Yes, the GeForce 3 Ti 200 is quite a bit faster than GeForce 4 MX 440 / GeForce 2 Ultra and much faster than GeForce 2 GTS (particularly when tested on very fast CPUs). And, yeah, also MUCH faster than GeForce 256 DDR.
I had the GeForce 3 Ti 200 back in 2001, on an AMD Thunderbird 1333 MHz. All my friends were very jealous. 😀
I actually think that the GeForce 3 is the best card you can buy for a Pentium 3, when used with old drivers.
The installation can be forced when installing the driver manually, from Device Manager. You can select any card you want (in this case, you can select the normal GeForce 3, which is virtually identical but with higher clock speeds).

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 12:24:

Yes, the GeForce 3 Ti 200 is quite a bit faster than GeForce 4 MX 440 / GeForce 2 Ultra and much faster than GeForce 2 GTS (part […]
Show full quote

Yes, the GeForce 3 Ti 200 is quite a bit faster than GeForce 4 MX 440 / GeForce 2 Ultra and much faster than GeForce 2 GTS (particularly when tested on very fast CPUs). And, yeah, also MUCH faster than GeForce 256 DDR.
I had the GeForce 3 Ti 200 back in 2001, on an AMD Thunderbird 1333 MHz. All my friends were very jealous. 😀
I actually think that the GeForce 3 is the best card you can buy for a Pentium 3, when used with old drivers.
The installation can be forced when installing the driver manually, from Device Manager. You can select any card you want (in this case, you can select the normal GeForce 3, which is virtually identical but with higher clock speeds).

ok great! i will buy it ! I hope the deal works ! Now im going to sleep , thanks so much 😀

It should work perfectly. Just make sure that you are using a decent power supply with a solid 5V rail. The GeForce 3 Ti 200 needs about 5-6 Amps + 5-10 Amps for the CPU/motherboard (so, your PSU should be able to supply at least 15A on the 5V rail, ideally 20A, to be on the safe side).

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 12:36:

It should work perfectly. Just make sure that you are using a decent power supply with a solid 5V rail. The GeForce 3 Ti 200 needs about 5-6 Amps + 5-10 Amps for the CPU/motherboard (so, your PSU should be able to supply at least 15A on the 5V rail, ideally 20A, to be on the safe side).

I just made the deal. I already paid him by paypal. The Geforce 3 ti200 is mine 😀 My power supply is a ThermalTake 430 watts, do you think its enough ? i will check voltages later today. Thanks

Ehm, we already know the voltages supplied by the ATX PSUs 😀 You need to check the amps
As for the ThermalTake 430 PSU... it depends on the model. If it's one of the newer models, like this one, then... not really. It can only handle 13Amps on the 5V rail. It should work with your P3 + GeForce 3 Ti 200... but I think it's pushing it, so I would get something better for long term usage.

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 12:45:

Ehm, we already know the voltages supplied by the ATX PSUs 😀 You need to check the amps
As for the ThermalTake 430 PSU... it depends on the model. If it's one of the newer models, like this one, then... not really. It can only handle 13Amps on the 5V rail. It should work with your P3 + GeForce 3 Ti 200... but I think it's pushing it, so I would get something better for long term usage.

i just checked. its 30A on 5v
Model: Thermaltake Tr2-430NP.
Its a old model. 😀

It looks ok ! is it right ? 😀
Thanks

Check the picture, its mine.

It's perfect (although, I would still check the capacitors on that PSU, since it's one of the very old models) 😀 So, let us know how the card works after you get it.

By the way, you can use these modified drivers for it (so you won't need to force the installation). I remembered that they were posted by Skalabala on another thread.

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 12:54:

It's perfect (although, I would still check the capacitors on that PSU, since it's one of the very old models) 😀 So, let us know how the card works after you get it.

By the way, you can use these modified drivers for it (so you won't need to force the installation). I remembered that they were posted by Skalabala on another thread.

My father will check the psu capacitors.
Thanks so much Bloodem ! Its so much appreciated. Im really happy. I will go take it wednesday, Thursday or friday. As soon as i have it i let you know the results. Im 100% sure i will be satisfied. i was already mostly satisfied with the mx440 se at around 80%. So now iM 100% very satisfied, IM VERY HAPPY ! Hurray ! 😀 Ok i get some sleep now 😉 LoL! bye guys !

Another possibility for you could be a GeForce2 Ti, but I don't know how common these are where you live.

You're asking about stuff that I haven't seen answered many times, which is CPU limited scenarios. Usually when it comes to retro computing people just use (more or less) period correct hardware to play period correct (or older) software, where things always work more or less fine, or if the CPU is the limiting factor they just get a faster CPU.

However it looks like you want to play any Win98 compatible game at 60fps, so I think you're better off either investing in a faster CPU, for example Athlon XP or Pentium 4, or accepting that you won't be able to play every single game at 1024x768 and 60fps.

Don't worry, devius, he'll get there 😀) I remember how I started, I just wanted to build a period correct Windows 98 PC... not too fast, not too slow. Fast forward 5 years later, and I now have 15 PCs or so + a lot of spare parts that I could probably use to build at least 15 more PCs 😁 Eh, some people collect stamps, I collect PCs, apparently... My wife is not too happy about it, though. 😁
The GeForce 2 Ti is also fine, I think it can also be forced to work with driver version 7.76 (though never tried it, I don't have that card), however the GeForce 3 Ti 200 is much faster. And since it surely works with these old drivers + he can buy it for $20... it's a no-brainer. 😀

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 16:41:

Don't worry, devius, he'll get there 😀)

Ha Ha true! This all started with a single Pentium 233MMX 😆

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 16:41:

I remember how I started, I just wanted to build a period correct Windows 98 PC... not too fast, not too slow. Fast forward 5 years later, and I now have 15 PCs or so + a lot of spare parts that I could probably use to build at least 15 more PCs 😁

Same here, but I just wanted to build a maxed out 486. That sure escalated quickly 😅

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 16:41:

The GeForce 2 Ti is also fine, I think it can also be forced to work with driver version 7.76 (though never tried it, I don't have that card), however the GeForce 3 Ti 200 is much faster. And since it surely works with these old drivers + he can buy it for $20... it's a no-brainer. 😀

Definitely. Here's a comparison with a few contemporary graphics cards from the launch of the Ti line using a Pentium 4 2GHz: https://www.anandtech.com/show/831

is there any significant advantage in using 7.76? with a Pentium 3?

in any case, a fast 4 MX (460 or 440 with high clocks) or fast FX 5200 should mostly deliver a similar experience (well, no PS on the MX) to the ti 200 and should be easier to find.

@SPBHM, on a Coppermine, at lower resolutions, even the GeForce 2 MX is faster than a 4 MX (not to mention FX 5200). CPU overhead with newer drivers was always a thing (and it probably still is today, although to a lesser extent... since technological progress has not been as fast as it used to be - to put it mildly).
At very high resolutions the 4 MX will be faster than a 2 MX, of course, however still not as fast as a GeForce 2 GTS or GeForce 3 with period correct drivers. And we're not even talking about a 5% difference, not at all - a GeForce 4 MX / FX on a Coppermine can be up to 20 - 30% slower than the aforementioned cards (depending on the game).

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 18:23:

@SPBHM, on a Coppermine, at lower resolutions, even the GeForce 2 MX is faster than a 4 MX (not to mention FX 5200). CPU overhead with newer drivers was always a thing (and it probably still is today, although to a lesser extent... since technological progress has not been as fast as it used to be - to put it mildly).
At very high resolutions the 4 MX will be faster than a 2 MX, of course, however still not as fast as a GeForce 2 GTS or GeForce 3 with period correct drivers. And we're not even talking about a 5% difference, not at all - a GeForce 4 MX / FX on a Coppermine can be up to 20 - 30% slower than the aforementioned cards (depending on the game).

do we have examples of games that really struggle with newer drivers?
from all I can tell it's very game dependent which driver performs better, but most games will perform quite well with the drivers a 4 MX supports (27.xx and higher)

I compared them a while back, so don't have exact numbers right now. However, there was a very noticeable difference in all my usual tests (GLQuake, Quake 2, Expendable, NFS 3, NFS4, 3DMark 99/2000). For GLQuake / Quake 2 it wasn't a big issue, because framerates were still very high, however for NFS3 and especially for NFS4, the gameplay experience is actually affected with newer cards/drivers.
If I find the time, I might do a GeForce 2 GTS / GeForce 4 MX 440 comparison tomorrow on one of my Pentium 3 PCs. It would be interesting for future reference.

SPBHM wrote on 2020-08-24, 18:50:

do we have examples of games that really struggle with newer drivers?
from all I can tell it's very game dependent which driver performs better, but most games will perform quite well with the drivers a 4 MX supports (27.xx and higher)

Phil made a video on this.

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 19:25:

I compared them a while back, so don't have exact numbers right now. However, there was a very noticeable difference in all my usual tests (GLQuake, Quake 2, Expendable, NFS 3, NFS4, 3DMark 99/2000). For GLQuake / Quake 2 it wasn't a big issue, because framerates were still very high, however for NFS3 and especially for NFS4, the gameplay experience is actually affected with newer cards/drivers.
If I find the time, I might do a GeForce 2 GTS / GeForce 4 MX 440 comparison tomorrow on one of my Pentium 3 PCs. It would be interesting for future reference.

thanks, I would be interested in that, I'm currently running a FX5900 on a p3 1.1GHz (Coppermine FSB100), I think the experience is pretty good so far, but without comparing to something else I really couldn't tell if driver overhead is holding it back compared to a proper year 2000 driver/GPU, at the end of the day p3 is always kind of slow at some games from that era when you max the details and go with a 2020 mindset of stable 60+

I do have a ti 200 but it has a blown ceramic cap which would be nice to attempt a fix but I don't have the components (or the value, but I assume it's the same of a nearby intact one) nor skill/experience at the moment, but other than that I don't have an older geforce, the V4 4500 PCI is what I have from that era, but it's clearly slower than the fx 5900 from my testing so far which is the expected,

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2020-08-24, 19:32:

SPBHM wrote on 2020-08-24, 18:50:

do we have examples of games that really struggle with newer drivers?
from all I can tell it's very game dependent which driver performs better, but most games will perform quite well with the drivers a 4 MX supports (27.xx and higher)

Phil made a video on this.

thanks it's a little all over the place with that, the game/version and other factors will influence it quite a bit you can see performance going down in some versions and then back again in newer ones... it is certainly advantageous to have a wider range of drivers available, but, looking at that, I feel like some games might have been subject to benchmark specific optimizations at the time, like Expendable?

realistically you would need to investigate if there isn't a difference in visual quality or default quality settings even, but I guess if you can't notice it who cares, just like when one card is delivering 150 or 100fps, if you can't notice it's not really that relevant, but if you are going from 30 to 25 you will probably notice.

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 19:25:

I compared them a while back, so don't have exact numbers right now. However, there was a very noticeable difference in all my usual tests (GLQuake, Quake 2, Expendable, NFS 3, NFS4, 3DMark 99/2000). For GLQuake / Quake 2 it wasn't a big issue, because framerates were still very high, however for NFS3 and especially for NFS4, the gameplay experience is actually affected with newer cards/drivers.
If I find the time, I might do a GeForce 2 GTS / GeForce 4 MX 440 comparison tomorrow on one of my Pentium 3 PCs. It would be interesting for future reference.

Hi guys ! I got earlier in the morning the Geforce 3 ti200 and i received by mail my voodoo 3, its was a big day ! LoL and it will be a long 😀 LoL!

You know what you're talking about, Bloodem 😀
First about Detonator 7,76 you were right. With the geforce 3 ti200 each game in 1024x768 have 10 to 20+ more fps than nvidia 30.82 driver.

In NFSIII , with 7,76 the first race, with the highest graphics setting in 1024x768 i got 60fps , 100% stable. I didnt find a way to fall to 59fps 🤣 Always at 60fps. BUT with 30.82, with same setting, race start at 55fps and drop to 45 when A LOT of cars or 50-55 with a lot of fog. When no car around it stays at 60fps. i made several tests.. But if i put view distance to medium it will stay at 60fps almost 99% of the time. it drop to 55fps when a lot of cars in the same place.
So i will play this game with 7,76 driver.

With Porsche Unleashed BIG DIFFERENCE!

With 7.76 driver
in 1024x768x32 with highest graphics settings , except high view distance instead of very high and NO HUD display option: in the Normandie race, at the start in forest with a lot of cars, i got 55 and the next minute it was 50 to 65 fps, one time only it drop to 45 fps. Most of time 50-60fps. As soon as i exit the forest even with a lot of cars at the exit , for the next minute i got 65 fps to 75fps even with a lot of cars. After that When i race at first place with no cars around i got 75 to 85fps until the lap end. IM 100% satisfied with the geforce 3 ti in this game. ( i will make the same test in my p2 450mhz soon and update my benchmark result)

Now!! ouch!! With 30.82 drivers, things gone bad. LoL! With same settings, at start i got 28-29fps yeah instead of 50-60 with 7,76 driver. Ouch!!
When racing in forest with a lot of cars i got i got 27 to 35fps most of the time, a few time 25fps. a few times 40fps. when i exit the forest with no cars around, i got 62 to 67fps until the lap end VS 75-85 for 7,76 driver. GF3 with 30,82 is still a lot better than geforce mx440se-64bit at 15-20fps at the start of Normandie race. with 30.82 its still runs 2X time better than mx440se. i have to check again but i think the ram of my 440mx 64bit is only sdr , its really a bad card.

Here's the problem with 7,76 drivers. I DIDN'T FIND a way to get Hot Pursuit 2 working with 7.76 driver. i tried for a long time. Even with the game fully patched with last patch, game froze at startup OR when starting the race. i have to reboot the computer. More strange in graphics setting if i switch to 32bit, a black screen appear and game freeze. if i try to max out the different setting, it says: your hardware cant do highest setting. so i can select them.

But with 30.82 drivers, game run at least very fine, very playable. I made several tests with differents graphics setting. But in medium graphics at 1024x768x32bits i got at least always 30fps. most of time 35 to 45. high is 50-55 with no cars around. in these same graphic setting i got 7 to 12fps with mx440se. same for gf2mx 200 64bit.
In high graphics with gf3 ti200 the game between 20 to 35fps, its not playable for me. Medium graphic is st least very playable in 1024x768x32b.

I have some questions 😀

1. Do you believe i could have more fps in Porshe unleashed and Hot Pursuit2 with a Geforce 4 Ti4200? ( maybe i will buy one in a few months)
And the same question for the Geforce 2 GTS,Ti,Ultra ? ( but i think it should be worst than gf3) ( i think 6800gt or ultra too will be slower, right? i think this because fx 5200 pci 64bit runs very badly in NFSiii worse than mx440se by a big difference.) thanks

2. On my P3 933mhz, With the voodoo 3 i patches NFSIII with the voodoo 3 patch, but i think it runs in D3D instead of Glide 3dfx mode ? How can i know in which mode it runs ? Did i configured it correctly for glide ? i followed the instruction. And fraps doesnt work with voodoo3 in NFSIII. But the game dont runs very smootly, it looks like 40-45fps very disappointed 🙁 Still i will play it with Gf3 ti200 instead. Except if the game was running in d3d and i find a way to get glide working and at 60fps. Im very disappoibted of the voodoo3 performance with NFS III 🙁 i dont need fraps to see that the game runs not very smootly like 40-45fps. thanks

3. I cant find a way to get Wipeout XL working in Glide, because Glide dont appear in the configuration menu, only d3d. and i didn't find any glide 3dfx patch for Wipeout XL. i would like to play this game on my voodoo3 like in my young age with voodoo1. any voodoo3 patch ? thanks

4. About the voodoo 3 in glide, i got it working very nicely in NFS II SE, i love the fog. But do you know any trick to get higher resolution ? i think its 640x480.

5. What is the best voodoo3 driver for win98? i use the last official one. i think 1.07 or something like that.

Thanks again for answers guys it ALWAYS appreciated.

Thanks Bloodem for the gf3 ti200 im VERY satisfied with it. I will play a lot of NFSIII with it with 7,76 driver. and i will switch to 30.82 for hot pursuit2. i will try NFS High Stakes later.

Note: im sorry if you found a lot of grammars fault , i will correct the post in 2-3 hours, i have to take my kids somewhere... 😀

bloodem wrote on 2020-08-24, 12:36:

Just make sure that you are using a decent power supply with a solid 5V rail. The GeForce 3 Ti 200 needs about 5-6 Amps

Can you tell me where those numbers are from? I'm doubtful they're accurate since Intel specifies a maximum of 2A for 5V AGP power supply in their Accelerated Graphics Port Interface Specification Revision 2.0.

you have to edit some value on registry for Glide, even NFS Porsche has a glide mode that might run faster (but I think it looks worse than d3d mode maxed), NFS3 might also require a patch, by default it should be running in D3D yes with the V3, which is likely not the most optimized option,