Running Windows 98SE I guess?

I see a Geforce FX 5700 Ultra 256MB for sale for $30 + shipping on eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Albatron-NVIDIA-GeFo … 8x/283950147636

The shipping to the US kills it for me.

Other options would be:
Quadro FX 2000
Qaudro FX 3000

Sometimes they pop up for cheap.. they used to be really cheap until people started picking them all up due to them being Geforce FX 5800 and 5900 equivalents.

I will add that at lower resolutions you will most likely be pretty CPU lmited.

Did some testing with my Geforce FX 5950 Ultra and in 3DMark 2001, the score keeps going up quite a bit until around 3.2Ghz on a Core 2 X6800. Of course only one core is being used in 98SE but that shows how much CPU power you need to max the highest end Geforce FX out.

25.7k 3DMark 2001 score with the video card at stock clocks and the CPU at 3.3Ghz.

I run Windows 2000. I would get frequent BSODs and stuff with my USB2 card in 9x and Me, but it's stable as a rock with win2k.

That FX5700 Ultra card is like €33 in shipping, and then comes VAT and import charges. 😒
Also do you really recommend Quadro FX for a Pentium III gaming system?

Only real difference between the Geforce FX and the Quadro FX cards of that era are the drivers. Easy to soft-mod to use the Geforce FX drivers if you really want to.

See here for a video from Phil on just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4tOBgoMuwM&a … hilsComputerLab

You also get higher quality settings with the Quadro drivers than with the Geforce drivers.

With Win2k, if you aren't wanting to run games that use palleted textures, then a different card may be better anyway. But probably not unless you are running a faster CPU.

I see a Geforce FX 5700 Ultra 256MB for sale for $30 + shipping on eBay:

That's a regular FX5700. And don't expect it overclock good with 4ns memory.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-09-29, 19:32:

I see a Geforce FX 5700 Ultra 256MB for sale for $30 + shipping on eBay:

That's a regular FX5700. And don't expect it overclock good with 4ns memory.

Hmmm... Thought is was an ultra due to the 256MB.... Guess techpowerup database is incorrect then.

The 9600xt you mention will be pretty good. I found good results using the last Omega drivers.

I made an offer of £15 for an ASUS A9600XT/TVD/128M on eBay and the seller accepted it (didn't really expect that), so 9600XT it is!
I really hope it will run stable at 70MHz AGP...

My 9600 is only the Pro variant, so I expect your XT one to be slightly faster than it. Pretty solid card though, I think Phil did a youtube vid on one.

8bitbubsy wrote on 2020-09-30, 09:20:

I made an offer of £15 for an ASUS A9600XT/TVD/128M on eBay and the seller accepted it (didn't really expect that), so 9600XT it is!
I really hope it will run stable at 70MHz AGP...

AFAIK, ATI based cards are not fond of AGP bus speed overclocking, but since it's only by 4 MHz, maybe you will be lucky .

I have a 9800 Pro that I sometimes swap into a system with a 77.5MHz AGP bus. Also a Radeon 9100 PCI that I've tested in the same system (PCI @ 38.75MHz). Both cards have never shown any signs of stress. I think that, as with nVidia, it all depends on the card, but most seem fine.

I'd be shocked, shocked I tell you, if that 9600XT fizzles out at a mere 70MHz.

Standard Def Steve: Darn, your P3 system really is superb. Kinda jealous, but I need to be happy with what I got 🤣. I have SDRAM only. 😒
What motherboard does it use?

Standard Def Steve wrote on 2020-09-30, 15:23:

I have a 9800 Pro that I sometimes swap into a system with a 77.5MHz AGP bus. Also a Radeon 9100 PCI that I've tested in the same system (PCI @ 38.75MHz). Both cards have never shown any signs of stress. I think that, as with nVidia, it all depends on the card, but most seem fine.

I'd be shocked, shocked I tell you, if that 9600XT fizzles out at a mere 70MHz.

My experience in this matter is mostly based on 20+ year-old memories . Yours is most likely both more recent and more accurate/representative . My specific memories are of my Radeon 8500 and possibly my Radeon 9700 not liking 89MHz AGP in a either an Abit BX6 (first rev) or an Asus P3B-F. 89MHz AGP probably killed my Intel i740 (ran much faster while it still ran), but that's another story .

8bitbubsy wrote on 2020-09-30, 18:20:

Standard Def Steve: Darn, your P3 system really is superb. Kinda jealous, but I need to be happy with what I got 🤣. I have SDRAM only. 😒
What motherboard does it use?

Thanks man!
It's a QDI Advance 12T motherboard.

darry wrote on 2020-09-30, 18:28:

My experience in this matter is mostly based on 20+ year-old memories . Yours is most likely both more recent and more accurate/representative . My specific memories are of my Radeon 8500 and possibly my Radeon 9700 not liking 89MHz AGP in a either an Abit BX6 (first rev) or an Asus P3B-F. 89MHz AGP probably killed my Intel i740 (ran much faster while it still ran), but that's another story .

89MHz! That's a completely different ball game. I think that's early nvidia/3dfx territory right there. 😀
I doubt my 9800Pro would handle that kinda speed.

Radeon 9250 AGP is dirt cheap and a good match for this system.

appiah4 wrote on 2020-09-30, 19:27:

Radeon 9250 AGP is dirt cheap and a good match for this system.

Already bought a 9600 XT on eBay.

8bitbubsy wrote on 2020-09-30, 19:28:

appiah4 wrote on 2020-09-30, 19:27:

Radeon 9250 AGP is dirt cheap and a good match for this system.

Already bought a 9600 XT on eBay.

Getting a 9250 with a 128-bit memory bus would be nice, but AFAIK, most are 64-bit . 9600XT should work nicely under Windows .

9250 has better compatibility with Win98, but 9600 will serve you well too.

9600xt is a solid card, you're gonna enjoy it. The jump in core speed and performance from the 8500 (flagship chip) to the 9600 (mid range chip) is huge, and the XT variant has an even smaller production process so it's less power hungry than its older brother (maybe some overclocking potential!).

I have a 9600xt in an athlon xp 2200+ machine and can easily run most 2000-2002 games at 1080p with nice framerates (the 128mb vram helps a lot). 2003/2004 games at 1280x1024 are not out of the question.

Both will be severely bottlenecked by the Tualatin CPU and perform equally, so the 9600xt's only advantage is DX9 compatibility and no DX9 game will run well on a P3 CPU regardless of GPU. It's quite overkill for the Tualatin. It will work, but expect quite a few driver bugs with pre-2000 games. A 9250 (built on a revised and die shrunk 8500 GPU) would have had much better compatibility with pre-2000 games. To each their own.