I think the GF2 will be clearly faster unless you overload the 32MB RAM and cause it to swap across PCI a lot. I've seen that sort of thing with Radeon SDR PCI, with for example Jedi Knight 2's high texture quality setting. It turns into a slideshow. But keep the texture memory usage in check and it's fast.

The most resource intensive game this particular system will be required to run is maybe Tomb Raider 6.
http://gamesystemrequirements.com/games.php?id=781

The System is a
Pentium 4 2.0GHz with 512K cache
256MB or possibly 512MB DDR Ram
... and one of those 2 GPU's
Will be running Windows 98SE

Games will be run at between 640x480 and not higher than 800x600. Should be able to run at Medium-High texture detail (AA/AF etc will not be not needed).
Would also need to sustain framerates above 45FPS.

Do you think this machine will cut it, or am I expecting too much?

Thanks.

AoD looks to require TnL, which the TNT2 doesn't support, so you're going to be forced to use the GF2 MX or something newer. I haven't installed the game in quite some time, but I don't remember having issues with it on an FX 5900XT. I would probably suggest getting something better than a GF2 MX if you want high frame-rates and high IQ, even at lower resolution - a GeForce 4 Ti perhaps. 😊

obobskivich wrote:

AoD looks to require TnL, which the TNT2 doesn't support, so you're going to be forced to use the GF2 MX or something newer. I haven't installed the game in quite some time, but I don't remember having issues with it on an FX 5900XT. I would probably suggest getting something better than a GF2 MX if you want high frame-rates and high IQ, even at lower resolution - a GeForce 4 Ti perhaps. 😊

Well, I have an AGP Radeon 9200 128MB/128-Bit which I had other plans for, but maybe I'll put it in there then. It's not in the league of a GF4 Ti, but it's at least on par with an FX5200.

TR Angel of Darkness is a D3D9 game and uses pixel shader 2.0 effects. I wouldn't run less than a Radeon 9800 or Geforce 6600 for it. Geforce FX is also a bad choice since this is one of the games that started to clue everyone in on how poor NV3x is for PS2.0.

The game certainly has fallback paths for older cards but is that really the way to go? 😉

Just to note - the Radeon 9200 doesn't support DX9 like the FX 5200 and other FX cards do. It would support TnL and should have superior performance to the GF2 MX (it's based on the same design as the Radeon 8500, but isn't as fast), so it should allow the game to run, and run better than on the 2 MX. But as swaaye points out, it probably won't run everything maxed out (and I honestly don't remember my 5900XT running the game "maxed" but I do know it was at least playable (it's been a while since I last had it loaded up) - if you want heavy SM2.0 effects I'd agree with Radeon 9800/GF6600 as the minimum).

How do you pronounce Riva? Like river but with a ah at the end?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

How do you pronounce Riva? Like river but with a ah at the end?

I've always said "Riva" like "diva" and that's how I've heard it from others, but I don't know if it's accurate. 😊

🤣 what a pain 😀

I actually tried out a TNT2 last night with Forsaken but it seems I only have the M64 versions with the 64 bit bus. The game comes with a profile for the RivaTNT and that worked fine 😀 The next card up I got is some version of a GeForce 2. Could be an MX.

Oh and I got a quadro version of a proper GeForce2. Pro I think.

TNT2 M64s are very common cards - not bad as far as a basic 2D/3D card goes, but not performance monsters by any means. I think I still have 2-3 of them kicking around; nice for testing out and such, but there's certainly better options even from the same era for higher performance/features. As far as the Quadro goes, afaik it's the Quadro2 Pro that's based on the GF2 GTS - I don't think there's an Ti or Ultra based Quadro. There are MX based Quadro cards as well, not sure how common any of these are though.

I actually have a Creative labs based stock TNT2 coupled to a Willy P4 Its not a M64 version just a stock TNT2.
It does OK, for older things.... I think I may of posted 3dmark scores for it.

Is there a tool similar to GPU-Z that runs under Windows 98SE? Basically something that identifies the card and clocks.

Try RivaTuner (2.24 I think)
or CPU-Z
http://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/1.57-win98.zip

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Is there a tool similar to GPU-Z that runs under Windows 98SE? Basically something that identifies the card and clocks.

CPU-Z works but I can't remember if it displays clocks. Will check at home.

The other option is to check on a machine with XP. But will newer versions support such old cards?

CPU-Z does display clocks (core/shaders/vram), well, in 7 at least, I don't remember using it in win98.
Rivatuner should def work as it features overclocking (I don't fancy the layout though), but I'm not sure about ATI cards, maybe only the later Radeons.

CPU-Z will display the firmware or driver specified "performance levels" for the card, but doesn't always accurately reflect current/real-time GPU clocking (and sometimes cards will never drop into certain states for whatever reason).

You can also pull more general information by booting UBCD and loading AIDA or Astra - they'll generally tell you what's installed and try to read how much memory it has; sometimes they're inaccurate though (both of them read both of my 7950GX2s as 16MB cards - they're 512MB/GPU 🤣; they DO accurately report that they're 7950GX2s though).

As far as GPU-Z with old hardware - I've never had luck getting it to work well with them, especially with non-nVidia/ATi boards. 😢

Ok guys so this bugged me and I had to find out 😀

I used my P4 3.2 GHz Windows XP reference build. Latest CPU-Z and GPU-Z and detection works fine!

Here some images of various cards. And I finally got around to putting a piece of paper in for each card with the model written on it 😀

And yes, I don't have a single, proper, TNT2 😒

Everest Home Edition works on 9x and reads GPU info.

Right... So what am I supposed to make of this? Or has the thread just derailed a bit. 🤣