VOGONS


Best Drivers for GeForce4 MX-440

Topic actions

Reply 40 of 63, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'd second that I switched to a gts from an mx440 128mb 128bit card just because it plays nicer with really old games and drivers

Phenom X4 9950 - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - 7900GTX SLI - 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - 6800GT- 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Athlon 700 - COMPAQ Board - ASUS Geforce 256SDR - 120GB HDD - Windows 98SE

Reply 41 of 63, by derSammler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

What are these "older games"? Maybe these are better played on much older hardware anyway?

I remember when I upgraded from a Voodoo2 to a GF2 GTS back then and was quite pissed that I could no longer play POD, as the GF2 did no support the way the game drew its graphics.

retro-net.de/blog.html

Reply 42 of 63, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
derSammler wrote on 2020-01-11, 18:15:

What are these "older games"? Maybe these are better played on much older hardware anyway?

I remember when I upgraded from a Voodoo2 to a GF2 GTS back then and was quite pissed that I could no longer play POD, as the GF2 did no support the way the game drew its graphics.

Off the top of my head, turok was faster on the gts, as well as MDK, star wars secrets of the empire, and xwing 95.

Phenom X4 9950 - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - 7900GTX SLI - 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - 6800GT- 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Athlon 700 - COMPAQ Board - ASUS Geforce 256SDR - 120GB HDD - Windows 98SE

Reply 43 of 63, by chrismeyer6

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I have a GeForce 4 mx460 card in a XP pro socket A system and I love that card it play all the games I want prefectly. (RTCW, Q3, old maxis titles, ect)

AMD Athlon thoroughbred @ 1.2Ghz
Abit Kt7a- raid
1.5 gig pc-133 ram
GeForce 4mx 460
Xfi fatality
250 gig ata133 HD
XP pro sp3

Reply 44 of 63, by derSammler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 22:01:

Off the top of my head, turok was faster on the gts, as well as MDK, star wars secrets of the empire, and xwing 95.

I'm pretty sure he wrote something about non-working games, not games that are just slower on a GF4MX compared to a GF2. But he has edited his post since, so it's no longer relevant I guess.

As for speed only, there were slower and faster GF4MX card, and also slower and faster GF2 cards - depending on the maker. What remains true is that you are limited to driver versions 40.xx and up with the GF4MX 4xx cards.

retro-net.de/blog.html

Reply 45 of 63, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

What remains true is that you are limited to driver versions 40.xx and up with the GF4MX 4xx cards.

No, GeForce 4 MX is limited to Detonator 27.20 or higher. And 31.80, if you want AGP 8x support.

Reply 46 of 63, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
derSammler wrote on 2020-01-12, 09:19:
candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 22:01:

Off the top of my head, turok was faster on the gts, as well as MDK, star wars secrets of the empire, and xwing 95.

I'm pretty sure he wrote something about non-working games, not games that are just slower on a GF4MX compared to a GF2. But he has edited his post since, so it's no longer relevant I guess.

As for speed only, there were slower and faster GF4MX card, and also slower and faster GF2 cards - depending on the maker. What remains true is that you are limited to driver versions 40.xx and up with the GF4MX 4xx cards.

I consider it not working if it runs erratically and gets random dips into single digits on a card that should be faster. I also tested with my 256sdr and older drivers but the sdr remained slower than the 2gts

Phenom X4 9950 - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - 7900GTX SLI - 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - 6800GT- 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Athlon 700 - COMPAQ Board - ASUS Geforce 256SDR - 120GB HDD - Windows 98SE

Reply 47 of 63, by RoberMC

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-11, 17:03:

the GF4 MX is the best card for Windows 98 gaming for compatibility/performance

Not in the slightest. The best all-around cards are still GeForce 2 series. Just by the fact that they have access to almost all early Detonator drivers, which is a huge boon for slow CPU configs and compatibility options.
With GeForce 4 MX, you're limited to Detonator 27.xx or newer driver.

Well back in the day a slow CPU might be a factor, but not now. There is no need to make a CPU bottlenecked build. Detonator 4X.XX series are really not noticeably slower than 27.xx in a well balanced system, but work better with latter games. Also a Geforce 2 is just slower than a good MX440/460. So the combo MX460+Detonator 4x.xx should be faster even in slower CPUs.

Oh, and you can still buy a GREAT MX440/460 for like 5€ if you look closely. For me they are just better in every single aspect, buy i am not saying the GF2 is bad or anything.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 17:34:

I'd second that I switched to a gts from an mx440 128mb 128bit card just because it plays nicer with really old games and drivers

MX440 with 128MB and 128-bit bus are extremely RARE, i have never seen one, if they even exist. Yours probably was a 64-bit one. Also there are no known compatibility differences in games between GF2 and GF4 MX.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 22:01:

Off the top of my head, turok was faster on the gts, as well as MDK, star wars secrets of the empire, and xwing 95.

That might confirm yours was a 64-bit one. But anyway those games should FLY at very high FPS on a GF2 GTS or a good GF4MX card. I really does not matter if it runs 5 fps slower or faster in one or the other.

Reply 48 of 63, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
RoberMC wrote on 2020-01-13, 03:43:
Well back in the day a slow CPU might be a factor, but not now. There is no need to make a CPU bottlenecked build. Detonator 4X. […]
Show full quote
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-11, 17:03:

the GF4 MX is the best card for Windows 98 gaming for compatibility/performance

Not in the slightest. The best all-around cards are still GeForce 2 series. Just by the fact that they have access to almost all early Detonator drivers, which is a huge boon for slow CPU configs and compatibility options.
With GeForce 4 MX, you're limited to Detonator 27.xx or newer driver.

Well back in the day a slow CPU might be a factor, but not now. There is no need to make a CPU bottlenecked build. Detonator 4X.XX series are really not noticeably slower than 27.xx in a well balanced system, but work better with latter games. Also a Geforce 2 is just slower than a good MX440/460. So the combo MX460+Detonator 4x.xx should be faster even in slower CPUs.

Oh, and you can still buy a GREAT MX440/460 for like 5€ if you look closely. For me they are just better in every single aspect, buy i am not saying the GF2 is bad or anything.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 17:34:

I'd second that I switched to a gts from an mx440 128mb 128bit card just because it plays nicer with really old games and drivers

MX440 with 128MB and 128-bit bus are extremely RARE, i have never seen one, if they even exist. Yours probably was a 64-bit one. Also there are no known compatibility differences in games between GF2 and GF4 MX.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 22:01:

Off the top of my head, turok was faster on the gts, as well as MDK, star wars secrets of the empire, and xwing 95.

That might confirm yours was a 64-bit one. But anyway those games should FLY at very high FPS on a GF2 GTS or a good GF4MX card. I really does not matter if it runs 5 fps slower or faster in one or the other.

Wasn't 5 fps, more like dropping down to under 20 regurally on my athlon 700. As for the card no gpuz, Everest home and aida64 all indentify 128bit 128mb ram. It was a pull from a dell precision. No dell part number though it's aftermarket. I sold it a few months back in a core2 system on eBay with win98 preloaded

Phenom X4 9950 - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - 7900GTX SLI - 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - 6800GT- 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Athlon 700 - COMPAQ Board - ASUS Geforce 256SDR - 120GB HDD - Windows 98SE

Reply 49 of 63, by RoberMC

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

20 FPS in Turok with a 128-bit GF4 MX440 in an Athlon 700 makes no sense, it must be a matter of drivers, some conflict elsewhere, or a defective card. I hope you sold well that card, a 128-bit 128MB MX440 card is an unicorn if it has proper memory, specially coming from a Dell ;p

PS: A 128-bit MX440 does not mean it is using proper DDR memory clocked at 500-550 Mhz, there are even 128-bit ones with SDR memory clocked at 200 Mhz. It is a mess.

Reply 50 of 63, by Almoststew1990

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I know this is an old thread but I'd like to vouch for the MX440 128bit as being a great Windows 98 card. It's plenty powerful enough for pretty much anything that I'd want to run on a Windows 98 PC (say 400 - 1000MHz CPU), it's passive, it's cheap compared to older and newer AGP cards and readily available everywhere and I don't mind if it breaks as I can pick one up from anywhere. It went from being a junk find in a local classified ad PC to being the most useful graphics card I have.

Ryzen 3700X 4.4-ish GHz | 16GB DDR4 3600MHz | Nvidia 1070ti | 750GB NVMe
AM1 x4 3820 APU Thing | 6GB DDR1 | iGPU or GTX 650
Slot 1 PIII 450MHz | 256MB PC100 | Nvidia MX440 | AWE32 CT3910

Reply 51 of 63, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Well back in the day a slow CPU might be a factor, but not now.

It is. Not everyone here is sitting on PIII 1Ghz+.

There is no need to make a CPU bottlenecked build.

Mockery: Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Also a Geforce 2 is just slower than a good MX440/460. So the combo MX460+Detonator 4x.xx should be faster even in slower CPUs.

No - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRhm4aGNI3o / https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=809903#p809903

Reply 52 of 63, by Xenphor

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Almoststew1990 wrote on 2020-01-13, 19:06:

I know this is an old thread but I'd like to vouch for the MX440 128bit as being a great Windows 98 card. It's plenty powerful enough for pretty much anything that I'd want to run on a Windows 98 PC (say 400 - 1000MHz CPU), it's passive, it's cheap compared to older and newer AGP cards and readily available everywhere and I don't mind if it breaks as I can pick one up from anywhere. It went from being a junk find in a local classified ad PC to being the most useful graphics card I have.

I wanted to get one as a backup for my Geforce 4 ti 4800se since it comes from the bad caps era, and two other cards I bought produced artifacts, so I only have one spare. However, looking on ebay they don't appear to be that readily available unless you mean the 64 bit versions. Any of the legit models can almost approach a 4200 in price. It would be nice to have a compatible card with some modest performance as a backup, but I'm not sure what else to get other than an ATI card which would have driver issues.

The other issue is that the 2 4800se cards I own both have pretty poor quality over VGA at any resolution over 1024x768, so DVI is a godsend. I suppose they may look fine on a CRT monitor, but the way my LCD handles them over VGA is not good. Unfortunately, most of the 128 bit 440 models I've seen don't come with DVI, whereas the lower quality OEM models do. I don't really care about running old games at super high resolutions with anti-aliasing etc. and am fine using lower resolutions like 640x480, so I'm wondering if a 64 bit model would still work for me or if they really are that bad.

Reply 54 of 63, by RoberMC

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-14, 01:33:
It is. Not everyone here is sitting on PIII 1Ghz+. […]
Show full quote

Well back in the day a slow CPU might be a factor, but not now.

It is. Not everyone here is sitting on PIII 1Ghz+.

There is no need to make a CPU bottlenecked build.

Mockery: Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Also a Geforce 2 is just slower than a good MX440/460. So the combo MX460+Detonator 4x.xx should be faster even in slower CPUs.

No - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRhm4aGNI3o / https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=809903#p809903

So... your problem is the CPU. There are much better CPUs for Win98 builds than a slow PIII. This does not make the GF2 and GF4MX any better or worst than they are, it is just that they are equally not well suited for a slow PIII build.

And even you linked that infamous CPU bottlenecked Phil's video everybody comment it should be re-done.

A proper MX460-440 is faster, more efficient, more silent, smaller, has extra filtering and features, the same compatibility, available in low profile, and is a lot cheaper than a powerful GF2. And that has nothing to do with how you like to do bizarre unbalanced builds X'D

https://youtu.be/_qWvc94DjJE

Last edited by RoberMC on 2020-01-14, 12:46. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 55 of 63, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

There are much better CPUs for Win98 builds than a slow PIII.

And so? Once again - not everyone here have or want such a build. GeForce 4 MX is more or less valuable only in slow CPU builds, because GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 Ti are much better options for a powerful system.

you linked that infamous CPU bottlenecked Phil's video everybody comment it should be re-done.

Also I've linked Pentium Pro benchmark with older/newer Detonator.

everybody comment it should be re-done

Overestimation.

Reply 56 of 63, by RoberMC

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-14, 12:45:
And so? Once again - not everyone here have or want such a build. GeForce 4 MX is more or less valuable only in slow CPU builds, […]
Show full quote

There are much better CPUs for Win98 builds than a slow PIII.

And so? Once again - not everyone here have or want such a build. GeForce 4 MX is more or less valuable only in slow CPU builds, because GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 Ti are much better options for a powerful system.

you linked that infamous CPU bottlenecked Phil's video everybody comment it should be re-done.

Also I've linked Pentium Pro benchmark with older/newer Detonator.

You said the GF2 is the all around best video card for Win98, maybe you should have just said it is the best all around video card for your personal build 😉

Reply 57 of 63, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
RoberMC wrote on 2020-01-14, 12:28:
So... your problem is the CPU. There are much better CPUs for Win98 builds than a slow PIII. This does not make the GF2 and GF4M […]
Show full quote
The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-14, 01:33:
It is. Not everyone here is sitting on PIII 1Ghz+. […]
Show full quote

Well back in the day a slow CPU might be a factor, but not now.

It is. Not everyone here is sitting on PIII 1Ghz+.

There is no need to make a CPU bottlenecked build.

Mockery: Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Also a Geforce 2 is just slower than a good MX440/460. So the combo MX460+Detonator 4x.xx should be faster even in slower CPUs.

No - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRhm4aGNI3o / https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=809903#p809903

So... your problem is the CPU. There are much better CPUs for Win98 builds than a slow PIII. This does not make the GF2 and GF4MX any better or worst than they are, it is just that they are equally not well suited for a slow PIII build.

And even you linked that infamous CPU bottlenecked Phil's video everybody comment it should be re-done.

A proper MX460-440 is faster, more efficient, more silent, smaller, has extra filtering and features, the same compatibility, available in low profile, and is a lot cheaper than a powerful GF2. And that has nothing to do with how you like to do bizarre unbalanced builds X'D

https://youtu.be/_qWvc94DjJE

If your going for era correct and actually playing the games there is plenty of reasons. Athlon XP and petium 4 are more XP chips, I don't look at either and go hey that's a win98 cpu. My Athlon 700 and GeForce 2 GTS go together, my k6-III and TnT go together, my p4 and 6800gt go together.

Phenom X4 9950 - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - 7900GTX SLI - 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - 6800GT- 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Athlon 700 - COMPAQ Board - ASUS Geforce 256SDR - 120GB HDD - Windows 98SE

Reply 58 of 63, by schmatzler

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I switched from a GF 4800SE to a Radeon 9500XT because that's actually running cooler and with better performance (Antialiasing, hooray!).

I've yet to find a game it doesn't work with. So that's my favorite Windows 98 GPU, for now at least.
(I'm sure there's something it doesn't run with and I will probably need to reconsider in the future 😜 )

The MX460 is a pretty good card. I have the version from Medion/MSI with two VGA ports. Had problems with it at first, because it draws more power than an MX440 and my power supply couldn't handle it, though.

Reply 59 of 63, by biohazardx9

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Must admit, I have an unbranded (well its got no stickers so I am still identifying it) MX440. Still clean for its age. Nice purple PCB on it too.
Yes Forceware 80 causes my PII system to freeze 98 on bootup every other boot.
Nabbed a copy of the 45 driver from vogons drivers. Problem solved, runs perfectly now.
it's an AGP8X card but does play fine in AGP2X.

Really would prefer a Voodoo 3 in the rig but this is just fine.