There are a lot of threads like this. I'm guessing that compatibility is important and there are lists around here somewhere for specific games, but I couldn't find it right now.

You can never go wrong with a Gf2 Mx.

I'd go with GF2MX too.

Run benchmarks with GF6200 512mb ddr2, MX4000 128mb, GF2 MX and pick the best one. Better cards will be bottlenecked by the CPU. On the upside you will get exactly the same performance in 1024x768x32bit as in 640x480x16bit.

If it's for MS-DOS and W98SE, I'm voting for GF2MX. As the second Radeon 7000, there is the trio MX4000, TNT2 M64 and Vanta. The GF 6200 is more powerful, but with 512MB in the W98SE, you'll probably need a patch from R. Loew. If this one, I prefer the 256MB version.

Ydee wrote on 2021-09-11, 10:17:

The GF 6200 is more powerful, but with 512MB in the W98SE, you'll probably need a patch from R. Loew. If this one, I prefer the 256MB version.

Video memory on 3D cards is not tied to system memory. The Win98 512MB barrier is not relevant to video cards.
Also you can theoretically use >4GB video memory on graphics cards on 32bit systems - even though I don't think there's much reason to do so.

I apologise if I gave false info - I thought graphics cards with 512MB video memory could cause problems in OS W98(SE).
Maybe I didn't get it right from the readme to patch:
The nVidia Graphics Card Size Patch Package provides two solutions to the
problem of NVidia Graphics Cards that use memory banking to access Video RAM.
This causes a problem in most Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME Systems when a 512MB
Graphics Card reports only 256MB of Memory Mapped I/O Space when configured.

One Patch changes the Video Driver Code to properly support the smaller
directly accessible Video Memory of the Card. The second Patch modifies the
Graphics Card BIOS to report the full size of the Video RAM when
configured.

Ydee wrote on 2021-09-11, 11:56:

I apologise if I gave false info - I thought graphics cards with 512MB video memory could cause problems in OS W98(SE). Maybe I […]
Show full quote

I apologise if I gave false info - I thought graphics cards with 512MB video memory could cause problems in OS W98(SE).
Maybe I didn't get it right from the readme to patch:
The nVidia Graphics Card Size Patch Package provides two solutions to the
problem of NVidia Graphics Cards that use memory banking to access Video RAM.
This causes a problem in most Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME Systems when a 512MB
Graphics Card reports only 256MB of Memory Mapped I/O Space when configured.

One Patch changes the Video Driver Code to properly support the smaller
directly accessible Video Memory of the Card. The second Patch modifies the
Graphics Card BIOS to report the full size of the Video RAM when
configured.

Hm, this may be a completely different problem that I wasn't aware of at all. I was adressing the common misconception that video and system memory get combined when considering system memory limits.

Is there any way to improve GF2MX? I checked it and it is a gf2 mx200, but I set up the machine as best I can, and feel like I'd be putting in a low end video card for the time. Is there any mod or biosmod for GF2 to look more like a gf2 gts?

GF2 or Rage 128 Pro? Can anyone say why there are so many nvidia vanta models? I have some cards that say Nvidia Vanta, others Vanta 16, another vanta LT. Why so many names? Is there a difference? Is the vanta a renamed TNT2 M64?

I don't get what you mean by low end. Maybe if you are more specific and maybe post some benchmarks someone can say if it looks ok. I mean your processor is for 1999 or something and a gf2 was released in 2000 or so.. should be an ok fit.

Joakim wrote on 2021-09-11, 18:16:

I don't get what you mean by low end. Maybe if you are more specific and maybe post some benchmarks someone can say if it looks ok. I mean your processor is for 1999 or something and a gf2 was released in 2000 or so.. should be an ok fit.

I meant that the GF2 is the MX200 version (the lowest), when in fact I would like a GF2 GTS, or Ultra...

Anyway, on the chipset, it says mx200, but when I installed it on windows 98, it was detected as an mx400 by the driver. It's 64mb, and on the splash screen before the memory count, it just tells me it's Geforce 2 MX 64mb. Is it really an MX200 or MX400?

If you like the GF2 MX, but want more, then the MX4000 would bet the way to go as a more powerful DX7 card
The 6200 takes you up to DX9 support - and may make sense as its paired with a pretty potent CPU for Win98
Radeon 7000 - DX7, but I think it lacks hardware TnL - some DX7 stuff won't run without that, or with very poor performance

Vanta seems to be a lower clocked M64, Vanta LT even lower - all DX6 solutions.

PS. The only major score for the TNT2 (or similar) is if you wanted Window 3 in the mix, as that has Win3 drivers

Matth79 wrote on 2021-09-11, 19:21:

If you like the GF2 MX, but want more, then the MX4000 would bet the way to go as a more powerful DX7 card The 6200 takes you up […]
Show full quote

If you like the GF2 MX, but want more, then the MX4000 would bet the way to go as a more powerful DX7 card
The 6200 takes you up to DX9 support - and may make sense as its paired with a pretty potent CPU for Win98
Radeon 7000 - DX7, but I think it lacks hardware TnL - some DX7 stuff won't run without that, or with very poor performance

Vanta seems to be a lower clocked M64, Vanta LT even lower - all DX6 solutions.

PS. The only major score for the TNT2 (or similar) is if you wanted Window 3 in the mix, as that has Win3 drivers

Yes, I just want to make sure I have the best I could get here, but without losing compatibility. I believe the path is GF2, including, it is already installed on my machine. My curiosity was just about possible modifications (or not) for it, as I remember in the past, some cards had their bios modified to make more gaming performance

Want GF2 PRO, GTS, Ti, Ultra... buy one 😀

kixs wrote on 2021-09-11, 20:38:

Want GF2 PRO, GTS, Ti, Ultra... buy one 😀

These models do not exist in my country, and to buy internationally, it is unfeasible, since my country's currency is well undervalued against the dollar, in addition to my country charging high import taxes.

If you can find a GeForce4 MX440 go with that.

It delivers performance on pair with a GeForce2 GTS and has the same feature set. Best versions are the ones with a 128-bit memory bus. However, even those that use a 64-bit bus are decent enough for Win9x gaming at 1024x768 or lower without AA/AF maxed out.

Rikintosh wrote on 2021-09-11, 15:34:

GF2 or Rage 128 Pro? Can anyone say why there are so many nvidia vanta models? I have some cards that say Nvidia Vanta, others Vanta 16, another vanta LT. Why so many names? Is there a difference? Is the vanta a renamed TNT2 M64?

I don´t like ATI cards, they don't cooperate with MDA/HGC.

What matters with Nvidia cards is the NV generation.

There are so many Vanta cards because there are quite a lot of hardware combination with the NV6 (Vanta) chip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_ … rocessing_units

Personally I think the Quadro NVS 280 (NV34) might be a good choice, as its BIOS still cooperates with MDA/HGC.
I have some of these lying around (low bracket version), but even postage (8.89 euro) to Brazil is more than the card is worth (1 euro).

retardware wrote on 2021-09-12, 03:41:

I don´t like ATI cards, they don't cooperate with MDA/HGC. […]
Show full quote

Rikintosh wrote on 2021-09-11, 15:34:

GF2 or Rage 128 Pro? Can anyone say why there are so many nvidia vanta models? I have some cards that say Nvidia Vanta, others Vanta 16, another vanta LT. Why so many names? Is there a difference? Is the vanta a renamed TNT2 M64?

I don´t like ATI cards, they don't cooperate with MDA/HGC.

What matters with Nvidia cards is the NV generation.

There are so many Vanta cards because there are quite a lot of hardware combination with the NV6 (Vanta) chip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_ … rocessing_units

Personally I think the Quadro NVS 280 (NV34) might be a good choice, as its BIOS still cooperates with MDA/HGC.
I have some of these lying around (low bracket version), but even postage (8.89 euro) to Brazil is more than the card is worth (1 euro).

What would MDA/HGC be?

Rikintosh wrote on 2021-09-11, 15:34:

Is there any way to improve GF2MX? I checked it and it is a gf2 mx200, but I set up the machine as best I can, and feel like I'd be putting in a low end video card for the time. Is there any mod or biosmod for GF2 to look more like a gf2 gts?
GF2 or Rage 128 Pro?

If it really is the GF2MX200, it's a cropped version with 64-bit video memory (like the MX4000, TNT2 M64 and Vanta). Unlike them, at least it has a T&L (like MX4000). GPU is same on both MX400/200. Try to see in GPU-Z, Sandra, Everest or so the width of the memory bus and see, if you have 200 or 400.
As recommended by Joseph, if you can buy the GF4 MX440, which are cheap, it will serve you just as well as the GF2MX/400/GTS or PRO. Avoid just the SE version, where some also have 64-bit video memories.

The GF4 MX4000 is pretty much the equivalent of a GF2 MX400. The specs are nearly identical, same GPU configuration (ROPs, TMUs, shaders), same memory interface (64-bit DDR), only GPU and memory frequencies differ slightly and the MX4000 uses a generation newer architecture. Both should perform very similarly, the MX4000 is even be a bit faster. That should be enough performance for most things you'd want to run on Win98.

As others have mentioned, if you want performance on par with the full blown GF2 (GTS, Pro, Ultra, Ti), get a GF4 MX model with 128-bit memory instead (MX460 or some MX440 models).