BushLin wrote:

Those specs are correct for the Quadro but there isn't an exact matching Geforce (also, I've heard on these forums that the Win9 […]
Show full quote

cyclone3d wrote:

... Geforce FX 5900 Ultra Quadro FX 3000 / 3000G (AGP) 256MB GPU - 400 RAM - 425 […]
Show full quote

...
Geforce FX 5900 Ultra
Quadro FX 3000 / 3000G (AGP)
256MB
GPU - 400
RAM - 425

Those specs are correct for the Quadro but there isn't an exact matching Geforce (also, I've heard on these forums that the Win98 drivers don't play as nice with the Quadros):

Geforce FX 5900 Ultra
128 / 256MB
GPU - 450
RAM - 425

Geforce FX 5900
128MB
GPU - 400
RAM - 425

from both https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/?gpu=NV35&sort=name and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_N … rocessing_units

Yep.. I just looked at it wrong. My post is now fixed.

BushLin wrote:

Those specs are correct for the Quadro but there isn't an exact matching Geforce (also, I've heard on these forums that the Win98 drivers don't play as nice with the Quadros):

HMM! That is rather worrying to hear... do you have any links to discussions about them? Would be rather interesting to hear what exactly the issues are, and which games are likely to be affected.

You'd think it'd be the other way around though... Since the Quadro's were meant for enterprise and professionals, and nVidia specifically went out to give them more support, since you can't have the dreaded bluescreen when you're running a business. (part of the reason why they were more expensive)

Doomn00b wrote:

BushLin wrote:

Those specs are correct for the Quadro but there isn't an exact matching Geforce (also, I've heard on these forums that the Win98 drivers don't play as nice with the Quadros):

HMM! That is rather worrying to hear... do you have any links to discussions about them? Would be rather interesting to hear what exactly the issues are, and which games are likely to be affected.

You'd think it'd be the other way around though... Since the Quadro's were meant for enterprise and professionals, and nVidia specifically went out to give them more support, since you can't have the dreaded bluescreen when you're running a business. (part of the reason why they were more expensive)

I have a quadro FX card and it works fine in windows 98. You can also configure the graphics card as a geforce with rivatuner very easily, but you really don't have to. The quadro cards are just as compatible as the geforce cards.

Doomn00b wrote:

BushLin wrote:

Those specs are correct for the Quadro but there isn't an exact matching Geforce (also, I've heard on these forums that the Win98 drivers don't play as nice with the Quadros):

HMM! That is rather worrying to hear... do you have any links to discussions about them? Would be rather interesting to hear what exactly the issues are, and which games are likely to be affected.

You'd think it'd be the other way around though... Since the Quadro's were meant for enterprise and professionals, and nVidia specifically went out to give them more support, since you can't have the dreaded bluescreen when you're running a business. (part of the reason why they were more expensive)

This information is second hand but I have no reason to disbelieve the person who wrote it.

mothergoose729 wrote:

Why do people recommend this driver version? What issues are you referring too?

Might just be me, but I found performance on the 45.23 to be very poor with my Quadro 2000. The 56.63 drivers performed significantly better. I haven't run into any issues so far that I have been able to tie back to the driver version.

Re: Good value Win98 Graphic Card

If anyone had better results with the 45.23 driver and a Quadro wants to chime in I'm sure there's someone quite keen to hear the results.

Talking generally about your general point; Quadros are built and made for workstation use, I would assume to bulk of Nvidia's testing for them would be on things like CAD applications. They are generally built better with higher quality parts but any issues with games are far more likely to have surfaced on a Geforce.
I don't have any personal experience with gaming on a Quadro but I remember it was common to do a hardware mod to convert a Geforce to a Quadro to save money; maybe now we might see mods in the reverse direction if it somehow makes the 45.23 Windows 98 drivers work as they should on games.

EDIT: and in the time it took to put that together on a smartphone, they've replied to this topic themselves anyway

Geforce PCX 5950
256MB

Does not exist.

I've got either one or THREE Quadro 1300's on their way to me now - but I had no idea how BAD the specs were!

The specs are fine. It's literally 5900XT and should be quite overclockable. You don't need 256mb VRAM on such card. Unless you're planning to use high resolution texture mods for some games.

The Serpent Rider wrote:

Does not exist. […]
Show full quote

Geforce PCX 5950
256MB

Does not exist.

I've got either one or THREE Quadro 1300's on their way to me now - but I had no idea how BAD the specs were!

The specs are fine. It's literally 5900XT and should be quite overclockable. You don't need 256mb VRAM on such card. Unless you're planning to use high resolution texture mods for some games.

Ok, for the PCX5950 I was just going by the techpowerup database. I see quite a few mentions of it in release announcements but it looks like it was never released to market.

These 3, however were released
PCX 5300
PCX 5750
PCX 5900

There was even suposed to be a PCX 4300 (PCIe Geforce 4), but not sure if it was ever released either.

See here for more info:
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?3 … Geforce-FX-PCIE

PCI-E GF4 MX exists, I saw it for sale some time ago. Not sure how it is called, but it is useless junk anyway. 😵

havli wrote on 2019-05-28, 18:34:

Are there some reports of working GF8 when using win98? Because it didn't work for me (8800 GTS and 8600 GTS). GF 7950 GT ran fine on the same system... which was MSI P965 board and C2D E6600.

Just tried a Geforce 8 8800 GTS 320MB pcie on windows 98 and it installed the drivers but on restart it throws up a windows protection error.

Looks like I'm stuck with an S3 ViRGE DX/GX card for now as my voodoo 5 5500 pci has green lines on the screen :,(

gaz wrote on 2023-12-30, 01:14:

havli wrote on 2019-05-28, 18:34:

Are there some reports of working GF8 when using win98? Because it didn't work for me (8800 GTS and 8600 GTS). GF 7950 GT ran fine on the same system... which was MSI P965 board and C2D E6600.

Just tried a Geforce 8 8800 GTS 320MB pcie on windows 98 and it installed the drivers but on restart it throws up a windows protection error.

Looks like I'm stuck with an S3 ViRGE DX/GX card for now as my voodoo 5 5500 pci has green lines on the screen :,(

Win98 has zero support for unified shader GPUs, the X800 cards were that last from ATI to support 98 and the 7800GS was the last official GPU from nVidia but you can get a 7900GS and 7950GT to work with modded drivers. 98 also cant do nVidia/ATI SLI/Xfire at all so no dual GPU cards are supported. (I have never seen a 7900GTX working under 98 even with modded drivers but in theory it should work)

By no support I mean the drivers may install but you'll get the errors you describe, even modded drivers cant get around this problem.

Lots of people have tried to get 8000 series cards working under 98 and none have been successful, same for X1000 based ATI GPUs.

Trashbytes wrote on 2023-12-30, 05:56:

Win98 has zero support for unified shader GPUs, the X800 cards were that last from ATI to support 98 and the 7800GS was the last […]
Show full quote

gaz wrote on 2023-12-30, 01:14:

havli wrote on 2019-05-28, 18:34:

Are there some reports of working GF8 when using win98? Because it didn't work for me (8800 GTS and 8600 GTS). GF 7950 GT ran fine on the same system... which was MSI P965 board and C2D E6600.

Just tried a Geforce 8 8800 GTS 320MB pcie on windows 98 and it installed the drivers but on restart it throws up a windows protection error.

Looks like I'm stuck with an S3 ViRGE DX/GX card for now as my voodoo 5 5500 pci has green lines on the screen :,(

Win98 has zero support for unified shader GPUs, the X800 cards were that last from ATI to support 98 and the 7800GS was the last official GPU from nVidia but you can get a 7900GS and 7950GT to work with modded drivers. 98 also cant do nVidia/ATI SLI/Xfire at all so no dual GPU cards are supported. (I have never seen a 7900GTX working under 98 even with modded drivers but in theory it should work)

By no support I mean the drivers may install but you'll get the errors you describe, even modded drivers cant get around this problem.

Lots of people have tried to get 8000 series cards working under 98 and none have been successful, same for X1000 based ATI GPUs.

So, I guess I'm looking for a card that predates the 8 series.

How does the ati X800 series cards compare to the nvidia models?

And are they available in pcie?

I do have an x800 card somewhere but I'm sure it was an AGP version. I also have a geforce 4 ti somewhere too buy I think that was AGP also.

gaz wrote on 2023-12-30, 06:29:

How does the ati X800 series cards compare to the nvidia models?

In terms of performance, X800 cards are incredible for Win98 gaming. You can fully max out any game from that time period using the 1600x1200 resolution, with AA and AF cranked up as desired. Game compatibility is also very good with Catalyst 6.2 drivers, especially when compared to later Nvidia cards which need 7x.xx or 8x.xx drivers.

The downside is that Radeon cards don't support some legacy features such as table fog and paletted textures. But for games that don't use those, an X800 series card is an excellent choice. Be advised that the stock cooling solutions on these cards tend to be noisy, especially with high-end X850 models.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-12-30, 06:41:

gaz wrote on 2023-12-30, 06:29:

How does the ati X800 series cards compare to the nvidia models?

In terms of performance, X800 cards are incredible for Win98 gaming. You can fully max out any game from that time period using the 1600x1200 resolution, with AA and AF cranked up as desired. Game compatibility is also very good with Catalyst 6.2 drivers, especially when compared to later Nvidia cards which need 7x.xx or 8x.xx drivers.

The downside is that Radeon cards don't support some legacy features such as table fog and paletted textures. But for games that don't use those, an X800 series card is an excellent choice. Be advised that the stock cooling solutions on these cards tend to be noisy, especially with high-end X850 models.

And what if I paired an ati with a voodoo 2 card?

Would that fill in most of the compatibility gaps?

gaz wrote on 2023-12-30, 07:46:

And what if I paired an ati with a voodoo 2 card?

Would that fill in most of the compatibility gaps?

Yes, that would give you perfect compatibility across the board. If you're curious about those legacy features, there are additional details here and also here on the Vogons wiki.

Additionally, Radeon cards get perfect table fog compatibility under WinXP when using Catalyst 7.11 drivers or newer. So if you plan on dual booting, you can play some of the games which use that feature under XP.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-12-30, 08:17:

gaz wrote on 2023-12-30, 07:46:

And what if I paired an ati with a voodoo 2 card?

Would that fill in most of the compatibility gaps?

Yes, that would give you perfect compatibility across the board. If you're curious about those legacy features, there are additional details here and also here on the Vogons wiki.

Additionally, Radeon cards get perfect table fog compatibility under WinXP when using Catalyst 7.11 drivers or newer. So if you plan on dual booting, you can play some of the games which use that feature under XP.

My favourite setup is my GF3 Ti500 with Voodoo2 SLI, pretty much covers everything for games from that era but a GF4 would also work well, not much help to the OP but I dont run GF3 era games on newer hardware due to the compatibility issues.