this is probably a geforce 3 or 4 ti era board, but it's difficult to say, geforce 2 mx was a common card when the board was new...

Radeon 9600, Radeon 9800, Geforce3 or GeForce4.

Seems like a good combination for some vanilla 6800 or other slower GF 6800 variant, perhaps an FX 5900 or so?
My Barton 3200+ originally came with a Radeon 9600 and upgrading it to a 7600GS (roughly similar in performance to a GF6800) increased performance considerably in my case.

Any slower one like GF4 will of course also work, but imo TNT2 (any variant!) and GF2 MX are way too slow for such a rig! I think such cards are of better use using a non-Tualatin Pentium 3 or so.

But GF2 MX and TNT2 should work...just don't expect fantastic performance using those with a 2700+

Just my €0.02 😀

GeForce 4/3 seems reaosnable. As I said I dislike ATI/AMD graphics, 3dfx or Team Green.

For that go with GeforceFX 5900/6600/6800/7600

Avoid the 6600LE, 6800XT, or 6800LE

Yeah... GF-6600/6800 can do as well. There is a catch with these.
Running anything faster than FX-5xxx card's, you start having driver issues and compatibility issues on Win98.
For Win98, I would still say GF-3/4 or Radeon-9600/9800.
For WinXP, you can just go nuts up to the point were the bottleneck begins to be the CPU.

voodoo 5500
fx5950 ultra
9800 pro
6800 ultra

Ultra isn't worth it on an athlon xp, a 6800gt and 6800ultra will preform identically because the cup bottlenecks them below 1600x1200 even games like far-cry they will preform identically.

brostenen wrote:

Yeah... GF-6600/6800 can do as well. There is a catch with these. Running anything faster than FX-5xxx card's, you start having […]
Show full quote

Yeah... GF-6600/6800 can do as well. There is a catch with these.
Running anything faster than FX-5xxx card's, you start having driver issues and compatibility issues on Win98.
For Win98, I would still say GF-3/4 or Radeon-9600/9800.
For WinXP, you can just go nuts up to the point were the bottleneck begins to be the CPU.

It will be a WinXP build (It already is, I may add Windows 2000 for my sanity though)

I guess it will be what is cheap and available, but a question is do I need to get a 4x AGP card, or will some 8x cards work? It it like PCI-E where graphics cards will work with less lanes?

If it can do AGPx8 then go for that. If we are talking about PCI-E, then it is way out of my league. Regarding knowing what is the best. I simply lost interrest in gaming the newest stuff, from around 2004/06 and onwards. From that point, I simply stopped having any interrest in the newest new and shiny stuff avaliable on the market.

brostenen wrote:

If it can do AGPx8 then go for that. If we are talking about PCI-E, then it is way out of my league. Regarding knowing what is the best. I simply lost interrest in gaming the newest stuff, from around 2004/06 and onwards. From that point, I simply stopped having any interrest in the newest new and shiny stuff avaliable on the market.

No I am asking since the board only does 4x, 8x cards won't work?

Most 8X AGP cards are two-way, 4x/8x cards. I'd check the voltage rail support from the MB and the card requirements before dropping something in. I have an Abit MB as well with an Athlon XP 1800+ and I have a Radeon 9550 in there. I SHOULD put a 9700 Pro or 9800XL in there, but those would cost money.

All 8x cars support 1.5v and are agp 4/8 some early agp 8x even work with 3.3v

candle_86 wrote:

Ultra isn't worth it on an athlon xp, a 6800gt and 6800ultra will preform identically because the cup bottlenecks them below 1600x1200 even games like far-cry they will preform identically.

Then up the res. or oc the cpu.

Jade Falcon wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

Ultra isn't worth it on an athlon xp, a 6800gt and 6800ultra will preform identically because the cup bottlenecks them below 1600x1200 even games like far-cry they will preform identically.

Then up the res. or oc the cpu.

Lol, I am too nervous to take off the heatsink due to the barbaric mounting system and exposed die.

It is copper tho.

I've got a Riva TNT2 32MB card in my Pentium II build with Windows 98, but I received my "new" Pentium III Katmai processor a few days ago. It took me almost half an hour to remove the thermal paste residue from the die with alcohol, but I got it clean. I'm just waiting on the heatsink and some thermal pads (for the cache chips) before I mount everything, swap it out for my P2, and cross my fingers as I hit the power button. If it all works well, I'll have a 600MHz processor instead of a 350MHz one to push the TNT2 and the dual Voodoo2 cards in SLI. I hope I double my framerates in Quake 1/2, Unreal, and Half-Life.

For the time-period (~1999), the TNT2 card seems quite powerful when playing the games of its time. That is why I chose that card to go into that system. I also had to deal with the AGP slot only being 2x (5v), and the processor being only 350-600MHz limiting the games that could be played anyway. So the TNT2 seemed to be the best fit for that slot. Also including the dual V2 cards in SLI for pretty much total Glide support and I've got a pretty powerful period system (even though I'm putting a 2000 processor in it).

But yeah, I agree the TNT2 would be woefully underpowered for a high-speed Athlon XP processor. My guess for the best card is as I said above, a Radeon 9700 Pro or 9800 or 9800XL. From what I've been able to read, those are the fastest graphics cards of the time period that worked on a 4x AGP bus. Sure, nVidia put out the 6xxx and 7xxx series with AGP support, but the only way you'd see the performance increase is with a full 8x AGP slot or the move to PCI-Express. My laptop has a PCI-Express Go 7800GTX with 256MB of VRAM and it absolutely smoked - it was so beast. it needed that power to push the 1920x1200 resolution 17" LCD panel screen. That was the first time I had seen 1080p resolutions and it was glorious.

Of course, now 1080 is, like, bare-bones for gaming. Everyone has a 1080 display. I just got a 1440p 144Hz G-sync display, the Acer Predator. And it is such a bad-ass monitor...it better be for the $800 I paid for it. I hope it lasts me at least 10 years.

EDIT: Yes, I will be doing full benchmarks with Quake I, Quake 2, and 3DMark99 so you will be able to see the difference from the processor swap. I'm sure people here will be very interested in that.

FFXIhealer wrote:

I've got a Riva TNT2 32MB card in my Pentium II build with Windows 98, but I received my "new" Pentium III Katmai processor a fe […]
Show full quote

I've got a Riva TNT2 32MB card in my Pentium II build with Windows 98, but I received my "new" Pentium III Katmai processor a few days ago. It took me almost half an hour to remove the thermal paste residue from the die with alcohol, but I got it clean. I'm just waiting on the heatsink and some thermal pads (for the cache chips) before I mount everything, swap it out for my P2, and cross my fingers as I hit the power button. If it all works well, I'll have a 600MHz processor instead of a 350MHz one to push the TNT2 and the dual Voodoo2 cards in SLI. I hope I double my framerates in Quake 1/2, Unreal, and Half-Life.

For the time-period (~1999), the TNT2 card seems quite powerful when playing the games of its time. That is why I chose that card to go into that system. I also had to deal with the AGP slot only being 2x (5v), and the processor being only 350-600MHz limiting the games that could be played anyway. So the TNT2 seemed to be the best fit for that slot. Also including the dual V2 cards in SLI for pretty much total Glide support and I've got a pretty powerful period system (even though I'm putting a 2000 processor in it).

But yeah, I agree the TNT2 would be woefully underpowered for a high-speed Athlon XP processor. My guess for the best card is as I said above, a Radeon 9700 Pro or 9800 or 9800XL. From what I've been able to read, those are the fastest graphics cards of the time period that worked on a 4x AGP bus. Sure, nVidia put out the 6xxx and 7xxx series with AGP support, but the only way you'd see the performance increase is with a full 8x AGP slot or the move to PCI-Express. My laptop has a PCI-Express Go 7800GTX with 256MB of VRAM and it absolutely smoked - it was so beast. it needed that power to push the 1920x1200 resolution 17" LCD panel screen. That was the first time I had seen 1080p resolutions and it was glorious.

Of course, now 1080 is, like, bare-bones for gaming. Everyone has a 1080 display. I just got a 1440p 144Hz G-sync display, the Acer Predator. And it is such a bad-ass monitor...it better be for the $800 I paid for it. I hope it lasts me at least 10 years.

EDIT: Yes, I will be doing full benchmarks with Quake I, Quake 2, and 3DMark99 so you will be able to see the difference from the processor swap. I'm sure people here will be very interested in that.

🤣, i had a 1600x900 monitor for the longest time. recently upgraded to 1920x1080 IPS, which is a gorgeous panel.

The first card that comes to mind is the Radeon 9800 Pro, but since you're set on Nvidia, I'd go with either a Ti4600 or FX 5950 Ultra.

I tested a few cards on a Pentium 4 2.8 a while ago (similar performance to an Athlon XP 2700+). The Ti4600 seemed to be the best fit overall. The FX 5950 was faster in older games, but crippled in DX9 games. It was also slightly CPU limited at 1024x768.

I tested a 6800 Ultra as well. It worked fine, but was definitely CPU limited. I guess a GeForce 6600 or 6600 GT might be a good fit.

but the only way you'd see the performance increase is with a full 8x AGP slot or the move to PCI-Express

That cannot be further from turth. In fact you will not see any difference in most AGP 4x cards vs 8x cards. And the difference is also neglible between 2x and 4x slots (provided that cards are the same).