Depends on what you're planning to play.

If 2004+-ish stuff then a R300 series card (Radeon 9500+) or Geforce6 is your best friend.

If anything before, then either a GeforceFX (shudder) or some other Geforce2/3/4 is your best friend.

And even earlier, and if you've got 3.3v, then a Voodoo3-5 or an a secondary Voodoo2 is your best friend. IT's not the best for that CPU though

leileilol wrote:

Depends on what you're planning to play. […]
Show full quote

Depends on what you're planning to play.

If 2004+-ish stuff then a R300 series card (Radeon 9500+) or Geforce6 is your best friend.

If anything before, then either a GeforceFX (shudder) or some other Geforce2/3/4 is your best friend.

And even earlier, and if you've got 3.3v, then a Voodoo3-5 or an a secondary Voodoo2 is your best friend. IT's not the best for that CPU though

Playing 1995-2001 mostly.
And my Voodoo 3 gives my graphically issues in 320x200 so I can't use that.

For that timeframe I'd go with a geforce 4 ti. You could get a faster card for the price for sure but anything more than that would probably be lost on that CPU anyway. Ive gotten ti4200 and ti4400 cards on eBay with some patience for 10-15. Ti4600 will be closer to your top end price.

If you're not doing anything too new for first-gen shaders then I'd probably throw a Geforce4 Ti or Quadro 980XGL in it, but I don't know what compatibility issues might exist with 1990s games.

I bought a Geforce4 Ti 4600 for 15 bucks and a Pentium 3 1.4-S for 7.50. Seems like a good setup for my Voodoo 2's.

I have a 128-bit Geforce FX5200 on my 933Mhz P3. It's about as fast as a GF3 Ti200 without AA/AF, and slightly faster with AA/AF. Plus, it is fanless and runs cooler, so may last longer. Lastly, it supports Directx 9, so it will support the Unreal patch that enables D3D9:
http://www.oldunreal.com/oldunrealpatches.html

I'm assuming you'll be running Win98. The fastest cards for 98 are the GF 6600/6800 series and the Radeon 9800 Pro. But I'm not sure with your cpu if they'd be noticeably faster than something like the FX5200.

clueless1 wrote:

But I'm not sure with your cpu if they'd be noticeably faster than something like the FX5200.

They will.

Reasonable max I'd say Geforce4 TI.

MrEWhite wrote:

And my Voodoo 3 gives my graphically issues in 320x200 so I can't use that.

Wich chipset? Wich Voodoo model? In wich games?
Your Geforce4 4600 have no issues there?

leileilol wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

But I'm not sure with your cpu if they'd be noticeably faster than something like the FX5200.

They will.

I wondered because on my P3-933 there is a lot of CPU bottlenecking with the bunch of graphics cards I've tested on it and 1133 is only 21% faster.

Tertz wrote:

Reasonable max I'd say Geforce4 TI. […]
Show full quote

Reasonable max I'd say Geforce4 TI.

MrEWhite wrote:

And my Voodoo 3 gives my graphically issues in 320x200 so I can't use that.

Wich chipset? Wich Voodoo model? In wich games?
Your Geforce4 4600 have no issues there?

Pretty much all games. It's an issue with Frame Buffer Post Write on the Voodoo 3, and I have a VIA chipset on the Gigabyte GA-6VTXE. No option to turn it off in the BIOS.

As others have mentioned a GF4 ti4x00 would be optimal, if you upgrade the CPU to a P3 1400-S then even a FX5900 makes sense but the ti4600 is fast enough. The DOS compatibility should be decent.

I don't wanna touch FX 😜

I find it sad that people simply dislike the FX family of cards despite their merits. As a DX8 card they are fine! Once you go DX9-land they are crap, but for older stuff they are the last retro-friendly (universal AGP+legacy compatibility) GeForce cards.

MrEWhite wrote:

I don't wanna touch FX 😜

Well the FX5900 is the optimal Windows 9x video card as the FX5950 and the GF6800 have worse driver compatibility but luckily few Windows 9x systems need a video card faster than a GF4 ti4600. 😀

MrEWhite wrote:

Pretty much all games. It's an issue with Frame Buffer Post Write on the Voodoo 3, and I have a VIA chipset on the Gigabyte GA-6VTXE. No option to turn it off in the BIOS.

It's awful. Probably Intel chipsets have no such issue with Voodoo 3 AGP. 440BX MB looks as more universal decision except you want Tualatin. Even for Tualatin, taking into account PowerLeap adaptor, BX440 MB looks better as it should be faster. Many cards of that period handle 89 MHz AGP not badly.

MrEWhite wrote:

I don't wanna touch FX 😜

In case you'll want Tualatin, then you'll want max and Geforce 6600 is your choice or even 7xxx with unofficial drivers.

alexanrs wrote:

I find it sad that people simply dislike the FX family of cards despite their merits. As a DX8 card they are fine! Once you go DX9-land they are crap, but for older stuff they are the last retro-friendly (universal AGP+legacy compatibility) GeForce cards.

The last really retro-friendly I'd say Geforce3 as later ones, as I heard, have limit 640x480 in Win9x dosbox.
3V AGP is also supported on some GF6xxx cards. Have no data about other issues compared to 5xxx except palettized texture and fog table.

As for 5xxx I have doubts about their 2D speed in real DOS and handling 89 MHz AGP compared to 4xxx. While most 5xxx speed in 3D is rather close to 4xxx: middle range 5700 is only a little faster than low end 4200.
Another thing about "legacy compatibility" of 5xxx - some 59xx have issues with vesa, so unirefresh does not work and people need change their bioses. So 58xx may be called the last relatively legacy friendly cards.

I've used GeForce 4MX and FX cards and do not remember having those issues. I currently have a Duron system with a GF4 Ti but have not tested any high resolution games. In fact the only nitpick I have with FX cards for DOS gaming (when using them on CRTs) is that they ignore VBE 3.0 refresh rate commands to improve compatibility with LCDs of the time.

Tertz wrote:

As for 5xxx I have doubts about their 2D speed in real DOS and handling 89 MHz AGP compared to 4xxx.

I can't vouch for 89Mhz AGP compatibility, but 2D DOS speed of at least the FX5200 was excellent. Pretty much on par with TNT2 M64 and GF2 MX. So perhaps that gives hope for the rest of the 5xxx line.

alexanrs wrote:

I've used GeForce 4MX and FX cards and do not remember having those issues. I currently have a Duron system with a GF4 Ti but have not tested any high resolution games.

It's easy to check is that problem real on something like Duke3D. Also this may to be not on all drivers versions - history of their updates may to have this mentioned.
As I've understood from your message you tried and had no problems with AGP 89 MHz. That's good.
As for possible slower speed in DOS this may to be measured by fps in Doom (with fastvid) and then compared with GF4 or GF3. Even if the speed difference exists, then practically may to be not noticable during gameplay anyway.

In fact the only nitpick I have with FX cards for DOS gaming (when using them on CRTs) is that they ignore VBE 3.0 refresh rate commands to improve compatibility with LCDs of the time.

I mentioned refresh rate issues with vesa on 59xx. If you are using other model, hence the problem is wider. On your card you may try other bios to fix this issue.