I have a similar system, though using an AthlonXP and a GeForce4 Ti4200. You can find some of my benchmarks in that thread, if you want to compare notes. Software wise, I would recommend using the slightly newer v4.43 VIA chipset drivers and possibly also the 40.72 WHQL Nvidia graphics drivers. Those versions game me slightly more stability and performance.

That said, I rarely play any games made after 2001 on that rig, Splinter Cell being the main exception due to its specific compatibility requirements. Also, I usually game at 1280x1024 with minimal AA/AF.

In this thread (VIA 4-in-1 driver experiences) they analize the best via 4 in 4 depending on the chipset, the recomendation for a kt133a seens to be 4.35, I follow the rules posted there and never had problems.
And there seens to be a consensus that the best drivers for win 98 and geforce are the 45.23 in most cases.
And I also preferWinMe for windows 9x only gaming, Allways if there are wdm drivers for the hardware I use and never on anything slower than a duron 800. But this is only a preference not a recomendation.

Hoping wrote on 2021-12-02, 10:38:

In this thread (VIA 4-in-1 driver experiences) they analize the best via 4 in 4 depending on the chipset, the recomendation for a kt133a seens to be 4.35, I follow the rules posted there and never had problems.

Eh, no people specifically recommend 4.43 for KT133 in that thread:

kanecvr wrote on 2016-04-28, 23:41:

- For VIA MVP3, MVP4, Apollo 133 - use 4 in 1 4.35 or older. - better AGP compatibility and performance. Don't use any nvidia driver newer then 5x.xx!!!! 6x.xx drivers for example don't mesh well with 4 in 1 drivers and might bsod
- For VIA Apollo PRO, KT133 and KT266 use 4.43
- For KT333, KT400, KT600, KT880 and newer use 4.56 under Windows 98 - you should manually install all devices (CPU to AGP bridge, CPU to PCI bridge, etc) - sometimes they don't install correctly. Newer chipsets will work well under 98 with the newest drivers (Hyperion PRO 5.xx) - again, you might have to manually install the bridges from the device manager. For Win XP use Hyperion PRO 5.23 / 5.24A

Can you check with Aida32|64 or Everest what your current AGP speed is? It does sound like something is fishy there.
I would say that you are using a good nvidia driver for the GeForce 4 Ti series (based on my tests, v30.82 is one of the fastest for these cards, while also being very compatible).
Although, as Joseph_Joestar suggested, I would definitely go with a newer version of the VIA 4in1 drivers.

Now, even though you should see higher framerates, don't expect miracles. Depending on the game/resolution, a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 can be severely bottlenecked by a Thunderbird 1.4 GHz.
You want to pair that card with at least a Thoroughbred/Barton Athlon XP (although in some instances it will scale up to a fast Core 2 Duo / Pentium Dual Core).

Here are some of my notes for an Athon XP Barton paired with a GeForce 4 Ti 4400 (KT880 / nVIDIA driver 30.82 / VIA 4in1 4.56), hope it will help:

11. AMD Athlon XP "Barton" 2600+ STOCK @ 1916 MHz (166 MHz x 11.5)
2
33DMARK2000 - 14672
43DMARK99 - 16149
5
6GLQuake  640 x 480 x 16		---> 763.8 FPS
7GLQuake 1024 x 768 x 32		---> 413.3 FPS
8GLQuake 1280 x 960 x 32		---> 290.0 FPS
9Quake 2 SOFTWARE 640 x 480 x 16	--->    89.1  FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
10Quake 2  640 x 480 x 16		---> 491.1 FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
11Quake 2 1024 x 768 x 32		---> 450.6 FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
12Quake 2 1024 x 768 x 32		---> 359.8 FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
13Quake 3  640 x  480 x 16	---> 204.6 FPS
14Quake 3 1024 x  768 x 32	---> 201.5 FPS
15Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32	---> 181.9 FPS
16Expendable  640 x 480 x 16	---> AVG 172.04 / High: 232 / Low: 123 (no sound)
17Expendable  640 x 480 x 16	---> AVG 164.51 / High: 219 / Low: 115 (with sound -> EAX)

12. AMD Athlon XP "Barton" 2600+ OVERCLOCKED @ 2300 MHz (200 MHz x 11.5)
23DMARK2001SE - 11525
33DMARK2000 - 16115
43DMARK99 - 18492
5
6GLQuake  640 x 480 x 16		---> 838.0 FPS
7GLQuake 1024 x 768 x 32		---> 413.4 FPS
8GLQuake 1280 x 960 x 32		---> 289.9 FPS
9Quake 2 SOFTWARE 640 x 480 x 16	---> 101.8 FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
10Quake 2  640 x 480 x 16		---> 563.8 FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
11Quake 2 1024 x 768 x 32		---> 488.0 FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
12Quake 2 1024 x 768 x 32		---> 363.6 FPS (sound: High & Max Performance)
13Quake 3  640 x  480 x 16	---> 244.9 FPS
14Quake 3 1024 x  768 x 32	---> 235.2 FPS
15Quake 3 1280 x 1024 x 32	---> 199.8 FPS
16Quake 3 1600 x 1200 x 32	---> 150.1 FPS
17Expendable  640 x 480 x 16	---> AVG 204.16 / High: 267 / Low: 146 (no sound)
18Expendable  640 x 480 x 16	---> AVG 196.56 / High: 259 / Low: 140 (with sound -> EAX)

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-12-02, 10:55:

Hoping wrote on 2021-12-02, 10:38:

In this thread (VIA 4-in-1 driver experiences) they analize the best via 4 in 4 depending on the chipset, the recomendation for a kt133a seens to be 4.35, I follow the rules posted there and never had problems.

Eh, no people specifically recommend 4.43 for KT133 in that thread:

kanecvr wrote on 2016-04-28, 23:41:

- For VIA MVP3, MVP4, Apollo 133 - use 4 in 1 4.35 or older. - better AGP compatibility and performance. Don't use any nvidia driver newer then 5x.xx!!!! 6x.xx drivers for example don't mesh well with 4 in 1 drivers and might bsod
- For VIA Apollo PRO, KT133 and KT266 use 4.43
- For KT333, KT400, KT600, KT880 and newer use 4.56 under Windows 98 - you should manually install all devices (CPU to AGP bridge, CPU to PCI bridge, etc) - sometimes they don't install correctly. Newer chipsets will work well under 98 with the newest drivers (Hyperion PRO 5.xx) - again, you might have to manually install the bridges from the device manager. For Win XP use Hyperion PRO 5.23 / 5.24A

Yes, I was thinking one thing and wrote another, thanks for the correction, 4.43 recomended fot kt133.

bloodem wrote on 2021-12-02, 11:19:

I would say that you are using a good nvidia driver for the GeForce 4 Ti series (based on my tests, v30.82 is one of the fastest for these cards, while also being very compatible).

While that is indeed a good driver release, my AGP 8x versions of the GeForce4 Ti4200 and MX440 didn't seem to like it. I was getting crashes and black screens in mainstream games like Quake 2 and Unreal Tournament '99.

I imagine that driver works just fine with the older, AGP 4x versions of those cards. But if you have a GeForce4 of the AGP 8x variety, you probably want a driver from the 4x.xx line.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-12-02, 13:01:

While that is indeed a good driver release, my AGP 8x versions of the GeForce4 Ti4200 and MX440 didn't seem to like it. I was getting crashes and black screens in mainstream games like Quake 2 and Unreal Tournament '99.
I imagine that driver works just fine with the older, AGP 4x versions of those cards. But if you have a GeForce4 of the AGP 8x variety, you probably want a driver from the 4x.xx line.

Yes, that is correct. That's because the AGP 8x versions have a completely new chip (the AGP4X Ti 4200 is NV25, while the 8X version is NV28), so driver version 30.82 won't work and can't be forced to do so with an AGP 8X version.
That, plus the fact that the AGP 8X versions tend to be worse overclockers, is the reason why I usually avoid them.
I have about eight GeForce 4 Ti 4200 AGP 4X cards, and they all work great when overclocked @ Ti 4400 speeds (two of them actually work perfectly at Ti 4600 speeds).
On the other hand, none of the three AGP 8X versions that I have can come close to Ti 4400 speeds.
Now, since the OP mentioned that driver 30.82 works for him, he undoubtedly has the AGP 4x version.

bloodem wrote on 2021-12-02, 14:53:

Yes, that is correct. That's because the AGP 8x versions have a completely new chip (the AGP4X Ti 4200 is NV25, while the 8X version is NV28), so driver version 30.82 won't work and can't be forced to do so with an AGP 8X version.

The 30.82 driver did work on my AGP 8x MX440 (i.e. I could install it) albeit with the aforementioned stability problems. I'm not sure if I ever tried it with the AGP 8x Ti4200 though.

On the other hand, none of the three AGP 8X versions that I have can come close to Ti 4400 speeds.

I can confirm this, my card is not a good overclocker. That said, I generally don't overclock retro hardware, but I do run some minor OC tests when I first get a GPU in order to determine how stable it remains under full load.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-12-02, 15:08:

The 30.82 driver did work on my AGP 8x MX440 (i.e. I could install it) albeit with the aforementioned stability problems. I'm not sure if I ever tried it with the AGP 8x Ti4200 though.

Truthfully, don't have any MX440 AGP8X cards (I have a few MX460 AGP 4x cards - very decent cards, btw), but, yeah, I would imagine that they also have issues since the AGP8X chip is different (NV18 vs NV17).
In my experience, you can usually force a card to work with older drivers if the chip is identical or very close to the one used by a certain card that was supported by said old driver (i.e. GeForce FX 5900XT works great with driver version 45.23, because it has the same chip as the FX5900, same with FX5500 and FX5200, because the GPU versions are pretty close: NV34B vs NV34)

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-12-02, 15:08:

I can confirm this, my card is not a good overclocker. That said, I generally don't overclock retro hardware, but I do run some minor OC tests when I first get a GPU in order to determine how stable it remains under full load.

I do have quite a few cards that I permanently overclocked (by flashing a modified ROM with custom clocks/timings), however most of these cards have cooling improvements, so they continue to operate at ultra-safe temperatures.
Another reason for overclocking is that, for example, it doesn't make any sense to me to spend obscene amounts of money on a card like the TNT2 Ultra, when you can find very good quality TNT2 Pro cards (like the ELSA versions) for as little as 20€, which can be permanently overclocked to speeds well above TNT2 Ultra (I have one running at 200/200 core/memory).
Same with the GeForce 4 Ti 4xxx cards: I only have one real Ti 4600 which I keep in its original box. For benchmarks I always use the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 cards (OC @ Ti 4600), but with improved cooling (i.e. memory heatsinks and Arctic NV Silencer).
And even if one of these were to die, I can easily replace it (unlike the real Ti 4600 / TNT2 Ultra cards 😁 )

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-12-02, 07:49:

I have a similar system, though using an AthlonXP and a GeForce4 Ti4200. You can find some of my benchmarks in that thread, if you want to compare notes. Software wise, I would recommend using the slightly newer v4.43 VIA chipset drivers and possibly also the 40.72 WHQL Nvidia graphics drivers. Those versions game me slightly more stability and performance.

That said, I rarely play any games made after 2001 on that rig, Splinter Cell being the main exception due to its specific compatibility requirements. Also, I usually game at 1280x1024 with minimal AA/AF.

Ah ok, will try the other VIA. Unfortunately on the video side of things, anything with a 4x.xx yields frequent driver crashes, once it crashed so hard I had to go to safe mode and DCPro it out of there to even get the system to boot to windows. Could be worth revisiting though with the newer VIA. Interesting thread on your box...I have a 1.7 Ghz palomino I picked up cheap, but I bet I run into the same unknown CPU issue because honestly this board's BIOS is pretty worthless, so I may put that off or not even bother with it.

bloodem wrote:

Can you check with Aida32|64 or Everest what your current AGP speed is? It does sound like something is fishy there.

Haven't tried either of those, but RivaTuner is telling me I'm at 4x. That's how I actually came across the VIA driver to begin with, went in there and saw "PCI" and was like "what in the world?" Those numbers with overclock you included are pretty telling that I'm probably CPU bound at my measly 1.4 for sure. I suspect I'm misremembering things from 20 years ago because I could swear I ran all these games flawlessly on my uncle's 933 coppermine with a ti4200, but I've slept a time or two since then.

DeathRabbit679 wrote on 2021-12-04, 23:54:

Those numbers with overclock you included are pretty telling that I'm probably CPU bound at my measly 1.4 for sure. I suspect I'm misremembering things from 20 years ago because I could swear I ran all these games flawlessly on my uncle's 933 coppermine with a ti4200, but I've slept a time or two since then.

I don't think that's the case. You mentioned that you only get 50 FPS in Unreal Tournament, which shouldn't be the case with a 1.4 GHz Thunderbird.
Based on my tests, even a 1 GHz P3 / Thunderbird manages to hit 70+ FPS in this game (although, my test conditions were very basic, with just a few bot players).
Still, I suspect that there is more to this than just a simple CPU bottleneck.

UPDATE: did a bit of searching, and according to an old Anandtech review, a 1.33 GHz Thunderbird should manage well above 100 FPS in UT.

bloodem wrote on 2021-12-06, 18:27:

I don't think that's the case. You mentioned that you only get 50 FPS in Unreal Tournament, which shouldn't be the case with a 1 […]
Show full quote

DeathRabbit679 wrote on 2021-12-04, 23:54:

Those numbers with overclock you included are pretty telling that I'm probably CPU bound at my measly 1.4 for sure. I suspect I'm misremembering things from 20 years ago because I could swear I ran all these games flawlessly on my uncle's 933 coppermine with a ti4200, but I've slept a time or two since then.

I don't think that's the case. You mentioned that you only get 50 FPS in Unreal Tournament, which shouldn't be the case with a 1.4 GHz Thunderbird.
Based on my tests, even a 1 GHz P3 / Thunderbird manages to hit 70+ FPS in this game (although, my test conditions were very basic, with just a few bot players).
Still, I suspect that there is more to this than just a simple CPU bottleneck.

UPDATE: did a bit of searching, and according to an old Anandtech review, a 1.33 GHz Thunderbird should manage well above 100 FPS in UT.

Yeah, I've still got something wrong for sure, I just meant when/if I ever figure out what my gremlin is, still looks like the card will take more than the 1.4 can throw at it. Updated the Via 4-in-1s, no appreciable difference really. I may try an OS reinstall, but I've never had a good track record of magically fixing things that way unless the issue smelled particularly OS-y. I've also got an Intel D815EEA2 with a 733Mhz coppermine sitting on the shelf right now. I'll probably try to go ahead and build it out this week and stick the 4600 in it. If I were the gambling type, I wouldn't be surprised if the performance was in the same ballpark. If that's the case, I might just throw the fastest coppermine I can in there and use the AMD as the guest box. I have an end game goal of having three machines from this era so I can call some friends over and we can relive the good times 😁