There is no limit and everything will depend on specific game. That P4 is probably the safest bet if you want performance to be limited by GPU, not CPU, most of the time.

However IMO this are only good for W98 era games and for that P3 will be fine too...

Neither card is exactly high-end. Question is what you want to acheive - you will always be bottlnecking on either CPU or GPU. Pairing these with a P3-933, most things will bottleneck on CPU. Pair these with a Core2Duo and almost everything will be bottlenecking on GPU. The P4-2.4 is about period-correct, but that would give you a decidedly uninspiring mid-range experience (better than integrated VGA, but nowhere near Radeon 9800 or FX5900 levels).

I personally prefer to run OSs on faster hardware than was current when they were released, and I generally prefer to bottleneck on CPU rather than GPU, so I use exactly this combo of CPU and GPU (yesterday I was working on a P3-866EB with FX5600) and combine that with something like Win98SE. If you prefer to bottleneck on GPU, go for something faster.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-26, 08:54:

There is no limit and everything will depend on specific game. That P4 is probably the safest bet if you want performance to be limited by GPU, not CPU, most of the time.

However IMO this are only good for W98 era games and for that P3 will be fine too...

I forgot to mention that I need this for Windows 98 gaming. Thank you!

I think a P3 933 and an FX5200 is a good combo, I don't think either will be bottlenecked.

dionb wrote on 2025-05-26, 09:13:

Neither card is exactly high-end. Question is what you want to acheive - you will always be bottlnecking on either CPU or GPU. Pairing these with a P3-933, most things will bottleneck on CPU. Pair these with a Core2Duo and almost everything will be bottlenecking on GPU. The P4-2.4 is about period-correct, but that would give you a decidedly uninspiring mid-range experience (better than integrated VGA, but nowhere near Radeon 9800 or FX5900 levels).

I personally prefer to run OSs on faster hardware than was current when they were released, and I generally prefer to bottleneck on CPU rather than GPU, so I use exactly this combo of CPU and GPU (yesterday I was working on a P3-866EB with FX5600) and combine that with something like Win98SE. If you prefer to bottleneck on GPU, go for something faster.

I needed to know with that P4 would the system be bottlenecked on either GPUs or not. I will hunt for better parts, Thank you!

mockingbird wrote on 2025-05-26, 13:07:

I think a P3 933 and an FX5200 is a good combo, I don't think either will be bottlenecked.

I also have an FX5200 and a MX4000, Sadly my Socket 370 MB doesn't have an AGP slot, so can't test them. Thank you!

For the fastest system you could build an AMD socket 754 rig or Intel p4. Later motherboards tended to support PCIe only.

These will also handle early Windows XP era but for mid you would need a faster graphics card. Still it may be worth to do dual boot due to higher stability of windows xp.

I would bother with p3 only if you want to dual boot into dos and have an isa sound card.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-05-26, 17:01:

For the fastest system you could build an AMD socket 754 rig or Intel p4. Later motherboards tended to support PCIe only.

These will also handle early Windows XP era but for mid you would need a faster graphics card. Still it may be worth to do dual boot due to higher stability of windows xp.

I would bother with p3 only if you want to dual boot into dos and have an isa sound card.

Thank you, I will consider hunting some AMD compatible systems, I want to have a safe spot so I can test multiple AGP cards without being bottleneck on CPU side.

rezamolaee wrote on 2025-05-26, 08:06:

Hi there, Sorry if I'm posting this in wrong topic, I have a FX 5500 256MB AGP and a ATI 9250 128MB AGP cards laying around, I a […]
Show full quote

Hi there, Sorry if I'm posting this in wrong topic, I have a FX 5500 256MB AGP and a ATI 9250 128MB AGP cards laying around, I also have a P3 933mhz CPU with no MB, my question is, do I need a p4 or higher CPU to get full potential of those cards or it's better to get a Socket 370 MB, do I need AGP 8X for full power?
I have an Asus P4800S-X with a P4 2.4ghz, but it has faulty caps and work so loud and hot.
I can get a 856G chipset motherboard with Core 2 Duo support, is it over kill? What's your suggestions?
Thanks.

id go with the fx5500 and the P4 2.4ghz it will make a good 98 system, theres no point going dual core as i doubt the fx5500/9250 will play any games that will make use of 2 cores. also the 9250 is DX8.1, while the FX is DX9, while the radeon is a good card the fx just seemed to work better, also with DX9 you can make use of nGlide for 3dfx games.

heres my 3dmark99 scores for an fx5200 128mb 64bit and a radeon 9250 256mb 128bit with a single core celeron 3.46ghz, the fx scores higher than the radeon despite having half the vram/bus. also i'd go for a board thats AGPx8 for best performance.

Radeon 9250
Re: 3dmark99 MegaThread

FX5200
Re: 3dmark99 MegaThread
this was on XP the scores are slightly higher on win98, on 98 the fx5200 scored 12054,

if you look at other scores in the 3dmark99 thread theres a few with voodoo 5500's that score less, so performance with an fx card wont be as bad as you'd think for 98 games, its when you get to 2004/2005 games you'll have to limit yourself to 800x600 minimal settings with frames around 30fps.

anyway thats my main go-to 98/low end xp system ive been using for like 7 years, its a good performer despite being low end it plays everything i need it to, before that i was using a 478 socket P4 2.8ghz/fx5200 which served me well for years.

AGP board with core 2 support, that's gonna be expensive. If you recap the P4P800S-X, it can take pretty much all the S478 chips, including the 800FSB with HT, though only at single channel DDR400

Intel socket 775 had a much longer lifespan than AMD socket 754, therefore you can find a faster Intel CPU than AMD. My Geforce FX5600 paired with Athlon 3400+ scored 9463 points in 1024x768x32bit in 3D Mark 99. It could go about 10% higher with a faster CPU, but you won't be able to find an Athlon 3700+ easily. They are very expensive. If you care about maximum performance, your only choice is Intel. You should choose AMD if you prefer an AMD rig.

DudeFace wrote on 2025-05-26, 20:05:

id go with the fx5500 and the P4 2.4ghz it will make a good 98 system,
<snip>
anyway thats my main go-to 98/low end xp system ive been using for like 7 years, its a good performer despite being low end it plays everything i need it to, before that i was using a 478 socket P4 2.8ghz/fx5200 which served me well for years.

I definitely discourage using P4 as a system (even though I use one myself - but I have something very specialized). They run extremely hot, and you will go over 60C on a hot day. Moreover, it's a guessing game as to what kind of TIM Intel used for your CPU... At some point they switched to a soldered TIM but the ones with the factory paste job run especially hot and need to be delidded and re-pasted.

You're also stuck with ODCM as a primary form of CPU throttling and DDMA for sound (read: no ISA). I have found DDMA to be extremely overrated in terms of compatibility and personally won't touch anything except for ISA or PCI with SB-Link.

Definitely better to go with a fast celeron/PIII or a socket462 K7.

Benchmarks can say/show whatever they want, but IME, both the FX5500 (which is basically a 5200) and the Radeon 9200/9250 are pretty weak video cards that don't really make sense anywhere past a mid-range Pentium 3 - i.e. 600-750 Mhz... well, for late 90's games anyways.

rezamolaee wrote on 2025-05-26, 08:06:

Hi there, Sorry if I'm posting this in wrong topic, I have a FX 5500 256MB AGP and a ATI 9250 128MB AGP cards laying around, I also have a P3 933mhz CPU with no MB, my question is, do I need a p4 or higher CPU to get full potential of those cards or it's better to get a Socket 370 MB, do I need AGP 8X for full power?

Nope.
I have the same exact CPU and I find even that is more than enough to punish these video cards.
In my case, I started with a Radeon 7000 (64 MB, 64-bit bus), as that's what the system came with originally. Performance was pretty poor, IMO.
Next, I swapped the video card for a Radeon 7200 (64MB, 128-bit bus). Results: much MUCH better, despite the seeming small jump in model numbers.
Then I tried an FX5200 (256 MB, 128-bit bus). Results: about the same as before, with some games worse and others a little better. Worth noting here is the FX 5200 and 5500 do NOT have hardware T&L, so they tend to suffer performance in older games, which is exactly what happened in my case. At the same time, DX8.1/9 games that could fall back onto DX7 looked better on my FX5200 than on the Rad7200 simply due to the higher DX version support (e.g. NFS Underground). What's interesting is that the FPS did not increase going from the Rad 7200 to the FX5200.
Finally, due to wanting to run NFS Underground (and a few newer DX8/9 games) on that PC a little better, the last upgrade was to a Radeon 9600 (non-pro) video card. At this point, I was no longer GPU limited in any game but always CPU-limited.

DudeFace wrote on 2025-05-26, 20:05:

also the 9250 is DX8.1, while the FX is DX9

On paper, yes.
However, both of these are actually not fully DX9-compliant.
Funny thing is, despite the R9200/9250 being "only" a DX8.1 video card, it generally allows for all of the effects in NFS Underground and Underground 2 to be turned on (like crowds, rain drops, and etc.) whereas if I remember correctly, FX5200/5500 had some of these graphics effects grayed out due to lacking more DX9 features than the Radeon.

DudeFace wrote on 2025-05-26, 20:05:

also with DX9 you can make use of nGlide for 3dfx games.

True.
But again, IME, those 3dfx emulators ended up performing worse and with lower graphics quality than with DX rendering (if the game offered both.)
So I wouldn't put too much weight on this. 4 months ago when I didn't know, I was also very hyped up about swapping a Radeon card in one of my retro systems for an FX5200... only to find out I gained nothing.

mockingbird wrote on 2025-05-26, 23:57:

I definitely discourage using P4 as a system

+1

I have multiple P4 systems and these indeed tend to run hotter without offering much benefit. Given the cards the O/P has, it makes no sense to go with a P4 system for those. A P3 of any kind will be plenty for these cards. And if any of them are with 64-bit memory bus, forget it - even a Pentium II would be fine for one like that. At some point, I had my Radeon 9200 SE (64-bit memory) on my Pentium II 400 MHz PC, and the video card was performing so poorly in some games that even the PII was laughing at it.

So really, there's no point to waste more power with a P4 when a PII or P3 will do the job here... unless you live in a cold place and the extra heat from the P4 would be a welcome thing. Where I currently live, my family has an old house up in the mountains. It's not overly-cold there... but I have moved a lot of my inefficient and power-hungry rigs there, as any heat from those is always welcome to warm up the room I sleep in. 😀

Honestly i find whole "P4 is hot" thing vastly overblown. Do not get me wrong, i am not a fan of the platform at all and generally prefer AMD alternatives both back then and now, but also, realistically, they are perfectly fine.

Especially funny is looking at it from modern computer perspective. I mean 2.4Ghz Northwood has what, ~60W TDP? Does it really seem like a lot when 1000W and above power supplies are quickly becoming a reality for modern systems?

With a bit of modern stuff, like better fans and perhaps better case, there is absolutely nothing bad about running one of this and no, it will not work as a space heater.

It'll also offer some conveniences over P3, like USB2, USB boot, SATA on the board OP has, better compatibility with modern PSUs, etc. To be honest, even though P3 will likely be sufficient from performance perspective, i see no reason not to use P4 just for this conveniences.

Dead caps are an issue, but honestly that's unavoidable. So far i had to recap pretty much every board i got from that time period, no matter the manufacturer or platform....

mockingbird wrote on 2025-05-26, 23:57:

I definitely discourage using P4 as a system (even though I use one myself - but I have something very specialized). They run extremely hot, and you will go over 60C on a hot day.

This entirely depends on the specific model of Pentium 4. Pentium 4 processors have a pretty wide range of TDP. Lower wattage Pentium 4 processors with decent cooling won't get too hot. Ambient temp also plays a factor.

For point of reference, this is my Pentium 4 3.4 GHz (Cedar Mill) temps after 30 minutes of 100% CPU stress test (Prime95):

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 01:29:

Honestly i find whole "P4 is hot" thing vastly overblown.

It's definitely overblown. It seems a consequence of the reputation of the Prescott Pentium 4 chips, which were power hungry and ran hot. It also didn't help that cases at the time tended to have worse cooling than modern cases.

But other variations of Pentium 4 processors have lower TDP, in some cases comparable to equivalent AMD processors of the time. When paired with a more modern ATX case with good cooling, they are perfectly fine.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-05-27, 01:58:

It's definitely overblown. It seems a consequence of the reputation of the Prescott Pentium 4 chips, which were power hungry and ran hot. It also didn't help that cases at the time tended to have worse cooling than modern cases.

But other variations of Pentium 4 processors have lower TDP, in some cases comparable to equivalent AMD processors of the time. When paired with a more modern ATX case with good cooling, they are perfectly fine.

Honestly it feels like cooling simply did not catch up to CPUs yet at that point and that's the reason for whole thing. Both CPU coolers themselves and cases.

Yeah, some of high end Prescott P4 do have relatively high TDP, but it is not crazy high. Up to 115W IIRC, with slower ones being 90-100W. Today it does not sound like a lot, does it? And later CPUs only increased this, without having the same reputation of being "extremely hot". I still have those 140W phenom2 x4 965 and that system is not hot or noisy... mostly because by that point whole "heatpipe revolution" happened.

Similar issues exist on socket 462 too - those are up to ~80W, but because very few decent coolers existed and all of them are unobtanium nowadays, it is actually a challenge to build a reasonably quiet system. But this is rarely mentioned and people are focused on P4 being hot instead, while in reality it is quite comparable.

Both in case of P4 and S462 modern case + modern fans help quite a lot, even if CPU heatsink itself is just a piece of aluminum, which is not really good for such TDP.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 01:29:

Honestly i find whole "P4 is hot" thing vastly overblown. Do not get me wrong, i am not a fan of the platform at all and generally prefer AMD alternatives both back then and now, but also, realistically, they are perfectly fine.

Oh, I completely agree in that regard.
Perhaps what I should have said was that P4's are "hot" relative to the performance you get out of them, especially compared to a higher-end P3.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 01:29:

Especially funny is looking at it from modern computer perspective.

Yeah, don't get me started on that topic. 😁
Modern stuff, especially GPUs, are up to "stoopid levels" with their TDP. Even a "60W TDP" CPU can now guzzle upwards of 120-150W. And surprise surprise, we are now seeing dead CPUs a lot more compared to before (burned socket A/462 CPUs aside from lack of over-temperature protection.)

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 01:29:

[P4] ... will not work as a space heater.

If your home has good insulation, leave one turned on for 8 hours a day... well, at least a Prescott core... and you will be surprised.
I did that for many years to keep my room temperature about 2-3 degrees warmer than the rest of the house so that I wouldn't have to heat up the entire house as much.
That said, Athlon XP CPUs are even better for this, since their TDP almost does not vary between idle and full load state (well, it does, but only by about 10W, and that's for the high-end 70+ Watt chips.) So going back to the whole "P4's are hot" debacle... yeah, socket 462 CPUs are even worse in that regard.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 01:29:

It'll also offer some conveniences over P3, like USB2, USB boot, SATA on the board OP has, better compatibility with modern PSUs, etc. To be honest, even though P3 will likely be sufficient from performance perspective, i see no reason not to use P4 just for this conveniences.

Well, the 4-pin 12V CPU power connector is probably the biggest convenience, as then you don't have to look for an older PSU that is better-suited for a 5V-heavy PC. Not that P3 needs much juice on the 5V rail - in most cases, 15 Amps will be just fine for a single CPU setup and whatever random old AGP GPU you end up using - even high-end ones.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 01:29:

Dead caps are an issue, but honestly that's unavoidable. So far i had to recap pretty much every board i got from that time period, no matter the manufacturer or platform....

Well, that's the issue around P4's and them being "hot" - they tend to roast their caps faster.
I also recap just about everything I get if it uses crappy caps that are known to have problems. The thing is, not everyone can or wants to recap a motherboard... in which case, a Pentium 3 motherboard (even with mediocre caps) may be the better choice in that regard, so long as none of the caps are starting to go bad yet. Same goes for Pentium II boards to an extent... though due to the poor cooling of the VRM due to the slot design, caps on PII boards are more likely to have gone bad than on a socket 370 mobo. Most s370 boards I have are still running their original caps. I have spares and did recap a few when I was bored or had some more time... but all in all, they are just very undemanding in that regard. P4 mobos? - Nope! They do tend to run hotter (again, relative to a P3 CPU) so they roast their caps a lot faster... save for boards that actually did use good quality caps. But even then, some of these had problems as early ultra-low ESR series weren't all stable (e.g. Nichicon HM & HN from 2001 to 2004 or Rubycon MCZ in hot spots next to the CPU heatsink.) So with P4 mobos, you're pretty much guaranteed to run into one that *is* in need of a recap. In contrast, about at least half of the P3 boards still out there are OK to use as-is with their original caps. P3 CPUs just have too low of a TDP to cause issues.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 03:30:

Honestly it feels like cooling simply did not catch up to CPUs yet at that point and that's the reason for whole thing. Both CPU coolers themselves and cases.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

Problem is, people have to be aware of this when building a retro PC based on P4 or Athlon XP, because otherwise the thing will end up running miserably hot in one of those "era-appropriate" cases, especially on a hot summer day.

But even with good case cooling, you will still need to look for a pretty high-end cooler if you want a quiet P4 rig. With a P3, this is not a problem... or well, rather it's easy to correct. In most cases, even the stock socket 370 coolers don't need to run their fans on 12V to keep the CPU cooled properly. Yet all of them do... which is why they are so notoriously loud. Same goes for just about all socket A/462 coolers. But for socket A/462, you really do need to keep the fans cranked up (especially for the latter Barton XP's) to keep them cool. In contrast, Pentium 3 CPUs barely need much cooling. On most of my P3 rigs, I disconnect the red (positive) wire on the fan from its connector (which supplies the fan with 12V constantly) and connect it to a molex connector with 5V. This dramatically reduces the speed of the fan (and thus, the noise), while still allowing the CPU to stay perfectly cool. Even with pretty high ambient temperatures (30C here in the summer inside, as I don't have A/C), my higher-end P3 CPUs (850 MHz or higher) rarely break past 45C under load (gaming for an hour or two.) Try to get that kind of temperature from a P4 and at the same noise level - it won't be easy. Perhaps with a Cedar Mill P4 and a more exotic LGA775 cooler, sure. But then don't forget we are still talking about a Windows 98 rig in this thread - a territory where LGA775 isn't really the most optimal choice, especially for the less experienced.

So in the end, whichever platform you end up picking will have it's own pros and cons. But I think P3 is usually easier for the beginner and less likely to be problematic in the long-term than a P4. And for a "pretty decent" Windows 9x rig, you really don't need all of that "raw" power from a P4 (especially anything with HT). A modest P3 will suffice more than half the time.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 03:30:

I still have those 140W phenom2 x4 965 and that system is not hot or noisy...

I'll bid you one higher with my 1st gen Phenom X4 9950. Although "only" rated for 125W TDP, that's not really its maximum power dissipation under load.
And yeah, it does get toasty, as does the CPU VRM around it, despite having a nice large 4-heatpipe cooler on it with a 120 mm fan and another fan to blow air on the CPU VRM.

It's truly a space heater. Same with my Pentium D 830 system. Leave one of these On for 8 hours a day, and my room can get pretty warmer than normal, even in the winter. In the summer, it's actually a PITA. Having one of these On compared to a P3 system, it's a night-and-day difference. The p3 might raise the room temperature up by a degree at the most. These 100+ Watt TDP rigs (with their more power-hungry GPUs too) can raise the room temperature by as much as 5-6C. Between staying in 31C and 36C, I think the difference is clear which I will take.
That's why I actually swap all of my power-hungry retro rigs for mostly Pentium 3's and i3's / Pentium G in the hotter months of the year.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-05-27, 03:30:

Similar issues exist on socket 462 too - those are up to ~80W, but because very few decent coolers existed and all of them are unobtanium nowadays, it is actually a challenge to build a reasonably quiet system. But this is rarely mentioned and people are focused on P4 being hot instead, while in reality it is quite comparable.

Complete agree here again and I will almost never recommend anyone socket 462/A (especially with a higher-end Athlon XP CPU) for their retro rig - not unless they are really experienced with computer building and know the challenge they will be taking on. From getting a proper 5V-heavy PSU (well, at least most s462 motherboards didn't have a P4 connector) to looking for unobtanium (and/or expensive) cooling as you mentioned... and then dealing with all of that noise and a good deal of heat inside the case, because s462 CPUs simply run full-tilt in terms of power consumption all the time.

Thank you everyone for your help, I decided to buy a GA-8I865GME-775-RH, equipped it when 2GB of DDR memory, it support Core 2 Duo in revision 3.9, this board is more convenient than older ones and I'm going to be sure system always be bottlenecked by GPU.
however I have another question, is GeForce 6200 worth buying if you have FX 5500?