I don´t think it has 2 bioses, but I think "VGA BIOS V01.03.2002" is simply the card telling its bios version date, rather than version number. I think my GeForce 2 card does the same thing. I´m not really sure about most of that software, since I have always used ATI cards on my new computers, and just recently started trying NVidia cards on my retro hardware. Seems like they are mostly for over/under clocking the cards, if you want to overclock it, then I would suggest RivaTuner from http://www.guru3d.com/category/rivatuner/ afaik even the newest version of that works on windows 98 too.

Oh I see, thanks. Yes, one BIOS with a date and also a BIOS version number. Re: RivaTuner, I think I need RivaTuner RC (release candidate) 15, because I think that's the last version where Win9x is supported. If anyone has a freeware copy, please let me know. Thanks!

I've got another question: When did the nVidia driver stop being called "Detonator"? At what release version did it cease to be called "Detonator", and renamed to ForceWare?

Well, Windows 98 isn´t OFFICIALLY tested with newer versions of rivatuner, but from my experience version 2.24 works still fine. Seems that last version of Detonator drivers was v45.23 available at http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_45.23

I've just looked at the version number of RivaTuner that I use - it's 2.24! 😀 I've started invesigating all of that software, mentioned above.

Coolbits - registry hack which allows overclocking. Ver 1 for detonator driver, ver 2 for later versions.
Detonator RIP - fully uninstalls detonator driver
ExperTools - primary purpose: overclocking
LiteForce - bit like RivaTuner
nHancer - N/A: not for w9x, I think
Nibitor - N/A: begins with FX 5 series

That's as far as I've got so far. I'll plough through all of them, and report back...

I love the Geforce 3 series of cards. They were perfect for the time, handling everything for over a year on full detail and just so reliable. The original vanilla GF3 was the best, although not quite as fast in raw 16bit opengl as the GF2 Ultras (but the GF2 Ultras were insanely expensive).

The Ti200's are still quite pacy, but the Ti500's are much better - almost on a par with the Ti4200.

Back then, you knew where you were at with graphics cards. The fast ones were the most expensive and had the highest numerical naming, and the mid range could play games in medium detail for quite a long time period. There was really no such thing as a low end graphics card.

It galls me that someone can now pay £50+ for, say, an ATI 5*** series like the 5650 ... and not be able to play Crysis on decent settings at a playable framerate. So really, what use is a card like that to a games player?

Thumbs up for the GF3 owners out there ( I have 4 ). 😉

I have to disagree with you on that. Things are much much better nowdays. I dropped 160 euro 3 years ago for an Ati 4850 and it still runs everything on Medium Detail at worst. Things were much more expensive then and laster way less. It's nice to look back to it, but I would hate to relive it.

I think the pace is about the same for the last 12 years or so. Cards usually last 3 yrs, and then by the 4th year they are so outdated they have to be replaced.

I also have an AOpen branded Ti200 which I'll be benchmarking this weekend. The card looks very different to the photo in the OP though. It's a black PCB, both longer and narrower than OP's one, and it has a Thermaltake Golden Orb-like cooler on it, bearing an AOpen sticker.

Re: AOpen Ti200 - does it look like this one?. I ran some benchies for that card, using lots of different legacy nVidia drivers. The results are in that post.

I have one of those black pcb GF3 Ti 200s too. Though mine lacks a DVI connector (VGA only). Pretty powerful for a 9 yr old 64mb card. Do your test results translate also to real world performance, i.e. that 43.45 is the best driver for use on a Win98 retro gaming rig?

I have a green Visiontek original GF3. I replaced the awful fan with a Pentium heatsink.

I played some games with it and it is definitely nice. You can even run UTGLR with it and make Unreal and UT look better than a Voodoo5. A Radeon 8500 can handle it too I believe.

retro games 100 wrote:

Re: AOpen Ti200 - does it look like this one?. I ran some benchies for that card, using lots of different legacy nVidia drivers. The results are in that post.

The PCB looks similar, but the heatsink is very different. I'll try to remember to do a photo when I get home tonight.

sgt76 wrote:

Do your test results translate also to real world performance, i.e. that 43.45 is the best driver for use on a Win98 retro gaming rig?

That's a good idea. The next time I test a GF3 card, I'll also run some game benchmarks.

swaaye wrote:

You can even run UTGLR with it and make Unreal and UT look better than a Voodoo5. A Radeon 8500 can handle it too I believe.

Thanks for the heads up on UTGRL. I must check that out.