I would not bother with a Geforce FX for such demanding games. Get a Geforce 6800GT/Ultra or X800/850XT (cheaper). Or just play them on a much faster XP system.

The Geforce FX is only useful for compatibility with much older games but generally the Geforce 4 is fast enough for those.

This won't really answer your question but for games past 2001 I would suggest a WinXP machine. Use quad core CPUs, PCIe, GeForce 600 series or ATi/AMD HD 5/6/7000 cards, X-Fi sound cards - go to town!
Why be restricted by limitations of Win9x if you are playing WinXP games? 😀

I am not familiar with these games... how well/bad can they run on Ti4600. However FX 5900 Ultra is approximately twice as fast compared to the Ti4600.

Right now my only option is to dual boot as i have no more room.

No way i want to loose win98se as it can play such a wide range of games.

5900ultra gotta be enough for bloodrayne and chaser.

I want it to be able to play games from 2001 aswell as the older ones.

Games made after 2001 does not intrest me on this build.

And yes Chaser is from 2004 i think but it can run on my current build, it just dips a bit here and there.

The quadro is excellent if not better than the fx. And you can flash it into an fx if needed. And as you noticed they are substantial cheaper I suggest watching some videos on Phil's computer lab, I think he talks about this.

Yeah the opengl performence was insane.

FX 59x0 is like a super fast Ti 4600, but a GF 6600GT will blow them away even in some DirectX 8 / OpenGL 1.4 games. They also seem to have somewhat higher driver CPU overhead. Info in threads here.

Win9x is a pain in the ass best avoided unless your hardware is too slow or doesn't have decent WDM/XP drivers. Also Win9x often becomes even less stable when you install DirectX 8+. It's also easier to have lots of RAM with XP. Most games will be fine with XP. Dual boot maybe.

Flashing a Quadro FXxxxx to a GeForce is complicated. Phil referenced some work someone else did on here so try searching.

I have a quadro FX 2000. I use rivatuner in windows 98 to configure the card as a FX 5800, and it is plenty fast. Due to driver overhead, a 4600 ti is usually going to perform the same or faster, but in XP the FX cards are a lot better.

swaaye wrote:

FX 59x0 is like a super fast Ti 4600, but a GF 6600GT will blow them away even in some DirectX 8 / OpenGL 1.4 games. They also seem to have somewhat higher driver CPU overhead. Info in threads here.

Win9x is a pain in the ass best avoided unless your hardware is too slow or doesn't have decent WDM/XP drivers. Also Win9x often becomes even less stable when you install DirectX 8+. It's also easier to have lots of RAM with XP. Most games will be fine with XP. Dual boot maybe.

Flashing a Quadro FXxxxx to a GeForce is complicated. Phil referenced some work someone else did on here so try searching.

To be fair a Geforce 1030 will blow away the lot of them. No-one, and I mean no-one, uses the FX series because they are fast overall, they use them because they are compatible with old DX6/7 features and support AA with good image quality, and for that purpose beat the next best thing (ti4600) handily, not to mention are probably easier to find than a ti4600 (die less often as well).

WinXP means DX9 and you should run fast away from FX series for that.

Agreed.

Recently slapped together a C2Q system for 9x-Windows 10 game testing and put a Geforce FX 5200 in there. I'm so used to putting the "best" in my builds but there is no such thing and for 9x old game testing this card will be fine.

kolderman wrote:

To be fair a Geforce 1030 will blow away the lot of them. No-one, and I mean no-one, uses the FX series because they are fast overall, they use them because they are compatible with old DX6/7 features and support AA with good image quality, and for that purpose beat the next best thing (ti4600) handily, not to mention are probably easier to find than a ti4600 (die less often as well).

WinXP means DX9 and you should run fast away from FX series for that.

Hey relatively new person, I am aware of what the FX series is useful for. 😁

There really is nothing wrong with XP for old games. But I noticed he wants to use Vortex 2 so nevermind with the XP suggestion. Those cards are a good reason to bust out 98SE. They barely work with 2K/XP.

Unrealdevon wrote:

Aureal vortex 2

By the way, if you install DirectX newer than 7.0a and you are using Aureal drivers > revision 2015 (or so), you will probably run into some OS freezes/crashes. The Diamond MX300 drivers work ok (if that's the card you have). I think they are based on something near v2015.

If you stick to DirectX 7.0a, then Aureal driver 2041 is the way to go.

I know, fortunatly i have had a good time using dx8.1 with 2048 and i mostly play games 98-2000.

So are there any roadblocks using for example a Dell oem quadro fx3000 or is it a straight forward installation?

Reason i ask is because im more or less allergic to stupid oem hardware stuffed to the brink with uneccesary limitations.

A quadro fx3000 is a quadro fx3000 is a quadro fx3000.
Meaning it's a relabel of the exact same card and there should be no problems. 😉

Yeah, my FX 3000 is also Dell and works perfectly.

Thanks for all the input guys 😀