anyways if it was possible to get these pci-e bridge cards to run stable or run at all with 45.xx driver than it would be a good card. Since the newer drivers 71.xx break game compatibility in some cases they are not good candidates for retro gaming on PCI-E boards. However ATI X300-x600-x800 pci-e cards seem to run quite well on 9X. They do lack a couple features but I don't think they are game breaking features. Glide wrappers might also be way more stable and better on the ATI cards since they should be fully DX9 capable unlike the FX cores on nvidia cards. so there you go.

anyways if it was possible to get these pci-e bridge cards to run stable or run at all with 45.xx driver than it would be a good card

I think it could be possible by completely disabling AGP features in driver. That way HSI bridge will act as simple PCI-PCIe pass-through.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-12-11, 20:00:

anyways if it was possible to get these pci-e bridge cards to run stable or run at all with 45.xx driver than it would be a good card

I think it could be possible by completely disabling AGP features in driver. That way HSI bridge will act as simple PCI-PCIe pass-through.

I wonder if just editing out the AGP registry changes would be enough. I've got a system similar to Warlord, a 915gm board that only likes HSI bridged Gpus in 98se. My quest is to find the ultimate driver for this card.

My system:
Arbor itx 915gme board
Banias @ 1.4ghz
Quadro FX 1300
512Mb Ram

I'll try any ideas, the 81,98 seem the most stable with a working control panel but 66,94 being fastest with broken CP.

I need a bit of clarification here:

- 45.XX drivers are "best" for W98 games
- FX series came with 50.XX+, so this seems like a wrench in the W98 cogs
- PCX5xxx also need even newer HSI aware drivers, which even further complicate W98 compatibility

So, both AGP and PCIE solutions here seem problematic?

2mg wrote on 2023-07-03, 00:30:

I need a bit of clarification here: […]
Show full quote

I need a bit of clarification here:

- 45.XX drivers are "best" for W98 games
- FX series came with 50.XX+, so this seems like a wrench in the W98 cogs
- PCX5xxx also need even newer HSI aware drivers, which even further complicate W98 compatibility

So, both AGP and PCIE solutions here seem problematic?

plenty of FX cards are supported on the 4x drivers, starting in something around 42.xx with the FX 5800

2mg wrote on 2023-07-03, 00:30:

I need a bit of clarification here: […]
Show full quote

I need a bit of clarification here:

- 45.XX drivers are "best" for W98 games
- FX series came with 50.XX+, so this seems like a wrench in the W98 cogs
- PCX5xxx also need even newer HSI aware drivers, which even further complicate W98 compatibility

So, both AGP and PCIE solutions here seem problematic?

Anything except FX 5700 can work with 45.23, officially or unofficially. 5700 requires 53.xx drivers, because it's a newest chip in the FX lineup, but it's theoretically possible to force older drivers partially, by mismatching some DLLs in installation folder (like I did on GeForce 4 Ti 4200-8x). To what extend it's possible to do such trick on PCX cards is unknown.

In theory, only Direct3D and OpenGL DLLs are relevant for compatibility with old games anyway. So perhaps it's simple as that.

The Serpent Rider wrote:

Anything except FX 5700 can work with 45.23, officially or unofficially. 5700 requires 53.xx drivers, because it's a newest chip in the FX lineup, but it's theoretically possible to force older drivers partially, by mismatching some DLLs in installation folder (like I did on GeForce 4 Ti 4200-8x). To what extend it's possible to do such trick on PCX cards is unknown.

In theory, only Direct3D and OpenGL DLLs are relevant for compatibility with old games anyway. So perhaps it's simple as that.

Yeah, I'm in a pinch here as I had hoped to put a PCX59xx or a PCIE FX Quadro mod equivalent into a PCIE slot, but from what I gather the former uses that HSI chip and I'm unsure about their W98 drivers, and I know from what little I gathered here about Quadro mods is that they're even weirder in that regard.

Which Quadros would be closest (both "out of the box" if that exists, and BIOS modded) to ~FX5900?
OTOH I can't seem to find any PCX GPU on eBayou, am I missing something here?

SPBHM wrote on 2023-07-03, 17:51:

plenty of FX cards are supported on the 4x drivers, starting in something around 42.xx with the FX 5800

How do PCX/modded PCIE Quadros fare?

Quadro FX 1000/2000/3000.

The original card I posted was a close match to a FX 5900XT but it uses a HSI bridge. Later I discovered that because of the HSI bridge the only drivers from 60.xx Series and onward seemed to work for me. On top of that my card was defective and crashed a lot to the point that I tossed it.

There was a couple consumer level varients of these cards but they are rare, the rarest card a 4300. The 4300 is a 440MX with a HSI bridge. There is a 5700 and a 5900 I think but they should all be plauged by the same driver problems.

Problem is that after 45.XX drivers Nvidia broke a lot of retro compatability. Best thery yet by serpent rider was to downgrade the DLLs. Perhaps one could install 60.xx Drivers Downgrade to 50.XX DLLS and posibily use riva tuner to tweak the registry to make a game work. All and All not a great experience.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-07-05, 13:29:

Quadro FX 1000/2000/3000.

Warlord wrote on 2023-07-05, 13:37:

All and All not a great experience.

Thanks!

I read this list for a bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro#Qu ... or_Vulkan).
Is it even worth considering them for W98 simply as is, if I get my hands on a faster one instead of FX?
Are they all HSI plagued?
Would a Rankine NV3x ones have older more W98 friendly drivers?

Maybe just editing their strappings/ID to appear as FX to the driver, but no BIOS editing, would that get them into "40.xx driver" territory (and would that driver "harm" those Quadros, both software wise ala crashing or hardware wise like running things out of spec)?

2mg wrote on 2023-07-05, 13:12:

OTOH I can't seem to find any PCX GPU on eBayou, am I missing something here?

They're not common and tend to be misidentified. There's one Leadtek PCX 5750 currently listed by an IT business in Germany, which is the only one I've seen for ages.

Generally, Quadro FX cards are no different to regular GeForce, when it comes to gaming.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-07-05, 16:03:

Generally, Quadro FX cards are no different to regular GeForce, when it comes to gaming.

What about W98 fully supported ones that offer more than GF4Ti? Ala table fog and 40.xx drivers and more FPS?

If some from that table I linked fit that description, lemme know!

Im afraid of this: Re: Good value Win98 Graphic Card

Big Pink wrote on 2023-07-05, 15:04:

2mg wrote on 2023-07-05, 13:12:

OTOH I can't seem to find any PCX GPU on eBayou, am I missing something here?

They're not common and tend to be misidentified. There's one Leadtek PCX 5750 currently listed by an IT business in Germany, which is the only one I've seen for ages.

I bought my EVGA PCX 5750 on Amazon of all places, I don't even want to say how much I spent. So now I have the Quadro FX 1300 a Quadro FX 3000 and a PCX 5750 that I would love to test and compare compatibility. What games should I try between them?

I really like the Quadro FX 1300 in 98 so far. Games like Splinter Cell seem to be working with all the same effects as my Ti4200.

Dothan Burger wrote on 2023-07-06, 03:04:

Big Pink wrote on 2023-07-05, 15:04:

2mg wrote on 2023-07-05, 13:12:

OTOH I can't seem to find any PCX GPU on eBayou, am I missing something here?

They're not common and tend to be misidentified. There's one Leadtek PCX 5750 currently listed by an IT business in Germany, which is the only one I've seen for ages.

I bought my EVGA PCX 5750 on Amazon of all places, I don't even want to say how much I spent. So now I have the Quadro FX 1300 a Quadro FX 3000 and a PCX 5750 that I would love to test and compare compatibility. What games should I try between them?

I really like the Quadro FX 1300 in 98 so far. Games like Splinter Cell seem to be working with all the same effects as my Ti4200.

Some of these Re: Good value Win98 Graphic Card since its all Q1300.

I'll update this list as I test games on the Quadro FX 1300, Intel 915 chipset, Pentium M 780, Windows ME, Dx9, AC97 sound.

Modded inf 81.98 driver:
All games tested with 3d accelerated render path.

Serious Sam Demo: No issues changing resolutions, doesn't seem laggy. The first room you start off in is darker, but I don't see any missing textures. As you enter the brighter open areas, they are beautiful with no missing textures.
Tested up to 1280 x 1024. 4X AA / 4x AF don't hurt performance.
Tomb Raider full game: When I hit escape the menus have text and so I'm able to save games, load games, quit and so on. Seems to function just fine.
Need For Speed 3 Hot Persuit full game: Crashes and locks up the system.
Need for Speed 5 Porche unleashed: Crashes and locks up the system.
Unreal: Runs terrible with 32bit color, Extremely laggy and unplayable.
Blood 2: Black screen and flickering HUD, unplayable really.
NOLF: Fails to launch game at the start mission screen. Maybe running through Daemon tools is causing some issues. I'll test again with CD-ROM drive.

I wonder if reinstalling windows with just Dx7 would help. I remember reading here that dx8.1 started to break things.

Dothan Burger wrote on 2023-07-06, 16:31:

Modded inf 81.98 driver:
All games tested with 3d accelerated render path.

I wonder if reinstalling windows with just Dx7 would help. I remember reading here that dx8.1 started to break things.

You'd be doing, at least to me, a huge favor if you test same things with say Q FX 1300 and then with PCX5750, exactly the same games and driver versions, ofc Quadro drivers on Quadros and GF drivers on GFs.
That way we can get a better bearing on what works and doesn't in a FX Quadro vs GeForce fight, though it's worth mentioning that this is also a PCIE GPU fight, AGP FX Quadros vs GFs might even be another story.
Basically you'd do "one half" of these comparisons, the PCIE one.

Actually, there is a bonus part, the "what if I fake Quadros into FXs with RivaTuner and put FX/PCX drivers (or vice versa)", you'd never know if your FX 1300 might behave better if it's faked as say AGP FX 5800/5900, or even PCIE PCX 5750 which you have.

Only then would I plop in that FX 3000 since it's AGP to see what happens, same games and drivers (and the bonus part can apply here too).
That would leave the last 1/4, the AGP FX GFs under same drivers and games.
Interesting stuff all in all!

I've also heard that W98 gets unstable with DX8/9 when installed, so maybe a DX7 W98 only?
Though knowing if DX8/9 installed breaks stuff is important too, as FX series is also good for DX8, which is somewhat of a transitional DX version between W98 (or WinME) and XP (or Win2000).

Testing next with the PCX 5750 is definitely the plan as it can slot into the same system, and as you said use the same driver. Then load up 98SE on second drive to test Dx7 on the same system.

The second system, a 754 Athlon with a VIA chipset I will test the Quadro FX 3000 and a FX 5700 Ultra. Should I test them with the go to 45.23 or another driver?

Dothan Burger wrote on 2023-07-06, 23:48:

Testing next with the PCX 5750 is definitely the plan as it can slot into the same system, and as you said use the same driver. Then load up 98SE on second drive to test Dx7 on the same system.

The second system, a 754 Athlon with a VIA chipset I will test the Quadro FX 3000 and a FX 5700 Ultra. Should I test them with the go to 45.23 or another driver?

According to https://www.philscomputerlab.com/nvidia-9x-gr … cs-drivers.html the FX 5700 Ultra isn't supported on 45.xx.
Maybe faking it to be a card from those drivers with RivaTuner, or editing INF, might work with 45.xx.
But do test both on that 53.04 driver?

The whole FX lineup is such a mess the more I dig on them...
Even just plopping in an AGP FX from 45.xx era still gets you a LOUD GPU, so nothing is safe from their design 😁

PS: I got myself some of those dual AGP (proper AGP, not those fake PCI-hacked-to-AGP) + PCIE mobos and wanted AGP GF4ti for fast and very compatible and PCIE GF6 for pure speed and official W98 support, and both WXP and W98, so chances of something not working should be minimal, unless really old stuff, and I can always plop a random PCI GPU + old drivers in that case if I really want to.
This all should've been fine and dandy as I'd skip these entire FX shennanigans.
But I can't resist somehow skipping FX, as I'd know I don't have "the fastest and still extremely supported W98 GPU".
Then I realized I could go with AGP GF4ti and PCIE FX/Quadro... Until I saw people's findings here, especially the non-45.xx FXs, and even more for PCIE FXs.

2mg wrote on 2023-07-07, 00:12:

According to https://www.philscomputerlab.com/nvidia-9x-gr … cs-drivers.html the FX 5700 Ultra isn't supported on 45.xx. Maybe f […]
Show full quote

According to https://www.philscomputerlab.com/nvidia-9x-gr … cs-drivers.html the FX 5700 Ultra isn't supported on 45.xx.
Maybe faking it to be a card from those drivers with RivaTuner, or editing INF, might work with 45.xx.
But do test both on that 53.04 driver?

The whole FX lineup is such a mess the more I dig...
Even just plopping in an AGP FX from 45.xx era still gets you a LOUD GPU, so nothing is safe from their design 😁

I'm fairly sure I had QFX3000 and the 5700U running on the 45.23 last time I checked. If not 53.04 can be done.

Edit: that would have to be the Asrock dual Sata with the ULi chipset. I can't think of another board that had a true AGP slot and a 16X PCIe slot on the same board. In my experience the Geforces6 series is not much better in 98. I have tons of those too. In the same system I'm testing with, I was running a Quadro FX 3400 that I could unlock pipes to 6800GT level. I ended up sticking with the FX, because the Chameleon demo would exhibit input lag. Even on the AGP system my 6800GT just isn't that great in 98. It's killer in XP but then again, my 7950gt is even better. My next builds I'll probably be running an ATi 9600XT or God forbid the X700 that's freaky fast in 98 for what it is.