I have a TNT2 M64. It's very compatible with Windows 95 OSR2 through Windows XP. It works in AGP 2X and 4X motherboards, so it's a good card for determining if an AGP motherboard is functional. It supports 32-bit color and is fun for playing Windows 9X 3D games up to DirectX 6 (as long as 640×480 is good enough for you). A CPU with a clock speed between 300 MHz and 600 MHz would be appropriate.

A friend had a 400 MHz Celeron with a TNT2 M64 graphics card and at the time it seemed like an otherworldly piece of kit compared to my P166MMX with a Voodoo 1. It's a poor memory-bandwidth starved TNT2, a beast in chains. That said, still much better than a lot of its contemporary alternatives. Lot's of fun if you stick to roughly Quake2-era stuff.

STX wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:10:

I have a TNT2 M64. It's very compatible with Windows 95 OSR2 through Windows XP. It works in AGP 2X and 4X motherboards, so it's a good card for determining if an AGP motherboard is functional. It supports 32-bit color and is fun for playing Windows 9X 3D games up to DirectX 6 (as long as 640×480 is good enough for you). A CPU with a clock speed between 300 MHz and 600 MHz would be appropriate.

Thanks a lot! So likely a high PII/low PIII, like a 440BX-based system, right?

leonardo wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:17:

A friend had a 400 MHz Celeron with a TNT2 M64 graphics card and at the time it seemed like an otherworldly piece of kit compared to my P166MMX with a Voodoo 1. It's a poor memory-bandwidth starved TNT2, a beast in chains. That said, still much better than a lot of its contemporary alternatives. Lot's of fun if you stick to roughly Quake2-era stuff.

I've never owned a 3dfx card either, and they have become a devil to track down for a reasonable price 😀) but I'm quite fine with Q2 era games, especially Thief: The Metal Age.

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:20:

I've never owned a 3dfx card either, and they have become a devil to track down for a reasonable price 😀) but I'm quite fine with Q2 era games, especially Thief: The Metal Age.

If you mean the second game in the series, that was released in 2000, so it's not in the same ballpark as Quake 2 which came out in late 1997. Th first Thief game called The Dark Project is a bit closer to that, since it came out in 1998.

That said, while Thief 2 is much more demanding than its predecessor, it should still run ok on the M64, as long as you stick to the 640x480 resolution and use a decent CPU (400+ MHz). Don't expect a locked 60+ FPS experience on that setup, but a steady 30+ should be obtainable.

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:20:

leonardo wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:17:

A friend had a 400 MHz Celeron with a TNT2 M64 graphics card and at the time it seemed like an otherworldly piece of kit compared to my P166MMX with a Voodoo 1. It's a poor memory-bandwidth starved TNT2, a beast in chains. That said, still much better than a lot of its contemporary alternatives. Lot's of fun if you stick to roughly Quake2-era stuff.

I've never owned a 3dfx card either, and they have become a devil to track down for a reasonable price 😀) but I'm quite fine with Q2 era games, especially Thief: The Metal Age.

I wouldn't go for a 3Dfx now. They were great back when, but now they're just collectibles. For what they provide, they're way overpriced. For every V3 selling at ~$150+ you can grab a box of TNT2's that were the Nvidia equivalent at the time, and in some ways superior. The first Thief will play fine on an M64. Metal Age at a lower resolution and maybe lowered details. This card will be considerably faster in 16-bit color so you may end up trading resolution for color depth in the games where performance is right on the mark...

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:27:

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:20:

I've never owned a 3dfx card either, and they have become a devil to track down for a reasonable price 😀) but I'm quite fine with Q2 era games, especially Thief: The Metal Age.

If you mean the second game in the series, that was released in 2000, so it's not in the same ballpark as Quake 2 which came out in late 1997. Th first Thief game called The Dark Project is a bit closer to that, since it came out in 1998.

That said, while Thief 2 is much more demanding than its predecessor, it should still run ok on the M64, as long as you stick to the 640x480 resolution and use a decent CPU (400+ MHz). Don't expect a locked 60+ FPS experience on that setup, but a steady 30+ should be obtainable.

My expectations for retro PCs is "as long as it's not a slideshow" 😀) Thief 2 was based on Quake 2 if I remember it right. The Dark Project was based on Quake 1.

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:36:

Thief 2 was based on Quake 2 if I remember it right. The Dark Project was based on Quake 1.

No.

Both games used the proprietary Dark Engine, which was developed in-house by Looking Glass Studios. The version of the engine used in Thief 2 is much more advanced, and therefore has steeper hardware requirements.

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 18:29:

I know TNT2 M64 used to be very popular with OEMs - even the computers at my university had them. But I personally never owned one up to now - I went from a 486DX4 straight to P4 1.8 with a GeForce2 MX200. I guess it's a cut-down TNT2, comparable to the original Riva TNT.

I would like to do a build with it. I wonder which CPU would be a good match. And which games would run best on it. Any experience with TNT2 M64 you might want to share?

I had a TNT2 M64 back in the day on a 700MHz Dell PIII. First card I had with hardware 3D graphics. Would have loved the GeForce GTS but my budget didn't allow it. This was also the last CRT monitor I ever had, so my resolution expectations were a bit lower than with 1600x1200/1920x1200 LCDs, but I generally seemed to have been pretty happy with it. Certainly played the original UT on it, I think at maybe 1024x768, not sure what other games I had back then with 3D graphics (lots of strategy games, e.g. AoE2, later CivIII, etc did not have 3D graphics)

The TNT2 M64 also makes a great option for DOS games - very compatible and fast. The PCI versions are getting expensive but AGP versions are plentiful and cheap.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:58:

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:36:

Thief 2 was based on Quake 2 if I remember it right. The Dark Project was based on Quake 1.

No.

Both games used the proprietary Dark Engine, which was developed in-house by Looking Glass Studios. The version of the engine used in Thief 2 is much more advanced, and therefore has steeper hardware requirements.

Guess my whole life has been a lie then 😁 I grew up believing Thief used a modified version of the Quake engine.

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:17:

...So likely a high PII/low PIII, like a 440BX-based system, right?

Yes. Your motherboard chipset will depend on what you have for CPU and RAM. The 440BX is legendary for Pentium III CPUs, but Intel's 815 is also a good common AGP chipset. If you use a Pentium II, then the 440LX would be an option. There are also chipsets from other vendors, such as SiS, which would work well with a TNT2 M64. An AMD K6-2 or Athlon system would be a good match for your video card too. The lists of chipsets on Wikipedia will help you.

The funny thing, though, is that I've never witnessed anyone planning to build a system from scratch around a TNT2 M64 because this video card is so ordinary. I actually think that this is great. You can build a low-hassle system that will play Windows 9X games enjoyably and won't cost too much.

STX wrote on 2023-10-25, 04:55:

songoffall wrote on 2023-10-24, 19:17:

...So likely a high PII/low PIII, like a 440BX-based system, right?

Yes. Your motherboard chipset will depend on what you have for CPU and RAM. The 440BX is legendary for Pentium III CPUs, but Intel's 815 is also a good common AGP chipset. If you use a Pentium II, then the 440LX would be an option. There are also chipsets from other vendors, such as SiS, which would work well with a TNT2 M64. An AMD K6-2 or Athlon system would be a good match for your video card too. The lists of chipsets on Wikipedia will help you.

The funny thing, though, is that I've never witnessed anyone planning to build a system from scratch around a TNT2 M64 because this video card is so ordinary. I actually think that this is great. You can build a low-hassle system that will play Windows 9X games enjoyably and won't cost too much.

It may be ordinary, but it's still something I can love 😀) and building ordinary PCs from back then is what I usually do.

TNT2 was a great card. I have one here that was bought second hand 2 decades ago along with some other stuff to build my mom a new upgraded computer. Very vanilla card but they were a decent gaming card when they came out. I'd pick a geforce or geforce 2 anything over a tnt2 for any build of that era but if the TNT2 is what you've got, I say send it

songoffall, you're going to ask which driver to use for your graphics card. Here's the answer:
/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=66296

The TNT2 is a fantastic card, although the M64 I think is the value version, but I bet it's still great.

I had the TNT2 Ultra at the time. Many years ago when all that stuff was new, I upgraded from a TNT (which I loved) to a TNT2 Ultra, and was really impressed. I remember playing Thief 2 (might have actually been the original, I don't remember anymore) and it being silky smooth and looking beautiful. Both of the TNT cards are fantastic, although I am a bit biased since they were the cards I had (and loved) at the time. I still remember walking into a store and buying the TNT and later the TNT 2 Ultra. Great cards.

Not sure how the M64 specifically holds up, but I bet it's still good enough.

Vanta/m64 were fantastic in ~2000 in budget category because of delivering real full 3d acceleration using battle tested and constantly updated Nvidia driver at price point reserved to barely working alternatives. It was a time of low end consisting of i740, Sis, Permedia1/2, S3 Savage1/4, S3 Trio3Ds and ATi Rage whatever/Matrox "I cant believe its not 3d" chipsets. Then Vanta/m64 showed up starting as low as ~$75, on par with used Voodoo2 and close to bargain Voodoo3 2000/Velocity.
Example October 1999 European prices Re: Are Voodoo graphics card THAT good ?:

13dfx Voodoo2 $75 DEALS section
216MB TNT2 M64 $75 DEALS section
3cheapest TNT $75
4cheapest garbage Savage4 $81
5Voodoo3 2000 $120
6Voodoo3 3000 $150
7cheapest TNT2 $196
8TNT2 Ultra $258

How it felt to upgrade from one of the scam "3d" cards to m64 Re: Original Voodoo 5 6000 prototype for sale on eBay :

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-11, 07:53:

I can't even describe what the TNT2 M64 meant for me. I went from an S3 Virge DX to an ATI Rage IIC (haha, 'major' upgrade!). […]
Show full quote

I can't even describe what the TNT2 M64 meant for me.
I went from an S3 Virge DX to an ATI Rage IIC (haha, 'major' upgrade!).

Finally, in the year 2000 I upgraded to a Riva TNT2 M64, and... all of a sudden, all of my 3D games were actually running!!! Not only that, but they looked as they were supposed to! 😁
Truthfully, this card meant everything to me. My favorite gaming memories revolve around it.

Historically significant card establishing true playable low end of graphic card market. Before this buying low end meant no/severely broken 3d acceleration and bad time playing games. It took 3dfx a year to reply with Velocity but they couldnt keep up with avalanche of Taiwanese Nvidia M64 clones. As great as this accomplishment is from historical perspective I wouldnt use one now 😀, its just a cost reduced version of contemporary Nvidia high end chip.

midicollector wrote on 2023-10-28, 03:52:

I still remember walking into a store and buying the TNT and later the TNT 2 Ultra. Great cards.

Not sure how the M64 specifically holds up, but I bet it's still good enough.

The M64 is a TNT2 with its memory bus width cut in half (64 bit vs. the original 128 bit).

In terms of performance, it's comparable to the first Nvidia TNT card (from the previous generation) and about half as fast as a standard (non-ultra/pro) TNT2.

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-10-28, 06:04:

[...]

As great as this accomplishment is from historical perspective I wouldnt use one now 😀, its just a cost reduced version of contemporary Nvidia high end chip.

Depends on the build and what you're trying to do. For best 1999 performance, no, not a chance. For a recreation of what you might actually have had back then: quite likely (I definitely did), and for an AGP based DOS system with max VESA support, you can do much worse. Of course a lot of those card had crappy analog components resulting in blurry output - but given the main alternative for such a build were S3 cards infamous for the same, in both cases it's a matter of finding a low end card from a good brand.