That epox board is actually really nice. I used one when I built my Athlon XP system back in the day and I remember it featured all of the overclocking options I wanted. I think it was also really cheap compared to the competition.

Yeah, both epox boards are quite nice. All the voltages can be adjusted both ways which is nice - i am not really interested in overclocking old hardware, but undervolting CPU a bit is useful to reduce heat and being able to manually set RAM voltage to avoid whole 2.5v VS 2.6v modules mess is nice too. It is a shame there are so many issues with capacitors...

They do have their quirks though. The fact that there is no way to disable IDE cable detection on EP-8RDA3I was extremely annoying. I've used the same adapter on many boards and this was the first time i had to modify one to get above UDMA33. Also for some reason not possible to change RAM command rate. EP-8RDA3I also had issues with that modern 80mm zalman fan (for CPU cooler) - there is something strange about this fan and it shows weird indications on all old boards i've tried, like RPM jumping from zero to ~5000 and back, but it never caused any issues. This board, however, hangs on POST (when displaying health status). Had to cut the sensor wire for it to work.

Somehow ECS K7VTAs v8.0 i've used back in the day is much less problematic. Less overclocking options, slower chipset, but it never gave me as much trouble i've had with this boards and it is still working to this day with original caps...

GPU is bottlebecking the system. My Ahlon64 3400+ is basically just slightly faster Athlon XP.

3D Mark 2001, Ahlon64 3400+ (winXP), 1024x768 32bit

• GeForce FX5600 - 8548
• GeForce 7600GT - 18569
• GeForce 9800GT - 27622
• GeForce GTX 480 - 28250

I swapped motherboard + GPU in my Athlon64 rig from AGP to PCIe and the change was noticable, especially in racing games, flight sims and game sports cinematics. It would not benefit from GTX 480 which remains in reserve.

I would keep an eye open for 7800GS 20/24 pipeline AGP or an AMD card.

There are very few 7600GT AGP on sale these days. Probably worth about €80-90. I have two of these in reserve as I ended up switching to PCIe for Windows XP. If I manage to sell my Athlon XP boards and AGP Socket 754 boards I will sell these as well otherwise keep them.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-05-30, 20:47:

GPU is bottlebecking the system. My Ahlon64 3400+ is basically just slightly faster Athlon XP. […]
Show full quote

GPU is bottlebecking the system. My Ahlon64 3400+ is basically just slightly faster Athlon XP.

3D Mark 2001, Ahlon64 3400+ (winXP), 1024x768 32bit

• GeForce FX5600 - 8548
• GeForce 7600GT - 18569
• GeForce 9800GT - 27622
• GeForce GTX 480 - 28250

I swapped motherboard + GPU in my Athlon64 rig from AGP to PCIe and the change was noticable, especially in racing games, flight sims and game sports cinematics. It would not benefit from GTX 480 which remains in reserve.

I would keep an eye open for 7800GS 20/24 pipeline AGP or an AMD card.

There are very few 7600GT AGP on sale these days. Probably worth about €80-90. I have two of these in reserve as I ended up switching to PCIe for Windows XP. If I manage to sell my Athlon XP boards and AGP Socket 754 boards I will sell these as well otherwise keep them.

This depends on specific games but yes, it is possible to get more in very GPU heavy stuff with better GPU. Practically in games that are playable on a system like this i've seen very little to no difference between 7600GT and 7300GT.

Apart from just the CPU itself the difference between 754 and 462 is memory controller and FSB though. This is not very visible in synthetic CPU benchmarks (CPUs are indeed ~similar), but may affect real applications noticeably. So i am not sure how much i'll really get from a faster card on this system...

But yeah, i am looking for better cards. They are not just expensive though - they are also hard to find. In all the time i've been looking i've only seen one 7800GS, new one in unopened box for around $700. That's too much...

Even dead ones are not there. At this point i'd be willing to gamble and perhaps try to swap the GPU from pci-e card if that's dead, but no luck finding one so far...

Also definitely not going to mess with late AMD/ATI AGP stuff anymore, not after how "great" those HD2600pro turned out. I am still curious if the card is faulty or not, feels like it is not and is simply trash, but i am putting together LGA775/P4 system at this point to see if it works better with that. Was able to dig up MSI 865GVM3-v + Pentium4 531 in garbage at work, now to recap it and see if the card works better with it... Scratch that - fake AGP, not going to even recap it - this truly belongs to trash it was picked out of. How annoying that manufacturers did this back then, they even go as far as claim proper AGP 8x/4x support in the manual...

Your AMD Radeon HD2600pro is most likely faulty. You would need GeForce 7800GS with more pipelines, not the standard one. The standard one is not faster than 7600GT. Alternatively, get another high end AMD GPU.

Regarding high prices - it doesn't matter that much if you manage to make profit on something else. I sold a fcpga slotket for €72 and have two more to sell. I'm selling 7600GS (just underclocked 7600GT). If Athlon 64 3700+ pops up for a decent price I will simply finance purchase from other stuff I sold. Your 7600GT should sell, there are very few of them.

You could OC the GPU by 5-10% temporarily just to see the boost you get. It should be measurable in 3dmark 2001.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-05-31, 07:37:

Your AMD Radeon HD2600pro is most likely faulty. You would need GeForce 7800GS with more pipelines, not the standard one. The standard one is not faster than 7600GT. Alternatively, get another high end AMD GPU.

Regarding high prices - it doesn't matter that much if you manage to make profit on something else. I sold a fcpga slotket for €72 and have two more to sell. I'm selling 7600GS (just underclocked 7600GT). If Athlon 64 3700+ pops up for a decent price I will simply finance purchase from other stuff I sold. Your 7600GT should sell, there are very few of them.

You could OC the GPU by 5-10% temporarily just to see the boost you get. It should be measurable in 3dmark 2001.

Perhaps, but i would really like to verify it. I do not have many AGP boards and all i have are this nforce2 ones which all have quirks of their own and have trouble running with 200Mhz bus and memory as is... so i do not trust crashes here to be clear indication of faulty card.

Would popping the card into P3-800 based system with universal AGP work well enough to verify the card works? Might try that...

But anyway it is not going to work in this build so the only reason for me to verify that is so that i can sell it. I mean i can always sell as "boots into OS, no further testing" with lower price but i really do not like doing that...

Regarding OC - i may play around with that... i've already done that with CPU and bumping it to 220/2420Mhz increases 3dmark scores significantly including FPS in game tests, but that's overclocking everything including memory...

AlexZ wrote on 2025-05-30, 20:47:

GPU is bottlebecking the system. My Ahlon64 3400+ is basically just slightly faster Athlon XP.

I would keep an eye open for 7800GS 20/24 pipeline AGP or an AMD card.

Geforce 7600GT is a perfect match for Athlon XP 3200. There is no bottleneck form either the CPU or the GPU in any games. I tested this combination hundreds of times on an Abit AN7 motherboard and it runs all games up to 2004 peefectly at max settings, including Farcry 1 or Half life 2.
The standard geforce 7800GS is already bottlenecked by the XP 3200, there is no need to go for a stronger AGP card.
Athlon 64 3400 is significantly faster than Athlon XP 3200. I started testing socket 754 and the platform is quite a bit faster even using an Athlon 64 3200 newcastle with the same clockspeed and amount of cache.

I've played around with it a bit more and honestly - IMO whole "bottleneck" question is hard to answer conclusively, as always. As always it depends on a lot of things - games, resolution, settings, etc, etc.

Strictly speaking from what i am seeing it is possible to get more with faster GPU in some applications. 3dmark can take advantage of it. Crysis can, for example.

But practically... i use 24 inch 1920x1080 monitor which has scaling settings. I either use 1024x768 + scaling maintaining aspect ratio, 1280x1024 with scaling, or 1280x1024 1:1 without scaling. I also tend to not use AA - i do not like it most of the time. Given this in actual games i've ran what i am seeing is low GPU load, high CPU load. In fact most of the time GPU is at ~40-50% with temperatures staying well below 50C.

Also fooling around with downclocking stuff it really feels like everything is ultimately bottlenecked by FSB throughput and memory performance, not even CPU itself. Though I may be completely wrong.

It is indirectly confirmed by comparing different CPUs - AXDA3200DKV4E (200x11) vs AXDA3000DKV4D (166x13). At nearly the same frequency, with the same cache and everything performance ends up noticeably different. Even old reviews show it...

I am also still unable to find AXDA3200DKV4D (166x14) CPU, which is annoying...

nd22 wrote on 2025-06-01, 06:30:

Geforce 7600GT is a perfect match for Athlon XP 3200. There is no bottleneck form either the CPU or the GPU in any games. I tested this combination hundreds of times on an Abit AN7 motherboard and it runs all games up to 2004 peefectly at max settings, including Farcry 1 or Half life 2.

It would be great if you could provide numbers given your extensive testing to back your claim.

My claim is based on poster's own benchmarks and my own provided in this topic. 3d mark 2001 score clearly does go up until GeForce 9800GT. It is not available in AGP version but faster AGP AMD cards faster than 7600GT are available.

nd22 wrote on 2025-06-01, 06:30:

Athlon 64 3400 is significantly faster than Athlon XP 3200. I started testing socket 754 and the platform is quite a bit faster even using an Athlon 64 3200 newcastle with the same clockspeed and amount of cache.

Athlon 64 Clawhammer is about 10% faster than Athlon XP Barton at the same clock speed. I got 18569 points, he got 16900 using GeForce 7600GT. Both CPUs have the same clock frequency 2.2Ghz.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-06-01, 07:49:

I am also still unable to find AXDA3200DKV4D (166x14) CPU, which is annoying...

You need AXDA2600DKV4D (166x11.5) and OC it to 2.4Ghz, 208Mhz FSB. AXDA3200DKV4E (200x11) needs too high FSB. Just buy 5 of them and one of them will definitely be stable at 2.4Ghz. Or run them at 2.3Ghz and 200FSB. Likely majority of them will be stable.

I have also conducted further testing of Athlon 3400+ overclocked to 3700+ specs, emulated using base clock 267Mhz, HT mult 3x, CPU mult 9x, RAM mult 1.5x (CPU at 2.4Ghz, DDR400):

3D Mark 2001, Ahlon64 3400+ (winXP), 1024x768 32bit, GeForce 9800GT - 27622
3D Mark 2001, Ahlon64 3700+ (winXP), 1024x768 32bit, GeForce 9800GT - 28580

We gain about 4% by increasing CPU clock by 9%. The gain was about 5-6% in later 3d mark versions.

Athlon 64 3400+ didn't benefit from GTX 480 except in 3d Mark 2003.

Clearly Athlon XP would benefit in games that aren't CPU bound already. CPU utilization can be misleading if the framerate isn't locked to 60fps. You don't need 100+ FPS but it would be great to avoid lows.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-01, 12:39:

Athlon 64 Clawhammer is about 10% faster than Athlon XP Barton at the same clock speed. I got 18569 points, he got 16900 using GeForce 7600GT. Both CPUs have the same clock frequency 2.2Ghz.

Be careful comparing benchmarks like this. The difference here is not huge and can be caused by other things. For example what driver did you use? I used 307.83 (last XP+GF7x driver) for this, i've also noticed that with older drivers, like 175.19, performance can be noticeably higher. Especially in older stuff like 3dmark2001se is.

But yeah, i'd expect 754 to be slightly faster all other things equal.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-01, 12:39:

You need AXDA2600DKV4D (166x11.5) and OC it to 2.4Ghz, 208Mhz FSB. AXDA3200DKV4E (200x11) needs too high FSB. Just buy 5 of them and one of them will definitely be stable at 2.4Ghz. Or run them at 2.3Ghz and 200FSB. Likely majority of them will be stable.

If i wanted to OC - yes. Perhaps AXDA2800DKV4D (166x12.5) even, i am sure it can be convinced to run at 200x12.5 with some extra voltage...

I wanted to track that one down simply for having "the fastest AthlonXP ever made", while it is still possible for a price of just a few $.

Otherwise it feels like all Barton CPUs are essentially the same core with different binning, i mean that 2500+ one i got for free, which is the slowest one, just works at 3200+, which is the fastest one, without doing anything but setting the FSB to 200...

I was not really concerned about buying high-end stuff back in the day (not enough money, buy far), but it really feels like buying high-end Barton AthlonXP was a waste - the boards can not handle high enough FSB to OC it significantly, so with OC multiplier becomes the biggest concern, not stock frequency.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-01, 12:39:

Clearly Athlon XP would benefit in games that aren't CPU bound already. CPU utilization can be misleading if the framerate isn't locked to 60fps. You don't need 100+ FPS but it would be great to avoid lows.

I have vsync on, always. I see no point going above refresh rate as that introduces artifacts and is not really beneficial. The monitor supports up to 120Hz, but most old games do not like that so they end up with 60 anyway.

I am sure there are games which can benefit from faster GPU, but i have not found a reasonable one yet. Crysis is not reasonable on this system 😀

In games like SWKOTOR 1/2, for example, i am seeing dips well below 60 at times with GPU load remaining low. The games run very well and if i could play them like this back in the day that'd be amazing, but they are very obviously CPU limited.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-06-02, 00:11:

Be careful comparing benchmarks like this. The difference here is not huge and can be caused by other things. For example what driver did you use? I used 307.83 (last XP+GF7x driver) for this, i've also noticed that with older drivers, like 175.19, performance can be noticeably higher. Especially in older stuff like 3dmark2001se is.

I use 177.83. I always use the last driver just before support for the next GPU core was added.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-06-02, 00:11:

Otherwise it feels like all Barton CPUs are essentially the same core with different binning, i mean that 2500+ one i got for free, which is the slowest one, just works at 3200+, which is the fastest one, without doing anything but setting the FSB to 200...

I was not really concerned about buying high-end stuff back in the day (not enough money, buy far), but it really feels like buying high-end Barton AthlonXP was a waste - the boards can not handle high enough FSB to OC it significantly, so with OC multiplier becomes the biggest concern, not stock frequency.

I had Athlon XP 1700+ (1.4Ghz) that OCed to 2.3Ghz back in the day. I never upgraded to Barton because of it. Buying high-end CPUs was a waste. You need to buy a few with the right multiplier and then OC to 200Mhz FSB. I would not push them to 2.5Ghz with extra voltage.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-06-02, 00:11:

I have vsync on, always. I see no point going above refresh rate as that introduces artifacts and is not really beneficial. The monitor supports up to 120Hz, but most old games do not like that so they end up with 60 anyway.

I am sure there are games which can benefit from faster GPU, but i have not found a reasonable one yet. Crysis is not reasonable on this system 😀

In games like SWKOTOR 1/2, for example, i am seeing dips well below 60 at times with GPU load remaining low. The games run very well and if i could play them like this back in the day that'd be amazing, but they are very obviously CPU limited.

Stronger GPU is less resolution sensitive apart from potentially higher lows. So you could have max 60-70fps with 30fps lows, but it will not drop that much in higher resolutions.

I'm going to try GTX 260 instead of 9800GT and see how it does. GTX 480 caused major stuttering in Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 and is not usable with Athlon 64 3400+. Maybe the driver needs stronger CPU or lack of SSE3 caused it.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-02, 09:05:

I use 177.83. I always use the last driver just before support for the next GPU core was added.

I should probably try that one at some point. So far I've had no issues on this card with latest drivers, but performance may be different.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-02, 09:05:

I had Athlon XP 1700+ (1.4Ghz) that OCed to 2.3Ghz back in the day. I never upgraded to Barton because of it. Buying high-end CPUs was a waste. You need to buy a few with the right multiplier and then OC to 200Mhz FSB. I would not push them to 2.5Ghz with extra voltage.

I had 2200+ Thoroughbred-B (basically this system: https://valid.x86.fr/qvuxnb ), but sadly no OC since motherboard, ECS K7VTA3 8.0, did not really offer any reasonable options.

Messing with this stuff now one thing i understood - this is actually a great motherboard. Everything works completely trouble-free, mismatched sticks of RAM and everything. There were no stability or compatibility issues. Capacitors are still fine. This is very different compared to "better" nforce2 boards i've been using for this build - i got 3 different boards and whole box of RAM just to make everything function correctly. That would have been complete nightmare back when this boards and RAM were new and quite expensive.

I do not see an issue with slightly bumping the voltage if i wanted to OC though, something like extra 0.1v will do no harm, apart from extra heat, and would probably be needed to make one of this CPUs work at 2.5Ghz.

I am not going to do it to this system though, 3200+ CPU i have is stable at 1.5V which i quite like, because it allows me to drop CPU fan RPM to a level where the noise is comfortable with temperatures still staying reasonable.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-02, 09:05:

Stronger GPU is less resolution sensitive apart from potentially higher lows. So you could have max 60-70fps with 30fps lows, but it will not drop that much in higher resolutions.

But only as long as it is actually limiting something. From what i am seeing in actual games it is not. Like if i run a game at 1024x768 or at 1280x1024 i get the same FPS, drops in certain areas and everything.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-02, 09:05:

I'm going to try GTX 260 instead of 9800GT and see how it does. GTX 480 caused major stuttering in Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 and is not usable with Athlon 64 3400+. Maybe the driver needs stronger CPU or lack of SSE3 caused it.

This is a curious experiment, but there is only so much you can get from using way, way too fast and new GPU with old/slow CPU. And as you've noticed sometimes it can create issues too. That's why i am probably going to leave this system as is. So far from what i am seeing benefits from faster GPU would be marginal at best. Yeah, i can get much higher 3dmark score, but i would not see benefits in games that are realistic for this system at resolutions i use. Perhaps if i wanted to do full 1920x1080... but for that along with late XP stuff i have a different system - C2D E8600 + GTX660...

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-01, 12:39:

nd22 wrote on 2025-06-01, 06:30:

Geforce 7600GT is a perfect match for Athlon XP 3200. There is no bottleneck form either the CPU or the GPU in any games. I tested this combination hundreds of times on an Abit AN7 motherboard and it runs all games up to 2004 peefectly at max settings, including Farcry 1 or Half life 2.

It would be great if you could provide numbers given your extensive testing to back your claim.

My claim is based on poster's own benchmarks and my own provided in this topic. 3d mark 2001 score clearly does go up until GeForce 9800GT. It is not available in AGP version but faster AGP AMD cards faster than 7600GT are available.

Sure, here you go: Socket A: Nvidia vs Via - battle of the platforms!

nd22 wrote on 2025-06-03, 13:59:

Sure, here you go: Socket A: Nvidia vs Via - battle of the platforms!

Let's be considerate to readers and provide links to relevant pages. Surely not everyone wants to go through 48 pages to find out relevant results.

From the first few pages it is clear you focused on benchmarking various Athlon XP motherboards rather than graphics cards. You used GeForce 7800 GS in the first few pages and the last few pages. nforce2 is as expected better than VIA chipset. Memory matching issues are less relevant now than when nforce2 was released. On the 2nd page you suggested that the system is bottlenecked by GPU in 3d mark 2003 which is in line with my findings.

In this topic we care about benefits of upgrading 7800 GT to a faster card based on performance gains seen in Athlon 64 3400+ after upgrading to 9800 GT. The results for 3d mark 2003 posted in this topic are for higher resolution and cannot be compared to mine. My original AGP rig no longer exists so the best we could do is to ask Archer57 to run 3d mark 2003 in 1024x768 in 32bit. My result in 3d mark 2003 (1024x768x32bit) is 30483 using standard 9800 GT (stock clocks). GTX 260 and 20% OCed 9800 GT are on the way. In 3dmark 2003 I did see further improvement with GTX 480 but it wasn't a usable solution.

The hypothesis is Athlon XP 3200+ can benefit from faster ATI cards or 7800 GS with more pipelines. In practical terms, the performance gains may be prohibitive given the cost of a faster GPU.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-06-03, 21:06:

The results for 3d mark 2003 posted in this topic are for higher resolution and cannot be compared to mine. My original AGP rig no longer exists so the best we could do is to ask Archer57 to run 3d mark 2003 in 1024x768 in 32bit. My result in 3d mark 2003 (1024x768x32bit) is 30483 using standard 9800 GT (stock clocks). GTX 260 and 20% OCed 9800 GT are on the way. In 3dmark 2003 I did see further improvement with GTX 480 but it wasn't a usable solution.

The hypothesis is Athlon XP 3200+ can benefit from faster ATI cards or 7800 GS with more pipelines. In practical terms, the performance gains may be prohibitive given the cost of a faster GPU.

Sorry for crappy photos, i hate when people do it myself, but it was really inconvenient to transfer files from the system at this point.

Took this chance to finally downgrade the driver, got pretty much what i expected. Still, this is 3dmark difference only, i am not sure it even represents similar difference in real applications. That, perhaps, would be curious to test but that'll need a system which is not so heavily bottlenecked by CPU.

Your scores are in line with the results I got when I tested geforce 7600GT on the Athlon XP 3200 coupled with 2GB of RAM on Abit AN7.

Before building the best socket A machine I would consider what time period does socket 462 covers!
I think you can comfortably play games from the 2000 -2004 period at very high/ultra settings on such a machine. Going beyond 2004 is an exercise in frustration: you will be limited by the CPU, the GPU, or both.
Also I hope you have deep pockets because building a ultimate socket A/2004/you name it SYSTEM is prohibitively expensive.
Example of best socket A system that can play perfectly all 2000 - 2004 games at max settings that I currently use:
Athlon XP 3200; Corsair 2*1gb; geforce 7600GT, Abit an7 board, WD 150gb raptor. Everything runs super smoothly on it and while i could put a stronger video card it would not extend the maximum settings play ability period. I put a geforce 7900gs and 2005 games were just as bad on the 7900gs as on the 7600gt.
That aside the 5 years period that these system covers is just perfect: everything runs exactly as I want - Half life 2 1 at 1600*1200 maxed out for example- loading times are fast; XP feels very snappy and overall the system feels right at home in any game up to 2004.

nd22 wrote on 2025-06-04, 05:24:

Your scores are in line with the results I got when I tested geforce 7600GT on the Athlon XP 3200 coupled with 2GB of RAM on Abit AN7.

Thanks, it is always nice to have a confirmation like this that everything is working properly. Especially after all the time i've spent finding the RAM which works properly at 200Mhz.

nd22 wrote on 2025-06-04, 06:54:

Before building the best socket A machine I would consider what time period does socket 462 covers! I think you can comfortably […]
Show full quote

Before building the best socket A machine I would consider what time period does socket 462 covers!
I think you can comfortably play games from the 2000 -2004 period at very high/ultra settings on such a machine. Going beyond 2004 is an exercise in frustration: you will be limited by the CPU, the GPU, or both.
Also I hope you have deep pockets because building a ultimate socket A/2004/you name it SYSTEM is prohibitively expensive.
Example of best socket A system that can play perfectly all 2000 - 2004 games at max settings that I currently use:
Athlon XP 3200; Corsair 2*1gb; geforce 7600GT, Abit an7 board, WD 150gb raptor. Everything runs super smoothly on it and while i could put a stronger video card it would not extend the maximum settings play ability period. I put a geforce 7900gs and 2005 games were just as bad on the 7900gs as on the 7600gt.
That aside the 5 years period that these system covers is just perfect: everything runs exactly as I want - Half life 2 1 at 1600*1200 maxed out for example- loading times are fast; XP feels very snappy and overall the system feels right at home in any game up to 2004.

Yeah, i do understand that. And no, i do not have deep pockets, but this has been something i wanted to do for a long while and i've spent around $300 in total here, which is not really that much to spend on a hobby...

This also includes all the extra hardware - 3 motherboards, those HD2600XT, whole bunch of RAM... and the most expensive part is unsurprisingly 7600GT. So i'd disagree that socketA is expensive. Sure it costs more than newer stuff like LGA1155, which is still in "unneeded garbage" phase, but it is nothing compared to older stuff.

Granted i bought many of this in "untested" condition and had to do some work like recapping myself, getting tested working stuff would cost more.

And yeah, i absolutely agree that it covers a nice period of games. And even better - it coincides really well with stuff i actually want to play - i am less interested in old stuff and newer stuff i have different hardware for...

The kind of GPU I had in mind would be GeForce 7950 GT AGP or GeForce 7800 GS+ 24Pipes AGP.

If you have a list of Windows XP games that have built-in benchmarks then we could run it. We can also look at the 4 built-in game tests in 3d mark 2003 (directx 9) instead of the total score. FPS in those games is too high though, all of them would be playable. The main benefit here would be to play at higher resolution.

3d mark 2003 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 3400+, GeForce 9800 GT:

• Wings of Fury - 318 fps
• Battle of Proxycon - 255 fps
• Troll's Lair - 202 fps
• Mother Nature - 203 fps

3d mark 2003 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 3400+, GeForce 9800 GT:

• Wings of Fury - 271 fps
• Battle of Proxycon - 160 fps
• Troll's Lair - 131 fps
• Mother Nature - 159 fps

Perhaps we should look at 3d mark 2005 instead as it better represents the late games where Athlon XP 3200+ will struggle.

3d mark 2005 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 3400+, GeForce 9800 GT:

• Return To Proxycon - 35fps
• Firefly Forest - 28fps
• Canyon Flight - 74fps