well enough on my modern rig because I cannot remember having any problems in the past with them.

But the "past" was already 10 years ago so maybe things are different with windows 11. I need to double check before I completely rule out early windows xp games well.

Best thing to do is to check things you play. I can't recall finding any XP era stuff that doesn't work for me, but ymmv.

But like you said if windows xp is not a thing GF 3 or 4 is everything I need. That was also the result of my "research" about that topic.

Problem is that doing both well is going to get rather difficult. 9x doesn't support PCIe (and yes, you *can* get things running, but you don't want the complexity of that for your first build), and you're not going to run Crysis well on an AGP-era system. Compromise would be the very fastest AGP system you can build (Athlon64 or P4 dual-channel), but it will be that: a compromise.

I'd once again suggest focus for your first build. Better to build something that works 100% (and without needing hacks) for 75% of stuff you might ideally want to do, than build something that works 75% (and needs hacks for the rest) for 100% of what you might want to do. You're already stretching it by wanting to keep the DOS option open, stretching it further to also do XP is asking for problems. Either do a Win9x build or an XP build.

You have point for sure. Overstretching it too much is no good. The thing I am mostly interested in is Win 98 gaming at the moment. So I will focus on windows 98 rig only before things are getting to complicated. Especially as a beginner it is easier to focus on thing as beginner. Making second rig as a xp system would not be that difficult.

I could use some spare parts one of my old pcs I gave to my grand parents. They rarely use the computer so it make be still working. It is nothing special a pentium d 930 as cpu and radeon 1800xt. Was happy with it back then. Felt like big upgrade from previous gaming pc that I do not have any more. Was a Pentium 4 1.4 ghz with Asus v7100.

But for now I will focus only on building the best possible windows 98 agp system.

@Joseph_Joestar Thanks a lot for the link. I am going to check it out for sure.

I have a lot of Win98 pc’s starting with a pentium 60 (ok that one runs actually win95) up to an athlon 3000 with FX5900. The one I use the most is a pentium III 600 with voodoo5 5500 agp and sb live! card.
Just get the cheapest parts you can find or, even better, buy a complete athlon or pentium III system.
Because once you get into retro pc’s this won’t be your last machine!
Oh and what monitor do you have for your win98 pc?

Kouwes wrote on 2023-05-15, 10:29:

I have a lot of Win98 pc’s starting with a pentium 60 (ok that one runs actually win95) up to an athlon 3000 with FX5900. The on […]
Show full quote

I have a lot of Win98 pc’s starting with a pentium 60 (ok that one runs actually win95) up to an athlon 3000 with FX5900. The one I use the most is a pentium III 600 with voodoo5 5500 agp and sb live! card.
Just get the cheapest parts you can find or, even better, buy a complete athlon or pentium III system.
Because once you get into retro pc’s this won’t be your last machine!
Oh and what monitor do you have for your win98 pc?

I am going to use a CRT monitor for peroid correctness. I am going to either use my old philips crt

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/123075/Philips-109p4.html

in case it is still working or I migh get a used crt.

I have also though about getting on old lcd monitor use it on my modern . 21. samsung synchmaster monitor but not so sure about the image quality. The modern Samsung just has DVI plug and I am not sure if using a vga-dvi converter is a good idea..

Vga-dvi converters are passive, the graphics card puts out analogue and digital signals on the dvi output, which the adapter takes and puts on the right pins of a vga connector. I doubt that the process will work in reverse, the monitor probably does not have an analogue input on the dvi port.

st31276a wrote on 2023-05-15, 12:08:

Vga-dvi converters are passive, the graphics card puts out analogue and digital signals on the dvi output, which the adapter takes and puts on the right pins of a vga connector. I doubt that the process will work in reverse, the monitor probably does not have an analogue input on the dvi port.

My old HP LP2465 24" 1920*1200 has no issues with accepting analog input through either of it's two* DVI-inputs, there is no D-Sub 15 pin input jack.

(At least one jack accepts analog input but in that case I have managed to use the same jack over and over again 100 times... I think it's both jacks...)