douglar wrote on 2026-06-16, 12:14:

That's a great card! {If you are lucky enough to find one or have a few hundred dollars to burn} […]
Show full quote

appiah4 wrote on 2026-06-16, 09:41:

Mike_ wrote on 2026-06-13, 17:28:

What would be a decent GPU for an Athlon XP build, that still has decent DOS support?

GeForce FX 5900

That's a great card! {If you are lucky enough to find one or have a few hundred dollars to burn}

But it might be overkill unless you really need direct X 9.

If you are on a budget and can get by with Direct X7, an MX 4000 might be a good budget alternative. It's not the greatest 3d card, but decent for direct X 7 games and the DOS compatibility is high and the affordability is best.

Back in the day, I ran my Athlon XP 2100 with a Gefroce 4200ti and mainly played Direct X 8 games. That is also a decent card.

When I started playing direct X 9 games like Crysis and Halflife 2, I upgraded to an Athlon 64 and a Radeon 9800 because DOS compatibility wasn't so important to me at that time.

the geforce 4 MX 440 is also a decent card for dos gaming and ealry win 9x... i would not go for a mx4000 as they are poor.

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-06-17, 08:04:

I used a Barton on that board myself, the Epox 8KTA3+ has no official support for it, but does work with them anyway. Ran it at […]
Show full quote

Mike_ wrote on 2026-06-17, 07:26:

I was actually thinking about using it as far into 00s as the CPU can manage, but it's true that 133MHz memory is probably the bottleneck. Although I'm using a barton CPU modded to run at 1.8GHz despite slower FSB, and the large cache might somewhat mitigate memory being so slow. In on itself, an athlon xp 2500+ should definitely be fine for 2003 games, and probably for most 2004 games as well.

I used a Barton on that board myself, the Epox 8KTA3+ has no official support for it, but does work with them anyway. Ran it at 1.8 GHz, too, since the board cannot set higher multipliers no matter what.
Did hardly make any difference, the RAM really is too much of a bottleneck. I'd say you're fine up to 2002. Initially this was a dual boot W98SE/XPSP3 system but I soon scrapped the XPSP3 partition and simply built my absolute 2003 dream machine with a higher clocked Barton and 9800 XT (pic related) and a Socket 939 system with an Athlon64 4000+ and X800XT.
There's not really a reason to make a specific 2003 machine I guess, I only did that because I loved the year.

I can easily make a 2003 machine... I have so many parts.... Can make both a athlon xp and a p4 machine from 2003. both high end...

the epox mobo u have is very good , but not for what u want. that is a perfect candidate for the ultimate win9x machine. also , expox boards are very hard to come by , so keep it...

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-06-17, 05:07:

A Geforce 4200 or Radeon 9500 would already be more than enough for any 2002 (and most 2003) games at high resolutions, maximum details and high framerates. Plus, anything above would be severely bottlenecked by the KT133A chhipset anyway, was I mentioned: my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 512 MB SDR-133 memory got 8700+ points with a Geforce 4600, 9400 with a Geforce FX 5950 Ultra, the difference is negligible! A Geforce 3 Ti 200 on the other hand would only score 4300.

I ended up getting the FX 5900 XT anyways, and I got 9886 points in 3DMark 2001 SE, which is more than you got with your FX 5950 Ultra. I suppose Barton's large cache shows here?

In 3DMark 2003 I got 4459, which is a quite sizeable improvement over FX 5600 Ultra's 2775 points.

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-22, 07:53:

now , it all matters on what u need the pc for... and most importantly what athlon xp it is...

i have a win 98 machine for late dos and early win 98 games with athlon 1.4 ghz with a geforce 3 ti 200 / geforce 4 ti 4200 but i also have a super high end win me athlon xp 3200+ machine with a ultrafast geforce 6800 GT for late windows ME/9x gaming or mid xp .

if u don t need to play the fanciest things on the pc , defo the 4200. cheap and decent. u can get the 64mb version or the 128 , will not make no difference to dos gaming.

It's an Athlon XP 2500+ that is modded to run at 1.8GHz despite 133MHz FSB. Based on 3DMark results, I guess it's not too bad of an bottleneck for the FX 5900 XT.

Mike_ wrote on 2026-07-26, 17:29:

I ended up getting the FX 5900 XT anyways, and I got 9886 points in 3DMark 2001 SE, which is more than you got with your FX 5950 […]
Show full quote

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-06-17, 05:07:

A Geforce 4200 or Radeon 9500 would already be more than enough for any 2002 (and most 2003) games at high resolutions, maximum details and high framerates. Plus, anything above would be severely bottlenecked by the KT133A chhipset anyway, was I mentioned: my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 512 MB SDR-133 memory got 8700+ points with a Geforce 4600, 9400 with a Geforce FX 5950 Ultra, the difference is negligible! A Geforce 3 Ti 200 on the other hand would only score 4300.

I ended up getting the FX 5900 XT anyways, and I got 9886 points in 3DMark 2001 SE, which is more than you got with your FX 5950 Ultra. I suppose Barton's large cache shows here?

In 3DMark 2003 I got 4459, which is a quite sizeable improvement over FX 5600 Ultra's 2775 points.

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-22, 07:53:

now , it all matters on what u need the pc for... and most importantly what athlon xp it is...

i have a win 98 machine for late dos and early win 98 games with athlon 1.4 ghz with a geforce 3 ti 200 / geforce 4 ti 4200 but i also have a super high end win me athlon xp 3200+ machine with a ultrafast geforce 6800 GT for late windows ME/9x gaming or mid xp .

if u don t need to play the fanciest things on the pc , defo the 4200. cheap and decent. u can get the 64mb version or the 128 , will not make no difference to dos gaming.

It's an Athlon XP 2500+ that is modded to run at 1.8GHz despite 133MHz FSB. Based on 3DMark results, I guess it's not too bad of an bottleneck for the FX 5900 XT.

It will not matter. There are no apps or games in the win 9x / 3.1 or dos eras that require so much horsepower 😀

I also have a super fast win 9x pc... actually , more powerful than yours... it s mainly a dream of mine since i could not afford the components back in the day... and the same thing... it s way to powerful for win 9x.

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-26, 19:56:

It will not matter. There are no apps or games in the win 9x / 3.1 or dos eras that require so much horsepower 😀

I also have a super fast win 9x pc... actually , more powerful than yours... it s mainly a dream of mine since i could not afford the components back in the day... and the same thing... it s way to powerful for win 9x.

Obviously it won't matter for DOS, but it should be useful for some 2003 or 2004 games. I also got it for 50 euros (about $60) which is quite cheap when compared to eBay prices.

Mike_ wrote on 2026-07-27, 05:54:

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-26, 19:56:

It will not matter. There are no apps or games in the win 9x / 3.1 or dos eras that require so much horsepower 😀

I also have a super fast win 9x pc... actually , more powerful than yours... it s mainly a dream of mine since i could not afford the components back in the day... and the same thing... it s way to powerful for win 9x.

Obviously it won't matter for DOS, but it should be useful for some 2003 or 2004 games. I also got it for 50 euros (about $60) which is quite cheap when compared to eBay prices.

It will depend on the resolution , but yes , that will do just fine/ish.

Don t imagine you will be able to play all games from 2004 because it will not. Specially if you have a monitor with more than 1024x768.

I went the other way to avoid this issue... I have a PC for win 98 , that is 2000 to 2001 era , this pc is mainly for dos games and windows 9x games till about 2000. Then I got a monster athlon xp 3200+ with a geforce 6800gt for any win 9x games up to 2004. This second pc , can easily be a win xp machine as well.

Regardless , 50 quid for the card is very good. well worth it. You can also put 768mb of ram in the pc , that will make it even faster... The cpu is ok , but if your mobo supports it , you can get a 2800+ or a 3000+ for like 20 30 pounds... that will also make a bit of a difference for playing 2003 2004 era games , just don t expect too much from the GPU for these year games. the 5900 is not anything special by all means. It will not be very good in 2004 era games , for that I would say , a 6600gt is your minimum.

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-27, 06:43:

It will depend on the resolution , but yes , that will do just fine/ish. […]
Show full quote

It will depend on the resolution , but yes , that will do just fine/ish.

Don t imagine you will be able to play all games from 2004 because it will not. Specially if you have a monitor with more than 1024x768.

I went the other way to avoid this issue... I have a PC for win 98 , that is 2000 to 2001 era , this pc is mainly for dos games and windows 9x games till about 2000. Then I got a monster athlon xp 3200+ with a geforce 6800gt for any win 9x games up to 2004. This second pc , can easily be a win xp machine as well.

Regardless , 50 quid for the card is very good. well worth it. You can also put 768mb of ram in the pc , that will make it even faster... The cpu is ok , but if your mobo supports it , you can get a 2800+ or a 3000+ for like 20 30 pounds... that will also make a bit of a difference for playing 2003 2004 era games , just don t expect too much from the GPU for these year games. the 5900 is not anything special by all means. It will not be very good in 2004 era games , for that I would say , a 6600gt is your minimum.

I know that FX series cards weren't that good, ATI cards such as Radeon 9800 Pro performed much better but unfortunately they are not as good for retro use due to worse legacy compatibility.

I doubt more RAM is going to help much as 512MB should be good enough until 2004 games or so, and Windows 98 can't utilize properly more than that anyways. Also, due to having KT133A chipset, memory is just 133MHz SDR so I doubt a faster CPU would help much. I could have just overclocked the 2500+ a bit, but I decided not to due to slow memory.

Mike_ wrote on 2026-07-30, 14:54:

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-27, 06:43:

It will depend on the resolution , but yes , that will do just fine/ish. […]
Show full quote

It will depend on the resolution , but yes , that will do just fine/ish.

Don t imagine you will be able to play all games from 2004 because it will not. Specially if you have a monitor with more than 1024x768.

I went the other way to avoid this issue... I have a PC for win 98 , that is 2000 to 2001 era , this pc is mainly for dos games and windows 9x games till about 2000. Then I got a monster athlon xp 3200+ with a geforce 6800gt for any win 9x games up to 2004. This second pc , can easily be a win xp machine as well.

Regardless , 50 quid for the card is very good. well worth it. You can also put 768mb of ram in the pc , that will make it even faster... The cpu is ok , but if your mobo supports it , you can get a 2800+ or a 3000+ for like 20 30 pounds... that will also make a bit of a difference for playing 2003 2004 era games , just don t expect too much from the GPU for these year games. the 5900 is not anything special by all means. It will not be very good in 2004 era games , for that I would say , a 6600gt is your minimum.

I know that FX series cards weren't that good, ATI cards such as Radeon 9800 Pro performed much better but unfortunately they are not as good for retro use due to worse legacy compatibility.

I doubt more RAM is going to help much as 512MB should be good enough until 2004 games or so, and Windows 98 can't utilize properly more than that anyways. Also, due to having KT133A chipset, memory is just 133MHz SDR so I doubt a faster CPU would help much. I could have just overclocked the 2500+ a bit, but I decided not to due to slow memory.

That is a early 9x pc. I would not even bother with games from 2004.

But it s a DAMN good pc for win9x and will play anything up to 2001 on 1024x768.

Don t try to make it into something that is not. I mean the pc is great , you can get away with the 5900 if need be. but not for 2003 2004 games. the gpu is too powerfull. that is why , multiple people recommended 4200 ti. that is the SWEET spot.

If you want to play 2003 + games... then u need to change the setup completly. ddr1 , barton 3200 or p4 3.2 , 2 or 4 gb ram and obviously , windows xp.

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-30, 15:58:

That is a early 9x pc. I would not even bother with games from 2004. […]
Show full quote

That is a early 9x pc. I would not even bother with games from 2004.

But it s a DAMN good pc for win9x and will play anything up to 2001 on 1024x768.

Don t try to make it into something that is not. I mean the pc is great , you can get away with the 5900 if need be. but not for 2003 2004 games. the gpu is too powerfull. that is why , multiple people recommended 4200 ti. that is the SWEET spot.

If you want to play 2003 + games... then u need to change the setup completly. ddr1 , barton 3200 or p4 3.2 , 2 or 4 gb ram and obviously , windows xp.

Why would you need gigabytes of ram or windows xp for 2003/2004 games? That doesn't make any sense at all, I had 4gb of ram in PC I got in 2010...

Also, I did get a decent boost in 3DMark 2001SE scores and a quite nice boost in 3DMark 2003 over FX 5600 Ultra, which is comparable to Geforce 4 4200/4400 ti, so I'd imagine that it would be useful in some games as well. DDR1 would also mean ditching DOS compatibility as there are basically no motherboards that have both DDR and an ISA slot, so the entire point of the setup would be gone.

Also, getting a Geforce 4 4200 ti would have cost about the same as the FX 5900 XT.

Mike_ wrote on 2026-07-30, 16:44:

Why would you need gigabytes of ram or windows xp for 2003/2004 games? That doesn't make any sense at all, I had 4gb of ram in P […]
Show full quote

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-30, 15:58:

That is a early 9x pc. I would not even bother with games from 2004. […]
Show full quote

That is a early 9x pc. I would not even bother with games from 2004.

But it s a DAMN good pc for win9x and will play anything up to 2001 on 1024x768.

Don t try to make it into something that is not. I mean the pc is great , you can get away with the 5900 if need be. but not for 2003 2004 games. the gpu is too powerfull. that is why , multiple people recommended 4200 ti. that is the SWEET spot.

If you want to play 2003 + games... then u need to change the setup completly. ddr1 , barton 3200 or p4 3.2 , 2 or 4 gb ram and obviously , windows xp.

Why would you need gigabytes of ram or windows xp for 2003/2004 games? That doesn't make any sense at all, I had 4gb of ram in PC I got in 2010...

Also, I did get a decent boost in 3DMark 2001SE scores and a quite nice boost in 3DMark 2003 over FX 5600 Ultra, which is comparable to Geforce 4 4200/4400 ti, so I'd imagine that it would be useful in some games as well. DDR1 would also mean ditching DOS compatibility as there are basically no motherboards that have both DDR and an ISA slot, so the entire point of the setup would be gone.

Also, getting a Geforce 4 4200 ti would have cost about the same as the FX 5900 XT.

there are PLENTY of mobos with ddr1 that have ISA slots. think there are 775 boards with ISA slots as well...

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-30, 20:12:

there are PLENTY of mobos with ddr1 that have ISA slots. think there are 775 boards with ISA slots as well...

As far as I know, KT133A chipset is the last that has ISA slots. There might be some special purpose industrial boards that have them for later CPUs, but they are probably rare and expensive.

Also, Athlon XP 2500+ should easily be sufficient for later than 2001 games, even with SDR memory. Easily for 2002 and probably for most 2003 and maybe some 2004 games.

Mike_ wrote on 2026-07-30, 20:59:

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-30, 20:12:

there are PLENTY of mobos with ddr1 that have ISA slots. think there are 775 boards with ISA slots as well...

As far as I know, KT133A chipset is the last that has ISA slots. There might be some special purpose industrial boards that have them for later CPUs, but they are probably rare and expensive.

Also, Athlon XP 2500+ should easily be sufficient for later than 2001 games, even with SDR memory. Easily for 2002 and probably for most 2003 and maybe some 2004 games.

Ok,

Enjoy your setup! It looks nice and you will get to have lots of fun!

Mike_ wrote on 2026-07-30, 20:59:

bitzu101 wrote on 2026-07-30, 20:12:

there are PLENTY of mobos with ddr1 that have ISA slots. think there are 775 boards with ISA slots as well...

As far as I know, KT133A chipset is the last that has ISA slots. There might be some special purpose industrial boards that have them for later CPUs, but they are probably rare and expensive.

Also, Athlon XP 2500+ should easily be sufficient for later than 2001 games, even with SDR memory. Easily for 2002 and probably for most 2003 and maybe some 2004 games.

I have both a socket 462 and 478 board with ISA slots.

775 with ISA exists, too, possibly even later ones, but: beware, from 478 on, all boards with ISA slots are industrial bots that cost an arm and a leg AND most 775 boards and all later ones do have ISA slots but don't have the necessary functions to address vintage sound cards, so they don't make sense outside of their intended industrial use case.

Also, 2003 and 2004 games with SDR RAM will definitely bottleneck hard.
Even UT2003 will already run literally twice as fast with DDR 333 or DDR 400, especially when dual channel enters the room.
2004 top titles will be borderline unplayable. They run perfectly fine on my P4 3 GHz board with 333 MHz DDR, but like ass on my Epox 8KTA3+ with SDR-133 even though that has a Barton 2500+ and a Geforce FX 5900 XT. UT 2004, is choppy Doom 3 is a slideshow, SDR is really only viable vor Windows 98 titles imho.

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-08-07, 20:34:

I have both a socket 462 and 478 board with ISA slots. […]
Show full quote

I have both a socket 462 and 478 board with ISA slots.

775 with ISA exists, too, possibly even later ones, but: beware, from 478 on, all boards with ISA slots are industrial bots that cost an arm and a leg AND most 775 boards and all later ones do have ISA slots but don't have the necessary functions to address vintage sound cards, so they don't make sense outside of their intended industrial use case.

Also, 2003 and 2004 games with SDR RAM will definitely bottleneck hard.
Even UT2003 will already run literally twice as fast with DDR 333 or DDR 400, especially when dual channel enters the room.
2004 top titles will be borderline unplayable. They run perfectly fine on my P4 3 GHz board with 333 MHz DDR, but like ass on my Epox 8KTA3+ with SDR-133 even though that has a Barton 2500+ and a Geforce FX 5900 XT. UT 2004, is choppy Doom 3 is a slideshow, SDR is really only viable vor Windows 98 titles imho.

Obviously 2004 top titles won't run well. Probably there are some 2003 games that aren't smooth as well. But it is what it is. It doesn't matter whether SDR memory is bottlenecking the GPU as it's not really feasible to get both DDR memory and ISA slot as you said, and I'm not going to build an XP build either. I still got a decent boost in 3dmark 2001 SE with the FX 5900xt (9886 / 8389 = 118%) so it should be useful in games as well.

Hmm, I guess I could check how Jedi Academy runs.

Mike_ wrote on 2026-08-08, 05:12:

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-08-07, 20:34:

I have both a socket 462 and 478 board with ISA slots. […]
Show full quote

I have both a socket 462 and 478 board with ISA slots.

775 with ISA exists, too, possibly even later ones, but: beware, from 478 on, all boards with ISA slots are industrial bots that cost an arm and a leg AND most 775 boards and all later ones do have ISA slots but don't have the necessary functions to address vintage sound cards, so they don't make sense outside of their intended industrial use case.

Also, 2003 and 2004 games with SDR RAM will definitely bottleneck hard.
Even UT2003 will already run literally twice as fast with DDR 333 or DDR 400, especially when dual channel enters the room.
2004 top titles will be borderline unplayable. They run perfectly fine on my P4 3 GHz board with 333 MHz DDR, but like ass on my Epox 8KTA3+ with SDR-133 even though that has a Barton 2500+ and a Geforce FX 5900 XT. UT 2004, is choppy Doom 3 is a slideshow, SDR is really only viable vor Windows 98 titles imho.

Obviously 2004 top titles won't run well. Probably there are some 2003 games that aren't smooth as well. But it is what it is. It doesn't matter whether SDR memory is bottlenecking the GPU as it's not really feasible to get both DDR memory and ISA slot as you said, and I'm not going to build an XP build either. I still got a decent boost in 3dmark 2001 SE with the FX 5900xt (9886 / 8389 = 118%) so it should be useful in games as well.

Hmm, I guess I could check how Jedi Academy runs.

I wasn't saying you should pick a card that can do that, or that such a build makes sense. I just wanted to say that, unlike the previous poster said, "later than 2001 games" would certainly NOT run well. Which is completely fine, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about how performant such hardware would be. I am using said hardware myself and can say with certainty that it should not be recommended to people looking to play "2001 and later" games, due to said SDR memory bottleneck. It works really well in DOS and Win 9.x, though. I haven't run Win 3.X since the days of old, so I'd guess it doesn't have any drivers for AGP graphics cards. Whether it can at least give you some simple default VGA output at least, I don't know.

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-08-10, 08:38:

I wasn't saying you should pick a card that can do that, or that such a build makes sense. I just wanted to say that, unlike the previous poster said, "later than 2001 games" would certainly NOT run well. Which is completely fine, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about how performant such hardware would be. I am using said hardware myself and can say with certainty that it should not be recommended to people looking to play "2001 and later" games, due to said SDR memory bottleneck. It works really well in DOS and Win 9.x, though. I haven't run Win 3.X since the days of old, so I'd guess it doesn't have any drivers for AGP graphics cards. Whether it can at least give you some simple default VGA output at least, I don't know.

My point was that basically saying that 2002 and later games won't run well is a massive exaggeration. 2002 is also "later than 2001" and those games should run fine even on SDR memory, though so far I have only tested Morrowind. But I agree that 2004 is pushing it too far. 2003 probably depends on the game, but I'd expect most games to be fine.

Also, if you are only interested in "later than 2001" games, then a KT133A based build is obviously a wrong choice as you don't need DOS compatibility, which is the point of this build.

I will now give up trying to explain that I only wanted to convey that that your statement a 2500+ would "easily" run games from 2001 "and later" even when paired with SDR memory might lead people to wrong assumptions.

It is plain to anyone here, including myself, that games from that time frame are obviously never what one would use a KT133A based build for, especially not one with legacy compatiblity features like ISA slots.

I believe I already stated I am using my own KT133A and Intel i845G ISA systems for DOS and Windows 98 games (as in: nothing that was released when XP was already available). I only even mentioned I have these to underline that I know what I am talking about when I state that a Barton, which by the way probably does not even run its full clockspeed on such a board, does not "easily" play games from basically the early Windows XP era when bottlenecked by SDR RAM.
Bartons were usually running 166 or 200 MHz FSB (if not overclocked to 250!), and most often accompanied by not just DDR RAM running 333 or 400 MHz, but making use of dual channel increasing bandwidth even further. When I put the same AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton and Geforce 5900 XT on an nforce 2 Ultra board with 400 FSB and dual channel DDR-400 memory, the 3DMark 2001SE score almost triples compared to a KT133A board running 2x256 MB SDR-133!

Sure, Morrowind falls into that era, but for one it was not a demanding game at all, running even on a 500 MHz Pentium III or the earliest Athlons. Also as it is less of a fast-paced action game, it's not as bad to play at only 30 FPS.
But if you want to play UT2003 without getting eye cancer whenever you turn around or there are 3 or more other players on the screen, that SDR memory is going to hurt.

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-08-10, 10:06:

I will now give up trying to explain that I only wanted to convey that that your statement a 2500+ would "easily" run games from 2001 "and later" even when paired with SDR memory might lead people to wrong assumptions.

It is plain to anyone here, including myself, that games from that time frame are obviously never what one would use a KT133A based build for, especially not one with legacy compatiblity features like ISA slots.

I believe I already stated I am using my own KT133A and Intel i845G ISA systems for DOS and Windows 98 games (as in: nothing that was released when XP was already available). I only even mentioned I have these to underline that I know what I am talking about when I state that a Barton, which by the way probably does not even run its full clockspeed on such a board, does not "easily" play games from basically the early Windows XP era when bottlenecked by SDR RAM.

And in my experience that's just not true, at least not to that extent.

Obviously you need to modify Barton's multiplier in some way, either through BIOS or by modifying the bridges, or it'll run underclocked on a 133MHz FSB board. If you haven't done that, the clock speed goes down by 20%.

Also, what does ISA slot have to do with performance? KT133A board with ISA should perform the same as one without.

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-08-10, 10:06:

Bartons were usually running 166 or 200 MHz FSB (if not overclocked to 250!), and most often accompanied by not just DDR RAM running 333 or 400 MHz, but making use of dual channel increasing bandwidth even further. When I put the same AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton and Geforce 5900 XT on an nforce 2 Ultra board with 400 FSB and dual channel DDR-400 memory, the 3DMark 2001SE score almost triples compared to a KT133A board running 2x256 MB SDR-133!

Dual channel memory was basically useless for Bartons as the FSB could only utilize bandwidth for a single channel.

I don't believe that you are going to get almost 30k points on 3DMark 2001 SE with nForce2, 2500+ and FX 5900XT, either. Based on this review, Athlon XP 3000+ and Radeon 9800 Pro (which is more powerful than the FX series top models!) got about 15k points.

https://www.guru3d.com/review/3d-prophet-rade … review/page-14/

NorsteinB wrote on 2026-08-10, 10:06:

Sure, Morrowind falls into that era, but for one it was not a demanding game at all, running even on a 500 MHz Pentium III or the earliest Athlons. Also as it is less of a fast-paced action game, it's not as bad to play at only 30 FPS.
But if you want to play UT2003 without getting eye cancer whenever you turn around or there are 3 or more other players on the screen, that SDR memory is going to hurt.

Umm.. Morrowind was a very CPU demanding game for its time, even though requirements on box were quite low. It's actually quite famous for that. Though I have to admit that I haven't played UT2003 and it's apparently from 2002 despite its name.

EDIT: I tried benchmark in UT2003 Demo and I got 134.7 points for flyby and 51.3 for botmatch. Based on the same review I linked, FX 5800 Ultra got 181 and 71, respectively. That means decreases of 25.5% and 27.7%. Clearly SDR memory is not ideal, but its hardly half the frame rate either, and should be playable enough.

https://www.guru3d.com/review/3d-prophet-rade … -review/page-9/

EDIT2: This of course ignores that Athlon XP 3000+ used in the review has 20% more clock speed as well...

Mike_ wrote on 2026-07-30, 20:59:

As far as I know, KT133A chipset is the last that has ISA slots. There might be some special purpose industrial boards that have them for later CPUs, but they are probably rare and expensive.

Pentium 4 motherboards with ISA slots are surprisingly not rare. They're commonly listed on Ebay.

They're just generally expensive, typically starting at $200 $133 USD and up, one of the reasons many of them are still available.

edited to add:

Slight correction, noticed there are AIMB 742 motherboards available for $133 USD. One seller lists 10 available at that price.