momaka wrote on 2024-09-07, 21:40:

Having ran many Pentium 3 and similar era systems in the late 2000's and well into the mid-to-early 2010's, here's my 2 cents. […]
Show full quote

Having ran many Pentium 3 and similar era systems in the late 2000's and well into the mid-to-early 2010's, here's my 2 cents.

1) Windows XP is more than FINE for a Pentium 3. Even the slowest P3 will actually perform just about as well under XP as it would under Windows 9x. Perhaps in games, there might be some difference in FPS (depending on the video card and drivers you use... but I wouldn't fret too much about it). Games aside, there's nothing CPU-heavy about Windows XP compared to older Windows (at least once you go past Pentium II)... OK, I take that back and revise it: there's nothing CPU-heavy about Windows XP *IF* you turn off all of the stupid visual crap, like fading of menus, animation of minimizing and maximazing windows (ugh! I always hate this crap), shadow under menus/mouse/ etc. Basically, just run classic UI on Windows XP and it will not be heavy on the CPU at all. With that said, there's really no need to go for the absolute top-end (and expensive) Tualatin CPUs. Yes, they are nice, but not worth the high price when a 800-1000 MHz P3 will do quite well in most cases. Even anything in the 600-933 MHz class will be plenty fast and should allow you to run a good deal of software from the early and mid-2000's.

2) In regards to RAM: contrary to some of the posts here, I will say that you do NOT need a ton... but you do need enough.
For Windows XP SP2, 256 MB will be... adequate to run the system, but not let you multi-task or open too many programs at once (or one RAM-heavy program.) 384 MB (128 + 256 MB stick for boards with only 2 slots) will be a little better. But if you can, try to go for 512 MB right from the start. More than that would be better... but probably unnecessary. And here's why: you really only need more than 512 MB if you plan to browse the (basic) web (yes, you can do it with a Pentium 3 and 512 MB of RAM, and it isn't the most terrible of an experience, though certainly one that requires a bit more patience) -OR- if you intend to play some 2003 and older games. In case of the former (browsing the web), I don't see many people building retro PCs particularly for that reason, so I imagine that won't be your case use here. And for games newer than 2003 - those will not only be heavier on the RAM but also on the CPU and GPU too. So with that said, going past 512 MB on a P3, IME, is not really worth it. Also, as VivienM mentioned above, going beyond 512-768 MB of RAM can actually become quite a challenge, because Intel i810/i815 chipset is limited to 512 MB of RAM, and 440*X is limited to 768 MB. Thus, you would either need some kind of a server motherboard that uses ECC/REG RAM or some rare unicorn board that can support 512 MB SDRAM sticks... which is pretty silly IMO, if all you want is a plain old Pentium 3 PC that can run XP. It might be worth it only if you're doing it just to brag / show off or as part of completing a personal collection.

3) Don't be afraid of XP Service Pack 3! Everyone here seems to imply that SP3 will slow downs stuff to a crawl and "eat all ur ramz". NO! SP3 is merely SP2 with a few security updates on there... and a few changes/additions (some of which are annoying, but can be reverted back, like Explorer asking you every time if you're OK with opening "unknown"/locked files - a common annoyance with some downloaded MP3's and similar files.) There's a few good fixes in SP3, too, though (like Explorer remembering a much bigger number of custom views for your folders, which is sometime I frequently maxed out in the past.) Apart from that, I get about the same performance under SP3 as I do in SP2, at least for non-gaming purposes. So depending on the use case of your P3 build, you may or may not want SP3. SP3 is good (in fact, NECESSARY) if you intent to connect that machine to the Internet. With bone-stock SP2, there are still a few viruses and worms roaming around that can infect your PC (DownAdUp is one of these, and it's almost instant as soon as you get online, which is why MS released a special update to prevent this... I can get the KB# later, if anyone is really that interested to know.) So in short: if you want internet browsing capability, you will need either SP2 with that special update or SP3. For old software or retro gaming -only purposes (no online use), then SP2 will suffice. In any case, I do NOT recommend going with anything less than SP2. MS really fixed a lot of bugs with the SP2 update, so I just can't see any justification for going with anything lower (a few rare exceptions aside, like PAE being enabled by default with original / pre-SP1 XP releases.)

Oh, and just to get an idea how far a PIII could go, here's a relatively brief list of my PCs and what I used them for.

-- Dell Latitude C600: Intel Penium 3 850 MHz @ 700 MHz ("downclocked" in BIOS option for silent fan operation), 512 MB of RAM, 20 GB HDD, Windows XP SP2 + a few security updates. <--- this was my "main" laptop for 8 solid years! I got it in 2010 midway through college as a freebie and used it for school-related stuff and "light" browsing until 2018. Would have probably gone an extra year, but the HDD corrupted some OS files, so that was the end of it... at least as a "main" laptop. I've since restored this laptop and still use it for looking up datasheets online (under Windows XP SP3 with Serpent and New Moon browsers) and burning/copying CDs.

-- HP Pavilion 8756c: Intel Pentium 3 850 MHz @ 850 MHz, 384 MB of RAM (the max the mobo can take), 30 GB IBM Deskstar, Windows XP SP2 + security update. <-- similar to the C600 laptop above, this was my "main" desktop for the first 2-3 years in college, spanning from approximately 2009 until late 2012. Past 2012, I relegated it as a secondary PC. Just as a reference, back when I got this machine in 2009, I could still watch Youtube with it at 360p without chopiness, using Opera 10 (Presto Engine) and later Firefox 24 with forced Flashplayer plugin (instead of the "new and efficient" HTML5). Of course, it all quickly went away as the web kept getting more bloated every day, like it still does today. Web-browsing aside, I had no problems using this PC for any college-related software. Of course, this was also the time before online classes and video courses were popular. But in terms of software, I did all my coding, circuit designing, and word typing on this machine, and it was FINE at it. It was also fine for 480p/DVD video watching.

-- custom Pentium 3 PC with 933 MHz CPU, 512 MB of RAM, 100 GB HDD, Radeon 9600 (prior cards were Radeon 7200 and 7000), and Windows XP SP2. <--- this one has a different use from the above 2 machines. For many years, I used it as a data backup PC - mainly holding only a copy of important files, pictures, and music, mirroring my main PC. And also used for some retro gaming too. Latest games it has are Mafia and Need For Speed Underground, both of which work acceptably well at 1024x768, thanks to the Radeon 9600.

Apart from the 3 machines above, I have 2 more P3 machines and also an Athlon slot-A based rig from the same era and performance range. These were used for messing about it, mostly... and torrenting, back when that was popular. 😁 (So yes, all of these were also connected to the Internet and used for light [torrent site] browsing.) All XP SP2 machines too.

So to put it in less words, I think I've had enough Pentium 3 machines with Windows XP (SP2) that I can say it performs fine with it. 😀

BX tops out at 1GB. I've had two mainboards so far achieve that number proeprly, a Soyo 6BA+IV and an ABIT BX6r2. You do need 4 slots tho.

I also have several BX6 2.0 that take 1gb of regular SDRAM just fine, so 440BX supports 1gb of RAM "out of the box".

nd22 wrote on 2024-09-28, 10:57:

I also have several BX6 2.0 that take 1gb of regular SDRAM just fine, so 440BX supports 1gb of RAM "out of the box".

That is good to hear.

But it is somewhat hit or miss, especially when overclocking and on certain earlier BX boards as well.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-09-27, 14:13:

Windows 2000 and XP are also fine, though.
Their minimum requirements are not that far away from that of Windows 98SE.
And both 98SE and XP are merely about a year apart from Windows 2000, so they're all pretty close in term of period-correctness.

Windows 2000 is also fine, correct - but not WinXP (in my opinion) as we were talking about WinXP SP3 which is already relatively slow on newer machines than P III. I had WinXP running on a AMD K6-2 500 with 256 MB of RAM, it was quite slow...this was before SP3 and it was slow from beginning.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-09-27, 14:13:

In the end, it depends what the system is supposed to do.

As always! 😀

Jo22 wrote on 2024-09-27, 14:13:

PS: There are also dual Pentium II or Pentium III mainboards. On such mainboards, Windows XP might be the OS of choice.

For them I would chose WinNT4 or Win2k.

kind regards
soggi

PcBytes wrote on 2024-09-28, 08:56:

BX tops out at 1GB. I've had two mainboards so far achieve that number proeprly, a Soyo 6BA+IV and an ABIT BX6r2. You do need 4 slots tho.

nd22 wrote on 2024-09-28, 10:57:

I also have several BX6 2.0 that take 1gb of regular SDRAM just fine, so 440BX supports 1gb of RAM "out of the box".

This is what I can't understand: Both use the same 440BX chipset, yet rev. 1.0 limits RAM to 512 MB (4 x 128 MB), while rev 2.0 "unlocks" the limitation and pushes RAM up to 1 GB (4 x 256 MB). What's the difference between the two then? Why didn't other MB makers follow suit and produce more MB capable of 1 GB RAM?

Who says that? The manual...OK, but for sure it has been released before 256 MiB sticks existed - I often saw this, sometimes also older BIOS versions are the reason. BX supports 1 GiB and my page also says 1 GiB (https://soggi/motherboards/abit/BX6.htm).

kind regards
soggi

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-29, 21:58:

This is what I can't understand: Both use the same 440BX chipset, yet rev. 1.0 limits RAM to 512 MB (4 x 128 MB), while rev 2.0 "unlocks" the limitation and pushes RAM up to 1 GB (4 x 256 MB). What's the difference between the two then? Why didn't other MB makers follow suit and produce more MB capable of 1 GB RAM?

Could it simply be a matter of testing/documentation? And 256MB modules did not exist, were not anticipated to exist, etc at the time the earlier boards came out, so they just didn't talk about it.

Thinking back, I have a vague feeling that Dell XPS Rxxx (440BX/PII) had maximum RAM of 384MB, while the very similar-but-newer-motherboard Txxx (440BX/PIII) had 768MB maximum. So same phenomenon you are describing...

I do not know about other manufacturers but Abit manuals and BIOS releases are about 75% correct. I did over 1000 tests on various socket 462 boards and found out many discrepancies between the manual and reality!
Example 1: Abit KG7-raid mentions Athlon XP 2000 as the max CPU supported where I tested Athlon XP 2400 which runs just fine.
Example 2: Abit KR7A-raid has exactly the same CPU limit as above and again BIOS mentions XP 2000 as top CPU supported.
Example 3: Abit NV7-133raid mentions 1.5gb RAM as max supported where the board runs just fine with 2gb RAM.
Example 4: Abit NF7-S 2.0 specifically mentions 200 FSB CPU's as supported where actually the board will not take 2 out of 2 CPU's tested that have 200 FSB!

I noted motherboards for socket 370 are expensive. Often capacitor are damaged.
I think 512mb ram for Windows XP with Sp1 be ok. I don't want connect this Pc on the internet.

On all of my systems with XP installed I disabled virtual memory so that hard drives are no longer used as replacement for RAM; that forces every single game to load in the RAM so no more stutters because it accesses the drive.
That also means I must have enough RAM for the games I run. For early XP games up to 2001 included this would be fine.
You could use a i815 board with a P3 1000 MHz and 512mb of ram and every single game before 2002 will run flawlessly provide you have a GOOD video card.

nd22 wrote on 2024-09-30, 09:01:

You could use a i815 board with a P3 1000 MHz and 512mb of ram and every single game before 2002 will run flawlessly provide you have a GOOD video card.

Radeon 9000, 9200, 9500 be ok?

For games up to 2001 - yes, Radeon 9000 and 9500 are more than powerful to let you run at full details; Radeon 9200 however is not a good option - most of them have a 64 bit memory interface!

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 07:56:

I noted motherboards for socket 370 are expensive. Often capacitor are damaged.

Depends on where you live, I suppose. Here I can still find them for $5 with CPU included... though the CPU is usually a Celeron or low-end P3 coppermine (under 700 MHz).
Caps are hit or miss, depending on manufacturer. ASUS was usually pretty good about using quality caps back in the day. Gigabyte, not so much... but somehow these boards still lasted, because P3 CPUs are just not that power hungry.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 07:56:

I think 512mb ram for Windows XP with Sp1 be ok. I don't want connect this Pc on the internet.

Go with SP2, the difference in RAM usage won't be significant, but the # of fixes will be.
That said, regardless of whether you use SP1 or SP2, 512 MB would be more or less only enough for games up to 2001-2002... maybe some early / more conservative 2003 games too. A lot will depend on how you set up your XP install - i.e. avoid software that makes it bloated.
Personally, I keep my startup programs and processes to a minimum - drivers only really. I also turn off some default services that I don't use. For retro gaming PCs, I normally have Spooler service (spoolsv) and Error Reporting Service turned off, along with Help and Support. Automatic Updates and DNS services are always off. I usually keep Security Center (in case I do need to connect my PC to the network for file transfers or whatever else) and Wired network svc... but Wireless svc I turn off quite often. There's more to this list, but I'll post it only if anyone's interested (though I'm sure most everyone knows these things.)

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 09:36:

Radeon 9000, 9200, 9500 be ok?

My recommendation is Radeon 9600 or Radeon 9550. These are still relatively cheap and easy to find. Even the cheap contemporary Chinese re-builds are OK performance-wise (quality-wise, they're usually built with super cheap caps that are bound to go bad sooner than later.) Radeon 9600 is actually a bit overkill for a P3... but not by much, and you will be able to get very good resolutions and framerates from late 90's and some early 2k games. If you get a Radeon 9550 instead of a 9600, make sure it's a 128-bit memory bus version, as 64-bit memory bus versions of the 9550 also exist (and are a bit slow.)

As for the other three you mentioned, these need a bit of a clarification here.

Radeon 9500 is quite different from Radeon 9550. The 9550 is built on the same GPU core as the 9600, while the 9500 is built on the same GPU core as the Radeon 9700 / 9700 Pro. The latter (R9700) is more power hungry, and on the 5V rail too... so they get a bit more difficult for the PSU, especially when paired with a motherboard/system that uses the 5v rail for CPU power, like most Pentium 2/3 and Athlon/XP CPUs. Also, Radeon 9500/9700 video cards tend to come with really undersized coolers and thus run extremely hot. As a result, many of them are dead now... which is partly why there's so few remaining for sale that still work. The ones that still work are bound to fail pretty soon too. So to sum it up, I do NOT recommend Radeon 9500 and 9700 video cards (unless you stumble on one for very cheap and completely replace the cooler with something much bigger.)

Next Radeon 9200 /SE and 9250: these are OK cards for some late 90's games and maybe a few 2000's games. What they are really NOT good for is gaming at high resolutions, especially the 64-bit memory versions of these cards. But even the 128-bit memory versions aren't that much better. Note that despite the higher model number, these are worse cards than Radeon 9000. And Radeon 8500 is better than Radeon 9000.
So it goes like this from better to worse:
Radeon 8500 > 9000 > 9200/9250 128-bit > 9200/9250 64-bit.

Actually, the full Radeon 7/8/9xxx chronology more or less is as follows:
Radeon 9800 > 9700 > 9500 > 9600 > 9550 > 8500 > 9000 > 7500 > 7200 <~> 9200 > 7000

In regards to Pro, XT, and other versions, it's more or less like this, from better to worse:
XT > Pro > XL (rarely seen) > *none* (non-pro) > SE/LE (SE =slow/sucky edition and LE = lame edition 🤣)

nd22 wrote on 2024-09-30, 07:13:

I do not know about other manufacturers but Abit manuals and BIOS releases are about 75% correct. I did over 1000 tests on vari […]
Show full quote

I do not know about other manufacturers but Abit manuals and BIOS releases are about 75% correct. I did over 1000 tests on various socket 462 boards and found out many discrepancies between the manual and reality!
Example 1: Abit KG7-raid mentions Athlon XP 2000 as the max CPU supported where I tested Athlon XP 2400 which runs just fine.
Example 2: Abit KR7A-raid has exactly the same CPU limit as above and again BIOS mentions XP 2000 as top CPU supported.
Example 3: Abit NV7-133raid mentions 1.5gb RAM as max supported where the board runs just fine with 2gb RAM.
Example 4: Abit NF7-S 2.0 specifically mentions 200 FSB CPU's as supported where actually the board will not take 2 out of 2 CPU's tested that have 200 FSB!

For the NF7-S, I got both a Duron and an Athlon (the ceramic ones) to boot. One was a 850MHz Duron I use for testing and the other was a 900MHz Athlon. Same goes for the version without SATA-RAID.

momaka wrote on 2024-09-30, 10:49:

Depends on where you live, I suppose. Here I can still find them for $5 with CPU included... though the CPU is usually a Celeron […]
Show full quote

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 07:56:

I noted motherboards for socket 370 are expensive. Often capacitor are damaged.

Depends on where you live, I suppose. Here I can still find them for $5 with CPU included... though the CPU is usually a Celeron or low-end P3 coppermine (under 700 MHz).
Caps are hit or miss, depending on manufacturer. ASUS was usually pretty good about using quality caps back in the day. Gigabyte, not so much... but somehow these boards still lasted, because P3 CPUs are just not that power hungry.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 07:56:

I think 512mb ram for Windows XP with Sp1 be ok. I don't want connect this Pc on the internet.

Go with SP2, the difference in RAM usage won't be significant, but the # of fixes will be.
That said, regardless of whether you use SP1 or SP2, 512 MB would be more or less only enough for games up to 2001-2002... maybe some early / more conservative 2003 games too. A lot will depend on how you set up your XP install - i.e. avoid software that makes it bloated.
Personally, I keep my startup programs and processes to a minimum - drivers only really. I also turn off some default services that I don't use. For retro gaming PCs, I normally have Spooler service (spoolsv) and Error Reporting Service turned off, along with Help and Support. Automatic Updates and DNS services are always off. I usually keep Security Center (in case I do need to connect my PC to the network for file transfers or whatever else) and Wired network svc... but Wireless svc I turn off quite often. There's more to this list, but I'll post it only if anyone's interested (though I'm sure most everyone knows these things.)

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 09:36:

Radeon 9000, 9200, 9500 be ok?

My recommendation is Radeon 9600 or Radeon 9550. These are still relatively cheap and easy to find. Even the cheap contemporary Chinese re-builds are OK performance-wise (quality-wise, they're usually built with super cheap caps that are bound to go bad sooner than later.) Radeon 9600 is actually a bit overkill for a P3... but not by much, and you will be able to get very good resolutions and framerates from late 90's and some early 2k games. If you get a Radeon 9550 instead of a 9600, make sure it's a 128-bit memory bus version, as 64-bit memory bus versions of the 9550 also exist (and are a bit slow.)

As for the other three you mentioned, these need a bit of a clarification here.

Radeon 9500 is quite different from Radeon 9550. The 9550 is built on the same GPU core as the 9600, while the 9500 is built on the same GPU core as the Radeon 9700 / 9700 Pro. The latter (R9700) is more power hungry, and on the 5V rail too... so they get a bit more difficult for the PSU, especially when paired with a motherboard/system that uses the 5v rail for CPU power, like most Pentium 2/3 and Athlon/XP CPUs. Also, Radeon 9500/9700 video cards tend to come with really undersized coolers and thus run extremely hot. As a result, many of them are dead now... which is partly why there's so few remaining for sale that still work. The ones that still work are bound to fail pretty soon too. So to sum it up, I do NOT recommend Radeon 9500 and 9700 video cards (unless you stumble on one for very cheap and completely replace the cooler with something much bigger.)

Next Radeon 9200 /SE and 9250: these are OK cards for some late 90's games and maybe a few 2000's games. What they are really NOT good for is gaming at high resolutions, especially the 64-bit memory versions of these cards. But even the 128-bit memory versions aren't that much better. Note that despite the higher model number, these are worse cards than Radeon 9000. And Radeon 8500 is better than Radeon 9000.
So it goes like this from better to worse:
Radeon 8500 > 9000 > 9200/9250 128-bit > 9200/9250 64-bit.

Actually, the full Radeon 7/8/9xxx chronology more or less is as follows:
Radeon 9800 > 9700 > 9500 > 9600 > 9550 > 8500 > 9000 > 7500 > 7200 <~> 9200 > 7000

In regards to Pro, XT, and other versions, it's more or less like this, from better to worse:
XT > Pro > XL (rarely seen) > *none* (non-pro) > SE/LE (SE =slow/sucky edition and LE = lame edition 🤣)

Thank you for your clarification. Your comment is helpful. It's good to know which Radeon models to avoid. I always thought that the Radeon 9500 and 9700 were very good graphics cards. But now I know that these graphics cards are faulty. What do you think about Geforce?

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 13:11:

I always thought that the Radeon 9500 and 9700 were very good graphics cards. But now I know that these graphics cards are faulty.

They are still really good graphics cards. Just need a little more special care to keep them going if you find a working one - specifically, replacing the stock cooler with a dual slot one being a #1 priority.
Many years back, I bought 8 of them (9700 non pro, Dell OEM.) All were artifacting, IIRC, and many with chipped SMDs too (came from a scrapper.) I managed to get 4 of them working again with a reflow (GPU re-heat) or three. Then changed the cooler to my own DYI solution. Three of these are still working. One died (artifacts again) in the name of science, figuring out how big the cooler does need to be exactly. If kept cool, even the reflowed ones can last. So a working one has an even better change to work right and be OK if cooled well.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 13:11:

What do you think about Geforce?

In regards to using one with the Pentium 3 machine you have in mind, you also have a lot of options there (and I thought about suggesting one too, but ran out of time with my last post above.)
The thing about vintage nVidia GF cards is they tend to be a bit more pricey than equivalent Radeon... though not always, of course.

A GeForce 4 TI4200 would be a nice match for your build (late-ish Pentium 3 Coppermine) and relatively era-appropriate. If the GeForce 3 TI200 and TI500 weren't so expensive and rare, I would have suggested one of these too. In regards to performance, these two are about on par with the Radeon 8500, with the TI200 being a bit weaker generally, and the TI500 being a bit stronger. The TI4200 is a lot better, despite not being exactly a high-end card. Then there's the TI4400, TI4600, and TI4800 (and their equivalent Quadro4 7xx/9xx GXL variants)... but these are the ones where you really need to open up your wallet and let all your cash go bye-bye - too expensive to get at this point, IMO, and not worth it. The Radeon 9600 and 9550 will give all of these a run for their money and a fraction of the cost. A more sensible option, if you still want to stick with nVidia, would be the FX5600. This is supposed to be the mid-range replacement for the TI4400 and TI4600, though it's actually a tad bit slower... but still a decent card... if you can find one still. They are rare, but not that rare. And not as pricey as the TI4400/4600 usually. Stepping up to the FX5700... it's not necessarily a step up, particularly if you get the FX5700 LE, which has 64-bit memory bus and is thus pretty slow. On the other hand, getting a FX5700 Ultra is a slight step-up from the FX5600. Then there's the FX5800 and FX5950... but again, with these you'll be burning a hole through your wallet faster than you can say the word "fire". You could also step down to the FX5500... which is really almost the same as stepping down to a FX5200. Now this (er, these?) is a card that needs more discussion, as some really hate it while others really like it (for late Windows 98 games and a few early 2000's titles anyways.) The FX5200 was supposed to be a replacement for the GF4 TI4200, but it's actually a card that's much much slower - especially the 64-bit memory bus versions. The FX5500 is essentially a "renewed" FX5200 (using the same exact GPU chip, though), but typically with a 128-bit memory bus and a little faster GPU core clock. All in all, however, it won't matter much whether you grab a 5200 or 5500, so long as they use a 128-bit memory bus. In terms of performance, the FX5200 typically trades blows with the Radeon 9200/9250 and Radeon 9000. It's essentially the same class of video card - it doesn't like being pushed to render at high resolutions, regardless of the detail settings used. A buddy of mine used to have one (FX5200... though not sure if 128-bit or 64-bit... but I think the former) in a Dell PC with a P4 Willamate @ 1.7 GHz. Meanwhile, I had an ASUS Radeon 9200 SE 64 MB 64-bit mem bus card in an AMD Duron Applebred 1400 -based system. We used to share a lot of games and regularly debated who's PC did worse 🤣. I think mine won that contest by a slim margin. Overall, he got higher FPS in most games, but the FPS was all over the place. And despite the FX5200 being touted as a DX9 video card, it is not at all. In most 2004+ games, my Radeon 9200 SE never made any game have unavailable graphical features, whereas his FX5200 sometimes did (case in point, Need For Speed Underground 1 & 2: I could enable crowds and some other effects, while he couldn't on his FX5200 as they were grayed out in the options.) So in short, my 9200 SE had a slightly better DirectX feature set support than his FX5200. But in raw performance, his FX5200 beat my 9200 usually (though I suspect part of this was also due to the Willamate 1.7 GHz CPU being a bit better than my really really crippled Duron Applebred with its measly 96 kB of L2 cache.) Price-wise, they were pretty close back then (2003) and even today they are not that far apart. In general, though, retro nVidia GPUs tend to be a bit pricier than the equivalent Radeons for whatever reason. In fact, you can often find a Radeon 9550 or 9600 for the same price as an FX5500 or FX5200 (or 9200/9250.) But when you can't (0r when your P3 motherboard won't support a 9550/9600 due to being a slot 1 mobo with an AGP 2x slot), the FX5200/5500 are overall decent and sensible (cost-wise) alternatives to the higher-end (and higher cost) nVidia GeForce cards. Thus, my verdict in regards to the FX5200 and FX5500 is that they are worth considering for a late Windows 98 gaming PC. Compared to older GF4 MX series, they will give out about the same performance, but with better DirectX (8.1) support compared to DX6/7 for the GF4 MX series

To sum it up, this is how I would order the nVidia GeForce cards from better to worse in terms of performance:
FX5950 > FX5800 > FX5700 Ultra > TI4800/4600/4400 > FX5600 > TI 4200 > GF3 TI500 > GF3 TI200 > FX5700LE (64-bit mem.) <~> FX5500 & FX5200 (128b mem.) > FX5500 & FX5200 (64b. mem) > GF4 MX460 > MX440 > MX420... and the rest, I'm not too sure about.
Actually, I don't know where the GeForce 256 and GeForce 2 Ultra/GTS would fit above. IIRC, these are DX7 cards at best (as is the whole of GF 4 MX line, really), so I personally think they would be a little "outdated" for a late P3 PC. If sticking only to late 90's games (or year 2000 games at most) that don't need DX8 or higher, then these could be OK cards to use too. Same goes for the Radeon 7200 and 7500 - pretty decent mid-range cards, but only for DX7 and older games.

PcBytes wrote on 2024-09-30, 11:25:

nd22 wrote on 2024-09-30, 07:13:

I do not know about other manufacturers but Abit manuals and BIOS releases are about 75% correct. I did over 1000 tests on vari […]
Show full quote

I do not know about other manufacturers but Abit manuals and BIOS releases are about 75% correct. I did over 1000 tests on various socket 462 boards and found out many discrepancies between the manual and reality!
Example 1: Abit KG7-raid mentions Athlon XP 2000 as the max CPU supported where I tested Athlon XP 2400 which runs just fine.
Example 2: Abit KR7A-raid has exactly the same CPU limit as above and again BIOS mentions XP 2000 as top CPU supported.
Example 3: Abit NV7-133raid mentions 1.5gb RAM as max supported where the board runs just fine with 2gb RAM.
Example 4: Abit NF7-S 2.0 specifically mentions 200 FSB CPU's as supported where actually the board will not take 2 out of 2 CPU's tested that have 200 FSB!

For the NF7-S, I got both a Duron and an Athlon (the ceramic ones) to boot. One was a 850MHz Duron I use for testing and the other was a 900MHz Athlon. Same goes for the version without SATA-RAID.

What bios version? With the latest bios it will not post!

momaka wrote on 2024-09-30, 20:33:

To sum it up, this is how I would order the nVidia GeForce cards from better to worse in terms of performance:
FX5950 > FX5800 > FX5700 Ultra > TI4800/4600/4400 > FX5600 > TI 4200 > GF3 TI500 > GF3 TI200 > FX5700LE (64-bit mem.) <~> FX5500 & FX5200 (128b mem.) > FX5500 & FX5200 (64b. mem) > GF4 MX460 > MX440 > MX420... and the rest, I'm not too sure about.
Actually, I don't know where the GeForce 256 and GeForce 2 Ultra/GTS would fit above. IIRC, these are DX7 cards at best (as is the whole of GF 4 MX line, really), so I personally think they would be a little "outdated" for a late P3 PC. If sticking only to late 90's games (or year 2000 games at most) that don't need DX8 or higher, then these could be OK cards to use too. Same goes for the Radeon 7200 and 7500 - pretty decent mid-range cards, but only for DX7 and older games.

I don’t think the GF2 line would be out of place in most of the P3 systems. Different variants were mostly released between spring and autumn 2000 and Ti as late as in autumn 2001. Yes, GF2 line doesn’t have the programmable shaders, but something like GF2 Ultra gives GF3 ti200 a good run for the money and can even beat it in many DX7 benchmarks. FX5200 has shaders, but it is not a good performer so I would probably go with something else if DX8 or DX9 is a priority. I wouldn’t pass GF2 line for fast-ish P3 build, especially if the aim is something remotely period correct from 2000-2001.

And from here we get to the GF4MX440/460. These cards can beat the fastest GF2 cards, they have much better image quality and there are even passively cooled cards available. NV17/18 cores are essentially tweaked NV15 cores. FX5200 was so underwhelming that Nvidia discontinued it before MX440 and that probably tells quite a lot. All in all, if programmable shaders aren’t important, MX440/460 cards are a good choice. And if shaders are important, I’d be looking something else than FX5200.

The added benefit of MX440/460 seem to be that they are cheap and you can often find them considerably cheaper than something like GF2 Ultra or other top GF2 models. And as said, they are actually better. They probably aren’t that period correct, but otherwise they work just fine as GF2 replacements. I’d avoid MX420 and cards like MX440LE (latter is practically MX420), which have 64-bit memory bus and are significantly slower compared to regular MX460/440 line.

nd22 wrote on 2024-10-01, 07:12:

PcBytes wrote on 2024-09-30, 11:25:

nd22 wrote on 2024-09-30, 07:13:

I do not know about other manufacturers but Abit manuals and BIOS releases are about 75% correct. I did over 1000 tests on vari […]
Show full quote

I do not know about other manufacturers but Abit manuals and BIOS releases are about 75% correct. I did over 1000 tests on various socket 462 boards and found out many discrepancies between the manual and reality!
Example 1: Abit KG7-raid mentions Athlon XP 2000 as the max CPU supported where I tested Athlon XP 2400 which runs just fine.
Example 2: Abit KR7A-raid has exactly the same CPU limit as above and again BIOS mentions XP 2000 as top CPU supported.
Example 3: Abit NV7-133raid mentions 1.5gb RAM as max supported where the board runs just fine with 2gb RAM.
Example 4: Abit NF7-S 2.0 specifically mentions 200 FSB CPU's as supported where actually the board will not take 2 out of 2 CPU's tested that have 200 FSB!

For the NF7-S, I got both a Duron and an Athlon (the ceramic ones) to boot. One was a 850MHz Duron I use for testing and the other was a 900MHz Athlon. Same goes for the version without SATA-RAID.

What bios version? With the latest bios it will not post!

D27 Taipan. Although my bad, the Duron chip is a 800, not 850.

momaka wrote on 2024-09-30, 20:33:

They are still really good graphics cards. Just need a little more special care to keep them going if you find a working one - s […]
Show full quote

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 13:11:

I always thought that the Radeon 9500 and 9700 were very good graphics cards. But now I know that these graphics cards are faulty.

They are still really good graphics cards. Just need a little more special care to keep them going if you find a working one - specifically, replacing the stock cooler with a dual slot one being a #1 priority.
Many years back, I bought 8 of them (9700 non pro, Dell OEM.) All were artifacting, IIRC, and many with chipped SMDs too (came from a scrapper.) I managed to get 4 of them working again with a reflow (GPU re-heat) or three. Then changed the cooler to my own DYI solution. Three of these are still working. One died (artifacts again) in the name of science, figuring out how big the cooler does need to be exactly. If kept cool, even the reflowed ones can last. So a working one has an even better change to work right and be OK if cooled well.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-30, 13:11:

What do you think about Geforce?

In regards to using one with the Pentium 3 machine you have in mind, you also have a lot of options there (and I thought about suggesting one too, but ran out of time with my last post above.)
The thing about vintage nVidia GF cards is they tend to be a bit more pricey than equivalent Radeon... though not always, of course.

A GeForce 4 TI4200 would be a nice match for your build (late-ish Pentium 3 Coppermine) and relatively era-appropriate. If the GeForce 3 TI200 and TI500 weren't so expensive and rare, I would have suggested one of these too. In regards to performance, these two are about on par with the Radeon 8500, with the TI200 being a bit weaker generally, and the TI500 being a bit stronger. The TI4200 is a lot better, despite not being exactly a high-end card. Then there's the TI4400, TI4600, and TI4800 (and their equivalent Quadro4 7xx/9xx GXL variants)... but these are the ones where you really need to open up your wallet and let all your cash go bye-bye - too expensive to get at this point, IMO, and not worth it. The Radeon 9600 and 9550 will give all of these a run for their money and a fraction of the cost. A more sensible option, if you still want to stick with nVidia, would be the FX5600. This is supposed to be the mid-range replacement for the TI4400 and TI4600, though it's actually a tad bit slower... but still a decent card... if you can find one still. They are rare, but not that rare. And not as pricey as the TI4400/4600 usually. Stepping up to the FX5700... it's not necessarily a step up, particularly if you get the FX5700 LE, which has 64-bit memory bus and is thus pretty slow. On the other hand, getting a FX5700 Ultra is a slight step-up from the FX5600. Then there's the FX5800 and FX5950... but again, with these you'll be burning a hole through your wallet faster than you can say the word "fire". You could also step down to the FX5500... which is really almost the same as stepping down to a FX5200. Now this (er, these?) is a card that needs more discussion, as some really hate it while others really like it (for late Windows 98 games and a few early 2000's titles anyways.) The FX5200 was supposed to be a replacement for the GF4 TI4200, but it's actually a card that's much much slower - especially the 64-bit memory bus versions. The FX5500 is essentially a "renewed" FX5200 (using the same exact GPU chip, though), but typically with a 128-bit memory bus and a little faster GPU core clock. All in all, however, it won't matter much whether you grab a 5200 or 5500, so long as they use a 128-bit memory bus. In terms of performance, the FX5200 typically trades blows with the Radeon 9200/9250 and Radeon 9000. It's essentially the same class of video card - it doesn't like being pushed to render at high resolutions, regardless of the detail settings used. A buddy of mine used to have one (FX5200... though not sure if 128-bit or 64-bit... but I think the former) in a Dell PC with a P4 Willamate @ 1.7 GHz. Meanwhile, I had an ASUS Radeon 9200 SE 64 MB 64-bit mem bus card in an AMD Duron Applebred 1400 -based system. We used to share a lot of games and regularly debated who's PC did worse 🤣. I think mine won that contest by a slim margin. Overall, he got higher FPS in most games, but the FPS was all over the place. And despite the FX5200 being touted as a DX9 video card, it is not at all. In most 2004+ games, my Radeon 9200 SE never made any game have unavailable graphical features, whereas his FX5200 sometimes did (case in point, Need For Speed Underground 1 & 2: I could enable crowds and some other effects, while he couldn't on his FX5200 as they were grayed out in the options.) So in short, my 9200 SE had a slightly better DirectX feature set support than his FX5200. But in raw performance, his FX5200 beat my 9200 usually (though I suspect part of this was also due to the Willamate 1.7 GHz CPU being a bit better than my really really crippled Duron Applebred with its measly 96 kB of L2 cache.) Price-wise, they were pretty close back then (2003) and even today they are not that far apart. In general, though, retro nVidia GPUs tend to be a bit pricier than the equivalent Radeons for whatever reason. In fact, you can often find a Radeon 9550 or 9600 for the same price as an FX5500 or FX5200 (or 9200/9250.) But when you can't (0r when your P3 motherboard won't support a 9550/9600 due to being a slot 1 mobo with an AGP 2x slot), the FX5200/5500 are overall decent and sensible (cost-wise) alternatives to the higher-end (and higher cost) nVidia GeForce cards. Thus, my verdict in regards to the FX5200 and FX5500 is that they are worth considering for a late Windows 98 gaming PC. Compared to older GF4 MX series, they will give out about the same performance, but with better DirectX (8.1) support compared to DX6/7 for the GF4 MX series

To sum it up, this is how I would order the nVidia GeForce cards from better to worse in terms of performance:
FX5950 > FX5800 > FX5700 Ultra > TI4800/4600/4400 > FX5600 > TI 4200 > GF3 TI500 > GF3 TI200 > FX5700LE (64-bit mem.) <~> FX5500 & FX5200 (128b mem.) > FX5500 & FX5200 (64b. mem) > GF4 MX460 > MX440 > MX420... and the rest, I'm not too sure about.
Actually, I don't know where the GeForce 256 and GeForce 2 Ultra/GTS would fit above. IIRC, these are DX7 cards at best (as is the whole of GF 4 MX line, really), so I personally think they would be a little "outdated" for a late P3 PC. If sticking only to late 90's games (or year 2000 games at most) that don't need DX8 or higher, then these could be OK cards to use too. Same goes for the Radeon 7200 and 7500 - pretty decent mid-range cards, but only for DX7 and older games.

Thank you for long and valuable message. Do you want say GF4MX video card is worse even then FX 5200 and FX5500?

GF2MX400 64 is cheap 😀

What do you say about AGP Gainward QUADRO FX5600 256MB DDR 128bit? Does the video card is ok?

GF3 Ti200/500 and GF4 Ti 4200/4400/4600 are very expensive. The cost is too high to be profitable. In this situation I should choose Radeons.