VivienM wrote on 2024-04-28, 16:13:

Okay, then the GF3 Ti200 will be plenty. […]
Show full quote

eyalk4568 wrote on 2024-04-28, 16:01:

I'm going to play on 1024x768, 800x600 and 640x480, also what did you mean by "Those cards would have screamed at 1024x768"?

Okay, then the GF3 Ti200 will be plenty.

By 'screamed', I meant... perform very well. Look at Anandtech's review - they're getting over 100 FPS in Unreal Tournament at 1024x768 on the GF3s. https://www.anandtech.com/show/831/10 And Quake 3 Arena, same thing, huge FPS at 1024x768 on any of the GF3s. https://www.anandtech.com/show/831/7

Note, however, how things get different when you are looking at 1600x1200. Now you have a huge gap in performance between, say, the Ti200 and Ti500.

Wouldn't a Geforce4 TI 4200/ 4200 8x would be better, the Geforce3 and the geforce4 have the same architecture after all and they have similar prices online or would the the Pentium 4 Willamette 1.7GHz would bottleneck the Geforce4 to much?

eyalk4568 wrote on 2024-04-28, 17:08:

VivienM wrote on 2024-04-28, 16:13:

Okay, then the GF3 Ti200 will be plenty. […]
Show full quote

eyalk4568 wrote on 2024-04-28, 16:01:

I'm going to play on 1024x768, 800x600 and 640x480, also what did you mean by "Those cards would have screamed at 1024x768"?

Okay, then the GF3 Ti200 will be plenty.

By 'screamed', I meant... perform very well. Look at Anandtech's review - they're getting over 100 FPS in Unreal Tournament at 1024x768 on the GF3s. https://www.anandtech.com/show/831/10 And Quake 3 Arena, same thing, huge FPS at 1024x768 on any of the GF3s. https://www.anandtech.com/show/831/7

Note, however, how things get different when you are looking at 1600x1200. Now you have a huge gap in performance between, say, the Ti200 and Ti500.

Wouldn't a Geforce4 TI 4200/ 4200 8x would be better, the Geforce3 and the geforce4 have the same architecture after all and they have similar prices online or would the the Pentium 4 Willamette 1.7GHz would bottleneck the Geforce4 to much?

I haven't looked at the pricing lately, but yes... that probably makes sense. Look at the FX5xxx too. I wouldn't worry too much about being CPU bottlenecked. Might as well get a card that could be useful in another retro AGP system too...

Also worth looking at is some of the GF4 MX cards - I have no experience with them, but I believe that at least some of them are basically a rebadged GeForce2 GTS originally at a much lower price and they are seen in high regard around here.

I had a Willamette 1700 as family pc for years and, although it came with a crappy GF2 MX with 64bit memory bus, I then replaced it for a FX5600XT.

Almost all XTs can be overclocked to 5600 levels, as they are basically the same. It let me play most games of that era 'reasonably' well, and now they are very cheap at least in my country.

It now lives happily in a Tualatin 1266 I built to run games of that era, just to give you an idea of other not so usual card 😉

VivienM wrote on 2024-04-28, 17:29:

eyalk4568 wrote on 2024-04-28, 17:08:

VivienM wrote on 2024-04-28, 16:13:

Okay, then the GF3 Ti200 will be plenty.

By 'screamed', I meant... perform very well. Look at Anandtech's review - they're getting over 100 FPS in Unreal Tournament at 1024x768 on the GF3s. https://www.anandtech.com/show/831/10 And Quake 3 Arena, same thing, huge FPS at 1024x768 on any of the GF3s. https://www.anandtech.com/show/831/7

Note, however, how things get different when you are looking at 1600x1200. Now you have a huge gap in performance between, say, the Ti200 and Ti500.

Wouldn't a Geforce4 TI 4200/ 4200 8x would be better, the Geforce3 and the geforce4 have the same architecture after all and they have similar prices online or would the the Pentium 4 Willamette 1.7GHz would bottleneck the Geforce4 to much?

I haven't looked at the pricing lately, but yes... that probably makes sense. Look at the FX5xxx too. I wouldn't worry too much about being CPU bottlenecked. Might as well get a card that could be useful in another retro AGP system too...

Also worth looking at is some of the GF4 MX cards - I have no experience with them, but I believe that at least some of them are basically a rebadged GeForce2 GTS originally at a much lower price and they are seen in high regard around here.

The main reason that I didn't look at any of the FX5xxx cards is because I heard the drivers for them for windows 98 are not that good but I will look them up online to see if its worth it, also they are quite confusing with their name as a lot of them have a few versions with totally different performance.

mmx_91 wrote on 2024-04-28, 18:32:

I had a Willamette 1700 as family pc for years and, although it came with a crappy GF2 MX with 64bit memory bus, I then replaced it for a FX5600XT.

Almost all XTs can be overclocked to 5600 levels, as they are basically the same. It let me play most games of that era 'reasonably' well, and now they are very cheap at least in my country.

It now lives happily in a Tualatin 1266 I built to run games of that era, just to give you an idea of other not so usual card 😉

That is nice to hear but isn't it risky to overclock hardware that is already that old?

eyalk4568 wrote on 2024-04-29, 07:37:

mmx_91 wrote on 2024-04-28, 18:32:

I had a Willamette 1700 as family pc for years and, although it came with a crappy GF2 MX with 64bit memory bus, I then replaced it for a FX5600XT.

Almost all XTs can be overclocked to 5600 levels, as they are basically the same. It let me play most games of that era 'reasonably' well, and now they are very cheap at least in my country.

It now lives happily in a Tualatin 1266 I built to run games of that era, just to give you an idea of other not so usual card 😉

That is nice to hear but isn't it risky to overclock hardware that is already that old?

It's more of a philosophical question at this point. Yes I wouldn't overclock "valuable/rare" hardware at this point, I would even underclock some cards.
On the other hand, if you are tinkering with very common hardware, if you apply fresh thermal compound you are free to play with it as you wish. It's your hobby, and if overclocking is your thing, do it. As said many times before, if performance is an issue, just buy a card/PC from the next generation and save yourself all the trouble.

Yes, totally agree with all of you 😀

FX cards are very common and reliable (as long as you escape from 5200/5500 with 64bit memory bus, and FX5700LE), although performance is not the best, they are compatible and image quality is very good. With drivers 45.23 and 56.64, they are the last 'consumer' nVidias to run fine on Windows 98.

I won't overclock valuable hardware either 😉
This card's memory is rated for 250mhz as standard 5600s and core is just a plain 5600 clocked down. Lots of good memories in the last 20 years hahaha.

My point was to give another idea of a card that would suite your build, I think a FX5600 or similar, like ATI 9600, can be a good match for such P4 😀

porksmuggler wrote on 2024-04-28, 15:19:

Everyone says 5 V 35 A for Athlon XP, but quality 30 A always worked then and now for me.

I have some 200 Watt PSUs with 22 Amp rails that will happily run any Athlon XP, so you don't really need anything upwards of 25 Amps on the 5V rail if the PSU is of good quality.
Most 250 Watt HiPro /Chicony PSUs from the P4 era (commonly found in Dell and HP PCs) are absolute tanks and very over-built.