agent_x007 wrote on 2026-04-19, 19:05:

P4 Northwood 2.8GHz with 533 FSB and on SIS chipset is hardly a performance king, and unless there is upgrade path in future - there isn't much merit into getting GT now.

I guess there is the 3.06 GHz version; there is one available as a local purchase, although it is.... kinda, expensive.

there is also the possibility of getting a different motherboard- technically I don't haaave to use this one, I just.... kinda want to if possible?

Actually I just checked and there's a whole other computer with a 3.06 GHz P4 for cheaper than just the 3.06 GHz P4 on eBay right now. that uh---
that feels weirdly comical?

It's normal. But it may take over a year to sell the parts, even if the price is low. I got parts by buying a few PCs locally. I got my Asus CUBX (440BX) board by buying a Celeron PC.

I see a PC with s939 and Athlon 64 3700+ selling locally for £21. It would cost at least twice as much to buy the parts separately.

You would save a lot of money by buying an LGA775/s939/AM2 PC with PCIe GPU. No Windows 98 though.

AlexZ wrote on 2026-04-19, 19:32:

It's normal. But it may take over a year to sell the parts, even if the price is low. I got parts by buying a few PCs locally. I got my Asus CUBX (440BX) board by buying a Celeron PC.

I see a PC with s939 and Athlon 64 3700+ selling locally for £21. It would cost at least twice as much to buy the parts separately.

You would save a lot of money by buying an LGA775/s939/AM2 PC with PCIe GPU. No Windows 98 though.

Why no Windows 98 on a newer system?

You can get up to a 7900GTX running on Win98. There is also the PCX5900 (PCIe FX5900)

On the ATI side, you can get up to the X850XT PE running on Win98.

Also, it is verified that you can run at least up to 9th Gen Intel with Win98.

And now that there is the patch the URFI systems to run BIOS mode, even faster should be possible.

adamsr wrote on 2026-04-18, 19:07:

Sempron (S754) @2.1Ghz + : […]
Show full quote

DudeFace wrote on 2026-04-18, 17:37:

if its £100+ i wouldnt bother, you wont see the benefit of a powerful gpu with a P4 2.8ghz, you're better off going with an fx55 […]
Show full quote

if its £100+ i wouldnt bother, you wont see the benefit of a powerful gpu with a P4 2.8ghz, you're better off going with an fx5500, i have one of these 7600GT's an you would be better off pairing one with a core 2 duo.

ive got one and recently benchmarked it with a single core 775 celeron D 360 3.46ghz, it only scored 2000 points more than my fx5200 128mb 64bit. 🤣
the celeron D 360's performance falls slightly under the P4 extreme, so the gpu has pretty much hit its limit with a single core.
heres mine, i picked it up recently in a pc for £25, it had a bulging cap causing artifacts and lockups, i swapped the faulty cap for one i had lying round and it works gud! bet you cant tell which one 😀

The attachment 20260418_164806.jpg is no longer available

heres the benchmarks

MB: MSI PM8PM-V
CPU: Celeron D 360 3.46ghz
RAM: 2GB DDR2

FX5200 128mb 64bit

The attachment 3dmark99 - Celeron D 360 3.46ghz - FX5200.jpg is no longer available

7600GT 256mb 128bit

The attachment 3dmark99 - Celeron D 360 3.46ghz - 7600GT.jpg is no longer available

as you can see the performance increase of around 2000 is minimal considering how much more powerful the 7600gt should be over the fx5200.
i thought it either the cpu holding it back or that dodgy cap i swapped out is still causing power problems resulting in low performance.
i dont have a dual core for this board to rule out the gpu so i tested the celeron D in another board with a 7950GT.
heres the results.

MB: P4M900M2 (pci-e version of the board above)
CPU: Celeron D 360 3.46ghz
RAM: 2GB DDR2

7950GT 512mb 256bit

The attachment 3dmark99 - Celeron D 360 3.46ghz - 7950GT.jpg is no longer available

only 2000 points above the 7600GT which means the single core has hit its limit, and the 7600GT is working as it should.

now for the cpu comparison. the celeron D 360 3.46ghz is near on par with the P4 Extreme 3.73ghz so one of the top performing single cores Versus. the Celeron E3400 2.6ghz.
FYI the celeron E3400 is one of the lowest scoring 2.6ghz core 2 duos.

The attachment 3dmark99 - Celeron E3400 2.6ghz - 7950GT.jpg is no longer available

as you can see the 3dmark score has now near on doubled!

conclusion,
with a 478, P4 2.8ghz you wont see the full performance of the 7600GT so not really worth dropping £££ , if you are set on the 7600GT go with a core 2 duo to get the most out of it, if you plan on sticking with a 478 cpu go with an nvidia FX5xxx at a fraction of the price and near similar performance.

Sempron (S754) @2.1Ghz + :

Graphics card............... 3dmark01 | 3dmark03 | Q3@480/Q3@768 | rtcw@480/rtcw@768
GeForce FX5200 ............. 6197.... | 1344.....| 274/159...... | 166/72
GeForce 7600GS (not even GT) 17440... | 8302.....| 293/291...... | 207/205

---

yeah, about the same performance... if all you're planning to do is play Solitaire on Windows 98, then yeah, you won't notice any difference...

thats pretty much my point if its mainly for 9x games, the 7600GT is a much more powerful card just doesnt show with a single core. 2000 points over a 64bit 5200 is laughable and i dont think its worth the cost of more than £100 if you wont see the benefits. (also imo that 7600gt is worth £20-30 max)

when i said about the same performance i said fx5xxx, obviously not the 5200 but a 256mb 128bit 5500/5600/5700 will probably return a score closer to the 7600 under 3dmark99 with a single core for a fraction the price.

the fx5200 is very capable for 9x with a half decent cpu, quake3 on default is over 300fps, fully maxxed out still 67fps, halflife maxxed out under opgl 72fps. you need more?

your benchmark scores are spot on, those single core low clocked amds seem to way outperform intel single cores. its not fair 🤣.

depends what games OP wants to play, if 9x then id favour the fx. for later games 7600, since my system is 9x i took the 7600 out and put the fx5200 back in, it been doing its job well for like the past 10yrs.

agent_x007 wrote on 2026-04-19, 17:24:

DudeFace wrote on 2026-04-18, 17:37:

ive got one and recently benchmarked it with a single core 775 celeron D 360 3.46ghz, it only scored 2000 points more than my fx5200 128mb 64bit. 🤣
the celeron D 360's performance falls slightly under the P4 extreme, so the gpu has pretty much hit its limit with a single core.

now for the cpu comparison. the celeron D 360 3.46ghz is near on par with the P4 Extreme 3.73ghz so one of the top performing single cores Versus. the Celeron E3400 2.6ghz.

That, I think, is one of the most amazing and ridiculous/hilarious things I have ever read here on Vogons 🤣

im only going off cpu scores from passmark which show the celeron D as 13 points behind the P4 extreme, but with a higher STR. seems in real world benchmarks it equates to 10,000 points which is pretty substantial, im glad to be proven wrong, if i were right then the P4 extreme wouldnt be so extreme 🤣.

your PCX score is about what i would expect from a fx5200 paired with a dual core, i updated my microcode on the agp board but it doesnt support dual cores, i dont have an x6800, closest ive got thats 1066 is a xeon3070 but it was a no boot.

also i know 3dmark99 is pretty inaccurate, i like it as it gives you a cpu score to compare as well. heres a bench mark of a xeon3070 @3.25ghz with a pci-e 7950gt 512mb. the score is pretty much the same score as agent007's 7600gt agp and x6800. doesnt quite make sense.

also dont suppose you've got a celeron D365 you could benchmark for comparison?

VanillaFairy wrote on 2026-04-19, 19:24:

Actually I just checked and there's a whole other computer with a 3.06 GHz P4 for cheaper than just the 3.06 GHz P4 on eBay right now. that uh---
that feels weirdly comical?

the board and cpu you have is just fine, before i switched to a 775 socket for 9x i was using an asus 478 board with a P4 2.8ghz and it served me well for years, if i hadnt come across the 775 via board by chance i'd still be using the 478. ive got a couple of 478 SiS boards and they work well, id just get a cheap ass fx5200 for like £10 to get you going, along with a cheap SBlive and see how that works for the games you want to play, literally cant go wrong with a 478 socket/fx5200/sblive for best compatibility, its what id always recommend for a first time build, if it turns out its not enough and you need more power then look into a dual core pci-e system.

i use my single core for dos/98/early xp games with the fx5200 for support for 8bit palleted textures/table fogs and Via chipset for dos sound support, and a second system with G31 chipset, 1333fsb dual core + 7950gt pci-e without dos sound support but awesome overclocking if i need more power.

if you go with a 775 socket for 9x there may be some compromises you will have to make, i was hoping to find a board that does it all.
if i want 1333fsb cpu's with a board with decent overclocking i lose dos sound compatibility.
if i want a dos sound compatible chipset i lose 1333fsb cpu's and decent overclocking.
just cant win! 🤣.

775 Via chipset
will have support for sound in dos games
limited to 1066 fsb cpu's
some agp boards dont support dual cores, if it does the 1066 X6800 it usually the top one.
overclocking is very limited, sometimes manage 150-300mhz, with mods you can go higher at least in the case of the asrock dual boards.

775 Intel chipset
if its an early 775 with an 865 chipset it will likely be similar to the above

the later intel 775 boards such as ICH7 and higher you will lose compatibility for sound in dos games but windows98 no problem.
intel 965 boards are still 1066fsb you will have the same cpu support as a Via board but bios support for later wolfdale cpu's + speedstep on 45nm cpu's should be there for later 1067 cpus such as the 800fsb E5800 3.2ghz. also my 965 board cant seem to overclock any cpu past 3.4ghz.

a G31 board will be mostly the same as the 965 just with 1333fsb cpu support and the ability to overclock a 2.6ghz core2duo to over 4ghz.

as for ebay prices scalpers should be ashamed of themselves, check your local ads on gumtree a bargain will eventually pop up, thats what i usually do, heres the system i got the 7600 in of gumtree for £25-30, from some old fella i wasnt gonna haggle him, it had been there for a week and not a single bite, he was just happy someone wanted it. bargains do come up just not too often.

when i said about the same performance i said fx5xxx, obviously not the 5200 but a 256mb 128bit 5500/5600/5700 will probably return a score closer to the 7600 under 3dmark99 with a single core for a fraction the price.

the fx5200 is very capable for 9x with a half decent cpu, quake3 on default is over 300fps, fully maxxed out still 67fps, halflife maxxed out under opgl 72fps. you need more?

your benchmark scores are spot on, those single core low clocked amds seem to way outperform intel single cores. its not fair 🤣.

My test was with an fx5200 128-bit; the fx5500 is EXACTLY the same (an extra 20 MHz per core won't make any difference). Furthermore, a specific fx5200 might be faster than a specific fx5500, as they were often equipped with slow memory. A full-fledged 5700 would be a bit more fun.

Actually, yes, 67 fps in Q3 isn't enough for me! As a professional defrag player (mod Q3), I need a stable 125 fps; every 8 ms in this game is critical! Although I don't play at maximum settings and generally don't play this game on such old junk, but still 😁

I have a Celeron D356 (3.33 GHz) on the 775 and I don't like this platform. It's incredibly hot and slower than the s754. Its latencies exceed 100ns (despite dual-channel memory mode), while the s754 has a memory controller integrated into the processor, so latencies are 43ns, even despite single-channel memory mode—a more advantageous result. Plus, the processor is simply freezing—about 40°C, even on my current Athlon 64 @ 2.6Ghz.

DudeFace wrote on Yesterday, 02:57:

also i know 3dmark99 is pretty inaccurate, i like it as it gives you a cpu score to compare as well. heres a bench mark of a xeon3070 @3.25ghz with a pci-e 7950gt 512mb. the score is pretty much the same score as agent007's 7600gt agp and x6800. doesnt quite make sense.

also dont suppose you've got a celeron D365 you could benchmark for comparison?

Here's my Quadro FX 1500 score (card slower than your OC'ed 7950 GT) :

And pretty close clocked full 7900 GTX :

What comparison your are interested in with Celeron D 360 ?

DudeFace wrote on Yesterday, 06:27:

the later intel 775 boards such as ICH7 and higher you will lose compatibility for sound in dos games but windows98 no problem.
intel 965 boards are still 1066fsb you will have the same cpu support as a Via board but bios support for later wolfdale cpu's + speedstep on 45nm cpu's should be there for later 1067 cpus such as the 800fsb E5800 3.2ghz. also my 965 board cant seem to overclock any cpu past 3.4ghz.

a G31 board will be mostly the same as the 965 just with 1333fsb cpu support and the ability to overclock a 2.6ghz core2duo to over 4ghz.

I think your P965 board simply sucks ?

AlexZ wrote on 2026-04-19, 18:01:

I think it would have been great if someone else had that 2.8Ghz Northwood and 7600 GS / GT so that VanillaFairy can see what kind of performance they can expect.

I do, but all of the hardware is currently still in deep storage after my last move. Will get there... some day! 🤣

I actually know where my 7600 GS is, and it's ready to go/use too. One of my 2.8 Ghz P4 Northwood (800 MHz FSB with HT) systems is also more or less complete (has Win XP SP2, though not yet set up with all of the games and software I use... which will take a good chunk of a weekend). But my 7600 GT is awaiting a cooler mod (the stock cooler is kinda garbage.) I do have a 7300 GT also ready to go, along with a 6800 XT (all AGP). The thing is, I have tested all of these with my OC'ed s939 3200+ (2 @ 2.5 Ghz... so kinda on par with a 4000+). The 7600 GS is somewhat faster than the 7300 GT and the 7600 GT is marginally faster than the 7600 GS. The 6800 XT is really fast in games that care more about fast GPU memory and not so much about shader effects. The latter is better handled by the 7600 cards, and by quite a bit (e.g. Half-Life 2 EP2).

I imagine on a 2.8 GHz P4, the difference would be even smaller... so I still stand by my argument that it's not too important which one the O/P gets.

agent_x007 wrote on 2026-04-19, 19:05:

He should just buy the cheaper one.
P4 Northwood 2.8GHz with 533 FSB and on SIS chipset is hardly a performance king, and unless there is upgrade path in future - there isn't much merit into getting GT now.
Sure, it will be faster than normal DDR2 based GS, however depending on details/resolution he wants to play at - it may simply not be visible in actual gameplay.

Yup, that's what I remember more or less from my tests between the two.
At least on XP with then-modern games at the time, the difference wasn't THAT huge. In older games, the cards with the faster cores + more ROPs + higher memory bandwidth did the best, particularly most visible under high resolutions.

agent_x007 wrote on 2026-04-19, 19:05:

I'd even go as far as drop to 7300 GT or 6600 GT, if price difference between these two and 7600s is high enough (and you can get extra game compatibility from being able to use older drivers if you go GF6 instead GF7).

Agreed.
Well, the 7300 GT is actually even more rare than the 7600 GT, at least from when I used to buy this hardware online in the past. By far the 7600 GS was the most common option, probably because it wasn't priced that much higher than the 7300 GT. So no point in looking to hard for a 7300 GT.
Now the 6600 GT in AGP is also quite common. I believe that was a really popular card with all of the AGP "holdouts" of the time and not a bad card either. It would be a little more limited than the 7300 or 7600 in newer games (of the time) that use more shaders, but it should be just as good in older games... if not better - as you mentioned, due to extra compatibility.
Alternatively, there's also the plain 6600 (non-GT). These look quite underwhelming in person (really small coolers and what appears to be regular TSOP RAM), but aren't that much far behind the 6600 GT (just slower RAM, so high textures at high resolutions becomes the limiting factor.)

DudeFace wrote on Yesterday, 02:57:

thats pretty much my point if its mainly for 9x games, the 7600GT is a much more powerful card just doesnt show with a single core. 2000 points over a 64bit 5200 is laughable and i dont think its worth the cost of more than £100 if you wont see the benefits. (also imo that 7600gt is worth £20-30 max)

when i said about the same performance i said fx5xxx, obviously not the 5200 but a 256mb 128bit 5500/5600/5700 will probably return a score closer to the 7600 under 3dmark99 with a single core for a fraction the price.

And that's why I never do those 3D Mark benchmarks.
Just looking at some "benchmark" points vs. actually trying the games you want at the resolutions you're OK with gives a completely different prespective of what's good and what isn't.

FX5200 64-bit is kinda abysmal for anything past 1999, at least if you want both higher resolution and higher FPS. With the 128-bit, you can stretch that to 2000 or 2001... like maybe... if some game uses an older 3D engine. Ditto for the FX5500, which is really the same thing as the 5200.
FX 5600 and 5700 are a notch better and at least don't bog down -as much- at higher resolutions like the FX 5200/5500 does... though one can tell they are still lower-end cards. A 9600 non-Pro will easily mop the floor with these, and 9600's are both common and relatively cheap.

But honestly, none of those comparisons matter too much because.... well you said it best here:

DudeFace wrote on Yesterday, 02:57:

depends what games OP wants to play, if 9x then id favour the fx. for later games 7600, since my system is 9x i took the 7600 out and put the fx5200 back in, it been doing its job well for like the past 10yrs.

Indeed it all depends on the games / type of system O/P wants to build.
If going for a Win9x type of PC, I 100% agree with whoever above said that a P4 + FX 5200 (even if it's a64-bit version) + SBLive combo would be a really solid good start. In fact, the same combo would still be fine with XP, again if the intent is to play mostly 90's and very early 2000's games. And if the sole purpose is DX7 -only titles, most GF4 MX440 would shine even nicer here, as they tend to be faster in T&L rendering compared to the FX series.

Now only once you go into "proper" early XP era games (e.g. 2002 and newer), that's when you'll probably see the FX 5200 run out of breath and find yourself in need of something better.

Comming back to the topic at hand: IMO, only buy a 7600 GT if you can find it cheap(ish) (or what you think is reasonable). Otherwise a 7600 GS should be just as sufficient. But better yet, really think about the type of PC you want to build, as even the 7600 GS might be an irrelevant choice if no game would need its capabilities. Of course, if another reason for wanting the 7600 GS/GT cart is to just have a high(er) end P4 PC, then by all means go for it.
I personally would love to get my hands on a 7800 GS AGP some day just to complete a high end P4 and/or Athlon 64 build. But with the current prices of these - nah! Maybe another day 🤣