Your Radeon HD 6570 won't have drivers for either Win98 or Win2K.

The GeForce 5200 offers support for older DirectX feartures (full support up through DX8) , but the GeForce 7600GS would perform much better with DirectX 9 games.

Be warned on Windows 98 and newer GeForce cards... The drivers that support the GeForce 7000-series are pretty bad. I haven't had much of any system stability with Nvidia's last few driver packages for Windows 98.

For AGP system, the FX5200 is better, that is, out of the available ones. I have not used the GeForce 7xxx card in AGP system, I do not know what experience it would have.
In PCIe version, the 82.69 driver gives good and stable results for NV7xxx.
Experience/AGP: Ti4200, FX5700, FX5900XT, 6600GT, 6800GT, R9600TX, R9800Pro: these perform well under DOS/Win98. I do not use Win2000, I do not know what the situation is there.
GeForce 7600GS (512MB DDR2): this requires the Loew 512MB video patch under Win98.
DOS slowdown: Throttle is better, more flexible.

For example, in an NV6800GT S775/AGP machine:

FX5200 next to Little Willamette:

Also, for 1GB RAM/Win98, you also need the Loew memdriver.

I've got a GF 6800 and while it is fast (for Win98) nothing really requires that much power and causes more trouble then it's worth.
I'd go with the GF 5200 with it's better Win98 compatibility.
Windows 2000 will perform similar to Win98, that's to say all your cards will be ok, it'll be speed of the card itself that makes the difference.

Out of your games list RTS's are mostly undemanding and will work with anything in that list.
I'd say its around the Quake 3 era will you even begin to needs something faster then the 5200, and given your running 800x600 your still probably ok

Those target resolutions - do you intend to run the same resolutions in all OSs? Or is it DOS-only and you are indicating you intend to use SVGA (so VESA support is relevant)?

In any event all the nVidia cards (with possible exception of the 7600) should be fine there. Given doubts about the 7600, it's a 3-way race between the very similar GF4MX-440, GF4MX-4000 and GF FX5200. The main question here is exactly which cards with those chips? Generally the MX440 will be the fastest of the lot, but there are differences between cards in core and memory clocks, and most importantly, some have 128b memory while others have 64b. If any one of those three has 128b memory, it will beat the pants off the other two.

Many thanks for amazing responses, I truly appreciate each one of them, you guys are truly special!
OK

1) 640x480 in Windows 9X games and DOS

2) Mem specs of the cards:
GeForce MX4000 (256MB DDR)
GeForce MX440 8X (MSI) I am not sure
GeForce 5200 (256MB DDR)

Based on most recommendations, I would go with the 5200. Now, if lower my RAM to 512MB, would that be an issue for games?

Thanks!

C0deHunter wrote on 2025-09-01, 09:42:

Now, if lower my RAM to 512MB, would that be an issue for games?

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Back in the day even 256MB was more than even many enthusiasts had in their gaming rigs.

In fact, there are win9x games that don’t work with 512MB. Gladly, limiting the memory space in Win98 with software is easy.

I’d only install more than 512MB in win98 box if there is a plan to dual boot with XP.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-09-01, 10:41:

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Bac […]
Show full quote

C0deHunter wrote on 2025-09-01, 09:42:

Now, if lower my RAM to 512MB, would that be an issue for games?

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Back in the day even 256MB was more than even many enthusiasts had in their gaming rigs.

In fact, there are win9x games that don’t work with 512MB. Gladly, limiting the memory space in Win98 with software is easy.

I’d only install more than 512MB in win98 box if there is a plan to dual boot with XP.

Awesome! Thanks, 512MB is the way then!

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-09-01, 10:41:

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Bac […]
Show full quote

C0deHunter wrote on 2025-09-01, 09:42:

Now, if lower my RAM to 512MB, would that be an issue for games?

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Back in the day even 256MB was more than even many enthusiasts had in their gaming rigs.

In fact, there are win9x games that don’t work with 512MB. Gladly, limiting the memory space in Win98 with software is easy.

I’d only install more than 512MB in win98 box if there is a plan to dual boot with XP.

But, UT2004 still runs under Win98, and it eats up well over 512MB of memory. It can lag under that because of the lot of swap. Or even the earlier SSam.

DarthSun wrote on 2025-09-01, 12:54:

But, UT2004 still runs under Win98, and it eats up well over 512MB of memory. It can lag under that because of the lot of swap. […]
Show full quote

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-09-01, 10:41:

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Bac […]
Show full quote

C0deHunter wrote on 2025-09-01, 09:42:

Now, if lower my RAM to 512MB, would that be an issue for games?

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Back in the day even 256MB was more than even many enthusiasts had in their gaming rigs.

In fact, there are win9x games that don’t work with 512MB. Gladly, limiting the memory space in Win98 with software is easy.

I’d only install more than 512MB in win98 box if there is a plan to dual boot with XP.

But, UT2004 still runs under Win98, and it eats up well over 512MB of memory. It can lag under that because of the lot of swap. Or even the earlier SSam.

The attachment ut2004_p4_2gb_def_w98.jpg is no longer available

The attachment ssam2_p4_2gb_def_w98_1.jpg is no longer available

Although it runs with win98, it is very XP era game. If you are aiming for games from 2003-2004 and onwards, it is much better to build XP box and you also get much more options for hardware too.

And again, more than 512MB was never officially supported with 98. This also means that even back in the day, the optimum system for the game was based on XP. And that is what probably 99,99% gamers who played the game actively had back then. And most gaming enthusiasts in general.

But for games that were developed when win98 was in its prime, you don’t need 512MB because OS doesn’t even support more. Pretty much everything runs fine with less. Even if UT2004 can be run with win98 box, it isn’t necessarily the right OS choice for the game.

Sure, getting win98 running with more than 512MB is not overly difficult, but if you aren’t dualbooting XP, the benefits of it are very, very limited.

I personally have two win98 systems, one Slot A (spring 2000) and other Socket A (autumn 2001) and they have 256MB and 512MB respectively. There has been no situations with either of the systems where they can otherwise happily run the game yet memory is a bottleneck. Not even close.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-09-01, 14:19:

Although it runs with win98, it is very XP era game. If you are aiming for games from 2003-2004 and onwards, it is much better t […]
Show full quote

DarthSun wrote on 2025-09-01, 12:54:

But, UT2004 still runs under Win98, and it eats up well over 512MB of memory. It can lag under that because of the lot of swap. […]
Show full quote

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-09-01, 10:41:

For Win98? Absolutely not a single game made for win9x requires that much memory. 512MB cap was or isn’t a problem in win98. Back in the day even 256MB was more than even many enthusiasts had in their gaming rigs.

In fact, there are win9x games that don’t work with 512MB. Gladly, limiting the memory space in Win98 with software is easy.

I’d only install more than 512MB in win98 box if there is a plan to dual boot with XP.

But, UT2004 still runs under Win98, and it eats up well over 512MB of memory. It can lag under that because of the lot of swap. Or even the earlier SSam.

The attachment ut2004_p4_2gb_def_w98.jpg is no longer available

The attachment ssam2_p4_2gb_def_w98_1.jpg is no longer available

Although it runs with win98, it is very XP era game. If you are aiming for games from 2003-2004 and onwards, it is much better to build XP box and you also get much more options for hardware too.

And again, more than 512MB was never officially supported with 98. This also means that even back in the day, the optimum system for the game was based on XP. And that is what probably 99,99% gamers who played the game actively had back then. And most gaming enthusiasts in general.

But for games that were developed when win98 was in its prime, you don’t need 512MB because OS doesn’t even support more. Pretty much everything runs fine with less. Even if UT2004 can be run with win98 box, it isn’t necessarily the right OS choice for the game.

Sure, getting win98 running with more than 512MB is not overly difficult, but if you aren’t dualbooting XP, the benefits of it are very, very limited.

I personally have two win98 systems, one Slot A (spring 2000) and other Socket A (autumn 2001) and they have 256MB and 512MB respectively. There has been no situations with either of the systems where they can otherwise happily run the game yet memory is a bottleneck. Not even close.

My favorite operating system is Win98. You're right, but I'd love to see it on a beastly machine, like Zen2. It sees 3GB of RAM there, just like XP. XP is also great on that crazy machine, and it has a huge range - it's good for everything from XT 4MHz to today's 4.6GHz.

Hey DarthSun
I am curios, what is your profile picture? 😀

C0deHunter wrote on 2025-09-01, 09:42:

Many thanks for amazing responses, I truly appreciate each one of them, you guys are truly special! OK […]
Show full quote

Many thanks for amazing responses, I truly appreciate each one of them, you guys are truly special!
OK

1) 640x480 in Windows 9X games and DOS

2) Mem specs of the cards:
GeForce MX4000 (256MB DDR)
GeForce MX440 8X (MSI) I am not sure
GeForce 5200 (256MB DDR)

That's the amount of memory, not the bandwidth. I was referring to the bandwidth.

A general (though by no means waterproof) rule of thumb is that cards with 4 RAM chips have a 64b bus, whereas cards with 8 RAM chips have a 128b bus. To be sure you need either full specs of the cards (rarely present) or you need to check the specs of the RAM chips. In this era 32Mx16 DDR-SDRAM chips are commonest (16b wide per chip, hence 4 for 64b, 8 for 128b), but other chip geometries were used, so there's no guarantee that those 256MB cards of yours have a 128b bus.

I'd also recommend the FX5200 as long as it's a 128-bit memory bus version. In my signature system I run an Asus FX5200 with 128MB on a 128-bit memory bus (45.23 drivers plus RivaTuner tweaks), and have BIOS modded it with a 25MHz core overclock and 50MHz (DDR) memory overclock. I have it connected to a 32" Samsung 1366x768 TV via a DVI to HDMI adapter, and have found that setting the resolution to 800x600 actually looks the best and doesn't load the FX5200 too bad. I play quite a bit of Unreal Tournament 2004 on the system with basically all high settings, and it easily maintains 30FPS or better. Other games like Quake III, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Max Payne 1&2, also run quite well. While the FX5200 was heavily criticized in it's day, I find now that it's a decent retro gaming card (as long as it's the 128-bit version) that is still available cheap and it also runs fairly cool - and having pixel shaders still puts it ahead of the MX440 and MX4000!

No one seems to mention using HWiNFO to see if the graphics cards are 128bit.

dbellue1 wrote on 2025-09-02, 01:54:

No one seems to mention using HWiNFO to see if the graphics cards are 128bit.

That requires having an installed, working system and sticking mutliple cards into it. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer getting positive ID on hardware before installation.