A GF4 will get you great compatibility with old games. It's about the same speed as the 9600 Pro. It's good for DOS too. If you run into VESA VBE bugs there are usually workarounds.

Radeon 9600's big benefit would be Shader Model 2 but it sounds like you don't care about that. It will be more problematic with some OpenGL and some older D3D games. It depends on what you play.

You can use a Glide wrapper like Zeckensack's with these cards too.

Between the two options that you've listed, the GF4 would be a better fit because it has good compatibility and decent drivers. I saw a YT video from PhilsComputerLab where he tested a GF4 in Win98.

In terms of price, you might be able to get a Radeon 9600 Pro slightly cheaper.

I don't have a GF4 to test but I do have a Quadro 780XGL and I've found that my Radeon 9600 Pro is slightly faster in benchmarks in a Sempron 3800+ machine.

Both of these cards would be bottlenecked by the PIII CPU so perhaps you could consider something older like a Geforce 2 GTS or a Geforce 2 Pro if you can get your hands on one for a reasonable price.
Even a Geforce 3 Ti 200 is a good choice if you can find one at a decent price. I got a Nvidia P50 and was pleasantly surprised by the performance.

I believe that ATI had a reputation for problematic drivers back then.
Some other forum members would be able to share their experiences with recommended driver versions for the card that you end up with.

Personally I would go with nVidia 4200. ATI 9600 Pro is more suited to XP I'd say. Though it is a couple of years newer than the P3 1000. So it's possible that with driver overheads it may actually be slower than if you got a Geforce 2 or 3 and used an older driver version.

swaaye wrote on 2024-12-27, 03:43:

A GF4 will get you great compatibility with old games. It's about the same speed as the 9600 Pro. It's good for DOS too. If you run into VESA VBE bugs there are usually workarounds.

Radeon 9600's big benefit would be Shader Model 2 but it sounds like you don't care about that. It will be more problematic with some OpenGL and some older D3D games. It depends on what you play.

You can use a Glide wrapper like Zeckensack's with these cards too.

byte_76 wrote on 2024-12-27, 05:57:

Between the two options that you've listed, the GF4 would be a better fit because it has good compatibility and decent drivers. […]
Show full quote

Between the two options that you've listed, the GF4 would be a better fit because it has good compatibility and decent drivers. I saw a YT video from PhilsComputerLab where he tested a GF4 in Win98.

In terms of price, you might be able to get a Radeon 9600 Pro slightly cheaper.

I don't have a GF4 to test but I do have a Quadro 780XGL and I've found that my Radeon 9600 Pro is slightly faster in benchmarks in a Sempron 3800+ machine.

Both of these cards would be bottlenecked by the PIII CPU so perhaps you could consider something older like a Geforce 2 GTS or a Geforce 2 Pro if you can get your hands on one for a reasonable price.
Even a Geforce 3 Ti 200 is a good choice if you can find one at a decent price. I got a Nvidia P50 and was pleasantly surprised by the performance.

I believe that ATI had a reputation for problematic drivers back then.
Some other forum members would be able to share their experiences with recommended driver versions for the card that you end up with.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-27, 10:19:

Personally I would go with nVidia 4200. ATI 9600 Pro is more suited to XP I'd say. Though it is a couple of years newer than the P3 1000. So it's possible that with driver overheads it may actually be slower than if you got a Geforce 2 or 3 and used an older driver version.

I'll reply in this single post, since you all told me, more or less, the same thing.
Yes, what I care most is compatibility with 9x software and, maybe, some late DOS games here and there (even if I'm running WinMe, so those won't be at all a priority), and since I'm stuck with Coppermine PIII, I can't go to much OP with the build. Basically I need good compatibility with DX8 and, especially, older APIs. For those that required a special GPU, I'll use a wrapper if I ever need to do so.
Thus I'll keep my eyes peeled for an nVidia GPU of that period. Currently I've found some cheap Ti4200, but less luck with older generation of hardware (like, on eBay it's very hard to come by any geForce3 card for good pricing). But, if I recall correctly, the performace jump from a gF2 to a gF4 is quite substantial, even from a gF3 to a gF4 is quite relevat, right? And since I can make us of resolutions and frame rates up to 1024x768 at 85hz, maybe it's not a bad idea to bottleneck the CPU a little bit.
So, at this point, unless I can find a previous gen for cheaper, I'll keep looking at Ti 4200 options, since anything more powerfull than that in the gF4 line will put me off for the same price of a current gen GPU.
And I'll keep my ATI options opens for when I'll start working on a late era WinXp machine.

Thanks all for the replies but, if any of you has more insights, those are still welcome!

A Radeon 9600 won't have any problems with DirectX 7 and 8 games. It would be more things like DirectX 5 or 6 games that use table fog or palletized textures (pretty rare). On the OpenGL side, games from Bioware are problematic with a Radeon. Specifically NWN and the KOTORs. Quake based games are no problem.

GeForce 3 is a big jump over GeForce 2 with high resolutions. The bandwidth saving tech really comes into play there. Think 1600x1200 and games from 2000 and older. Obviously a GeForce 3 isn't what you'd want for 1600x1200 and later games. GeForce 3 also has MSAA and better anisotropic filtering but it's too slow for either really. GeForce 4 Ti just has a few more improvements. Radeon 9600 is much better at MSAA and anisotropic filtering than either and its 16-bit color depth rendering will look nicer.

swaaye wrote on 2024-12-28, 05:50:

A Radeon 9600 won't have any problems with DirectX 7 and 8 games. It would be more things like DirectX 5 or 6 games that use table fog or palletized textures (pretty rare). On the OpenGL side, games from Bioware are problematic with a Radeon. Specifically NWN and the KOTORs. Quake based games are no problem.

GeForce 3 is a big jump over GeForce 2 with high resolutions. The bandwidth saving tech really comes into play there. Think 1600x1200 and games from 2000 and older. Obviously a GeForce 3 isn't what you'd want for 1600x1200 and later games. GeForce 3 also has MSAA and better anisotropic filtering but it's too slow for either really. GeForce 4 Ti just has a few more improvements. Radeon 9600 is much better at MSAA and anisotropic filtering than either and its 16-bit color depth rendering will look nicer.

Good to know too. Dx4 and 6 games will most likely be part of what I intend to run on that machine, much more than Dx8, especially, Dx9 games, that can be run easily on WinXP or even Win10 with some wrappers, community patches and compatibility modes.
As for resolution, as stated, I'm currently locked to the 1024x768 at 85hz of my current CRT. And considering how hard they are to move around, I doubt I'll ever replace it as long as it works, even if I get togheter a late XP era machine. So I won't have to worry about higher resolutions than that, thus a very fast card may not be required.
Of course, as mentioned before, Ti 4200 appears to be easier to aquire for decent prices when comparet do geForce 3 cards.
So compatibility in this choice is the first aspect I consider, performances is the second.

Here's another quick question, that popped up while searching for Ti4200 and threads from either this forum or that time period:

My motherboard has a VIA Apollo Pro 133A chipset, how is yall experience between this chipset and GeForce 4 (and older) GPUs? Because online threads of problems in running the cards at 4X AGP do pop up. The mobo manual (QDI Advance 10E) clearly mention it supports AGP 4X in its 2.0 standard. Any chances I'll find myself with a paperweight shaped as a Ti 4200 for chipset reasons?

I have read that some early non-Intel chipsets with earlier implementations of AGP weren't very good. For those systems I think a Vodooo 3 makes sense, as that doesn't use the AGP features.

I do have a motherboard with that chipset. Up to now I think I have only tried a Voodoo 3 in it. But I am intending to use it with a Geforce 2 GTS. Hope it works!

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-28, 15:53:

I have read that some early non-Intel chipsets with earlier implementations of AGP weren't very good. For those systems I think a Vodooo 3 makes sense, as that doesn't use the AGP features.

I do have a motherboard with that chipset. Up to now I think I have only tried a Voodoo 3 in it. But I am intending to use it with a Geforce 2 GTS. Hope it works!

I actually powered on that PC right now to check. As stated, it has an offbrand nVidia Vanta, wich basically is a less usefull version of a TNT2, and Everest does tell me that it's currently running at 4X AGP, just like set in BIOS and just like the manual says. So it should work... As for a Voodooo 3, it kinda looks underpowered for the latter games I intend to play on this system, even if it would be great for Glide compatibility. But those ebay prices... OOF! They aren't like a Ti 4600, but still quite steep.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2024-12-28, 16:02:

I actually powered on that PC right now to check. As stated, it has an offbrand nVidia Vanta, wich basically is a less usefull version of a TNT2, and Everest does tell me that it's currently running at 4X AGP, just like set in BIOS and just like the manual says. So it should work... As for a Voodooo 3, it kinda looks underpowered for the latter games I intend to play on this system, even if it would be great for Glide compatibility. But those ebay prices... OOF! They aren't like a Ti 4600, but still quite steep.

What is the most demanding game you want to play? I have just put a Geforce 2 GTS 32Mb in my
VIA Apollo Pro 133A motherboard with 800Mhz PIII. I am happy to try any game if I have it

You might also want to see what prices are on the FX 5500. The GeForce FX series got crushed by the Radeon 9000 series when playing DirectX 9 games. But you can load older drives for it and it supports those older Direct3D versions. It's debatable if the 4200 Ti is better than a 5500 FX. But the price might be better, and there were common new old stock FX cards not that long ago, so you might be able to find one.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-28, 16:32:

What is the most demanding game you want to play? I have just put a Geforce 2 GTS 32Mb in my
VIA Apollo Pro 133A motherboard with 800Mhz PIII. I am happy to try any game if I have it

I actually have no idea. Maybe the most demanding games from 2000/2001? Max Payne? Morrowind? Desu Ex? I mean, most of those popular and demanding games can be run on modern hardware thanks to community efforts, so I'll probably stick to more niche and older games I played back then, that never received much attention from the modding community to fully fix them for current hardware. Also I would like to make this one the main 9x gaming PC, since the other one, despite having an athlon 1400, is being bottleneck (I feel) by both the PCI only GPU, and the 64bit bus on the GPU itself. Can't even get locked 60 fps on Half Life 1 (OGL at 1020x768), but very jumpy performances. So I'll end up making that one a Win2000 "work" PC (older AutoCAD, older Photoshop and similar), and this PIII the 9x gaming rig. Shame I won't be able to move the original WinMe license sticker from one PC to the other, but that's just details.

SScorpio wrote on 2024-12-28, 16:34:

You might also want to see what prices are on the FX 5500. The GeForce FX series got crushed by the Radeon 9000 series when playing DirectX 9 games. But you can load older drives for it and it supports those older Direct3D versions. It's debatable if the 4200 Ti is better than a 5500 FX. But the price might be better, and there were common new old stock FX cards not that long ago, so you might be able to find one.

Good to know that even some FX cards do offer good compatibility for older DirectX versions, if using the correct drivers. I'll keep my eyes peeled for the 5500 too, even if it appears to be slower, and gotta be carefull in not getting a 64bit bus one.
I didn't want to go to far out from 2001/2002 for production date, as I'm also just slightly concerned about hardware compatibility with my MOBO, wich was manufactured in late '99 or eraly 2000. So I artificailly set myself an hard cap to avoid, if possible, Dx9 cards. Afterall, it's not like you would use a 9x machine for playing Dx9 games, right?
I'll put it in my watchlist, but if I can find a TI 4200 for a price I'm willing to pay, I'll go that route.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2024-12-28, 17:15:

I actually have no idea. Maybe the most demanding games from 2000/2001? Max Payne? Morrowind? Desu Ex? I mean, most of those popular and demanding games can be run on modern hardware thanks to community efforts, so I'll probably stick to more niche and older games I played back then, that never received much attention from the modding community to fully fix them for current hardware.

OK. I have those games. Will try them later. In the meantime I tried the following:

Unreal 1 - 1024x768. FPS in mid 40s
Star Trek Elite Force - Not sure on framerate but seemed playable at 1024x768. Possibly 30fps
Return to Castle Wolfenstein- Unplayable even at 800x600 16 bit.

I haven't checked what AGP speed it's running at, or tried to change it. I need to install FRAPs or similar to get framerate on games that don't have built-in counter.

I think these results are perhaps worse than they should be for this card. Possibly the CPU is holding it back, or it may be chipset issues

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-28, 17:36:

OK. I have those games. Will try them later. In the meantime I tried the following: […]
Show full quote

OK. I have those games. Will try them later. In the meantime I tried the following:

Unreal 1 - 1024x768. FPS in mid 40s
Star Trek Elite Force - Not sure on framerate but seemed playable at 1024x768. Possibly 30fps
Return to Castle Wolfenstein- Unplayable even at 800x600 16 bit.

I haven't checked what AGP speed it's running at, or tried to change it. I need to install FRAPs or similar to get framerate on games that don't have built-in counter.

I think these results are perhaps worse than they should be for this card. Possibly the CPU is holding it back, or it may be chipset issues

Well, RTCW list just a 16MB VRAM GPU with DirectX 8.0a compatibility for minimum settings reported on PCGamingWiki, so it's pretty weird it's outright unplayable on your GTS, even at lowest settings.
Maybe you can try either 3dmark 99 or 2001 and see if it matches results online, becuase I even doubt that 8oomhz PIII is limiting you that much on a GF2. A Pentium II 400 MHz is listed in those same minimus settings.
But still, that's a game compatible with WinXp, so it won't be that much of a priority to play on my 9x system.

If you wanna check AGP speed, you need Everest to check your hardware, before that check in BIOS that you have enabled 4X AGP.

And if everything is working correctly, well... That only shows how good we have it today with games optimization for older gen GPUs. Lets be real: It's not that unheard from hardware of that time to become practically unusable after a few short years, it's not like today were, with compromises to quality and resolution, you can run 2024 releases on GPUs launched almost 10 years ago.

If you want to play games from like 1999 and older, a Voodoo 3 is really nice. Most of those games were developed with a Voodoo card as the primary concern. Some of them render more effects with Glide.

2000 was the turning point. 3dfx was way behind the competition in features. D3D 7 and Quake3 based games aren't so great on a Voodoo 3.

RTCW should be very playable on a GF2. An 800 MHz CPU might be a problem.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2024-12-28, 17:59:

Well, RTCW list just a 16MB VRAM GPU with DirectX 8.0a compatibility for minimum settings reported on PCGamingWiki

I wouldn't put too much stock into minimum requirements that game developers listed in their readme files during the late 90s and early 2000s.

The goal was to sell as many copies of their games as possible, during a time when technology was moving forward at an insane pace. Hence the "optimistic" system requirements.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2024-12-28, 17:15:

Good to know that even some FX cards do offer good compatibility for older DirectX versions, if using the correct drivers. I'll keep my eyes peeled for the 5500 too, even if it appears to be slower, and gotta be carefull in not getting a 64bit bus one.
I didn't want to go to far out from 2001/2002 for production date, as I'm also just slightly concerned about hardware compatibility with my MOBO, wich was manufactured in late '99 or eraly 2000. So I artificailly set myself an hard cap to avoid, if possible, Dx9 cards. Afterall, it's not like you would use a 9x machine for playing Dx9 games, right?
I'll put it in my watchlist, but if I can find a TI 4200 for a price I'm willing to pay, I'll go that route.

You can run DX9 on 9X. But XP with a more recent GPU will still run correctly and at cranked settings and hundreds of FPSes.

The FX cards are also easier to get with DVI if you want to easily convert to HDMI for modern displays.

swaaye wrote on 2024-12-28, 18:17:

RTCW should be very playable on a GF2. An 800 MHz CPU might be a problem.

So I tried tweaking settings in my BIOS. Disabling shadow Video BIOS, changing AGP Apperture from 64Mb to 32Mb, changing AGP speed from x2 to x1. Now RTCW seems to play OK. Even at 1024x768 32 bit. Reverting BIOS to previous settings and it still is working. So not sure what happened. I wouldn't say the framerate is high, but it is playable. I will have to find FRAPs and see what framerate is.