This card is not good for 200 MMX.
It’s too new, drivers need SSE and 9x drivers are not really good.
For 200 MMX hunt for Riva 128 for example, maybe savage 4 or permedia 2

You only need 3dfx if you like to play Glide Games.

The Abit has AGP so your much better off AGP card. For best compatibility go with a GF 4 Ti, or GF FX. Neither are period correct but will have performance in reserve on a P3 system.
The 200 MMX is even less demanding. Any Nividia card , even a TNT2 M64 will still be more then enough.

Basically if you pick a graphics card 1 generation newer the the CPU it's usually a good match.
The GF6200 would be best suited to very late socket 370 or more likely Socket 478, catch is it's Win98 compatibility isn't the best

Thanks for your kind responses:
Yes, indeed on my PIII, I do have a Rage 128 Pro Video Card (AGP). And a Stealth 3D (Diamond, 1996) on my Pentium-MMX 200MHz.

My most *demanding* 3D games that I would be playing in Windows ME (that is the OS that I am planning to play my games on) are Quak II / III Arena, SiN, Unreal, etc.

Under Windows ME, on my P-MMX, the Windows operation is VERY smooth, crisp, and responsive, (high refresh rate up to 100MHZ plus); whereas with Stealth 3D on the same system, it is not that impressive.

Yeh both cases are period correct but where your bottleneck is.

But on the plus side your MMX is fast enough to play games that take advantage of S3D specific games.
3D Accelerated Games List (Proprietary APIs - No 3DFX/Direct3D)

Not enough to keep it but something to mess around with before upgrading 😀

OK, I just picked up a GeForce4 MX440-SE 64MB-DDR AGP ('Fancy Force' branded model), for my PIII system: Is this card any good? (for Quake II, Unreal, SiN, etc. running on Win98SE or WinME)

It's a used, but complete in the box video card, but is missing the drivers CD. Where can I find the 98 / ME drivers for it?

Thanks!

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-05, 06:15:

GeForce 6200 PCI for Win9X / ME gaming? (DOS / Win9X / ME Games)

I would like to point out that WinME is Win9x. 9x refers to the kernel it was based on and not to Windows 95 or Windows 98 with the last number replaced with an x.
Win9x has been the generic name for Windows 95 (all versions), Windows 98 (all versions) and WindowsME ever since they existed, for over 20 years now.

And if you don't believe me, here's the wiki page on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_9x

Windows 9x is a generic term referring to a series of Microsoft Windows computer operating systems produced from 1995 to 2000, which were based on the Windows 95 kernel and its underlying foundation of MS-DOS,[4] both of which were updated in subsequent versions. The first version in the 9x series was Windows 95, which was succeeded by Windows 98 and then Windows Me, which was the last version of Windows on the 9x line.

Saying WinME is not Win9x is basically just as stupid as saying a sparrow is not a bird or that a herring is not a fish.

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-09, 23:16:

OK, I just picked up a GeForce4 MX440-SE 64MB-DDR AGP ('Fancy Force' branded model), for my PIII system: Is this card any good? (for Quake II, Unreal, SiN, etc. running on Win98SE or WinME)

In terms of performance and features, the MX440 is between a GeForce2 GTS and the Ultra. It should give you 60+ FPS in most Win9x games while playing at 1024x768 and lower resolutions, without AA and AF. In older, less demanding titles (e.g. Tomb Raider 2) you should be able to bump up the resolution to 1280x1024 as well.

EDIT - just noticed that your card is a SE model. IIRC, those have a 64-bit memory bus and provide lower performance than a normal MX440. You can run something like Everest to check this.

Where can I find the 98 / ME drivers for it?

I had the best results using stock Nvidia drivers version 40.72 with such a card.

Actually I am glad that is a "low-end" budget card, as my plan was to get the least powerful GPU, since I am only planning to play the older games anyways.

Speaking of the period-correctness, this is what I have compiled:

February 06, 2002 GeForce4
October 25, 2001 XP
February 27, 2001 GeForce3
September 14, 2000 ME
September 07, 2000 GeForce2
December 15, 1999 2K
October 11, 1999 GeForce256
April 23, 1999 98SE
June 25, 1998 98

This card is not that *far-off* from the period of the 98/ME release.

Saying WinME is not Win9x is basically just as stupid as saying a sparrow is not a bird or that a herring is not a fish.

The funniest response that I have read in a while! Thanks! 😀

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 04:19:

Speaking of the period-correctness, this is what I have compiled: […]
Show full quote

Speaking of the period-correctness, this is what I have compiled:

February 06, 2002 GeForce4
October 25, 2001 XP
February 27, 2001 GeForce3
September 14, 2000 ME
September 07, 2000 GeForce2

The GeForce 4MX was rather infamously equivalent to a GeForce 2, and is not at all comparable to a GeForce 4 Ti. I recall there were games that specified a GeForce 4 as minimum requirements, noting in parentheses that an MX was excluded.

Jorpho wrote on 2020-10-10, 06:20:

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 04:19:

Speaking of the period-correctness, this is what I have compiled: […]
Show full quote

Speaking of the period-correctness, this is what I have compiled:

February 06, 2002 GeForce4
October 25, 2001 XP
February 27, 2001 GeForce3
September 14, 2000 ME
September 07, 2000 GeForce2

The GeForce 4MX was rather infamously equivalent to a GeForce 2, and is not at all comparable to a GeForce 4 Ti. I recall there were games that specified a GeForce 4 as minimum requirements, noting in parentheses that an MX was excluded.

Yes, I just read about that, but still it is OK with me, because I was even looking for an original GeForce 256, or GeForce 2, when I came across this at a local retro shop. My main games of interests are Quake II, SiN, Unreal, etc.

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 04:20:

Saying WinME is not Win9x is basically just as stupid as saying a sparrow is not a bird or that a herring is not a fish.

The funniest response that I have read in a while! Thanks! 😀

Awesome!

Anyway, same deal with XP and 2k also being NT. It denotes a family of OSs.

There's hardly any games that are compatible with ME and not with 98SE or earlier versions of 9x (if at all). Major difference is ME's rather specific relative incompatibility with DOS, which is not so much a Windows issue.

Tetrium wrote on 2020-10-10, 02:05:

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-05, 06:15:

GeForce 6200 PCI for Win9X / ME gaming? (DOS / Win9X / ME Games)

I would like to point out that WinME is Win9x.

To cement it, its install folder on disc is named WIN9X, so it's quite literally Win9x.

Now, that I have replaced my ATI Rage 128 Pro with GeForce4, every time I boot the system, Windows ME reports that:

"The ATI Control Panel failed to initialize because no ATI driver is installed, or ATI driver is not working properly. The ATI Control PAnel will now exit"

How can I remove this annoying message?

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 17:45:

Now, that I have replaced my ATI Rage 128 Pro with GeForce4, every time I boot the system, Windows ME reports that:

"The ATI Control Panel failed to initialize because no ATI driver is installed, or ATI driver is not working properly. The ATI Control PAnel will now exit"

How can I remove this annoying message?

I tried to run the drivers setup again, but it did not give me an chance to uninstall any individual options, just removing the drivers.

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 17:57:

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 17:45:

Now, that I have replaced my ATI Rage 128 Pro with GeForce4, every time I boot the system, Windows ME reports that:

"The ATI Control Panel failed to initialize because no ATI driver is installed, or ATI driver is not working properly. The ATI Control PAnel will now exit"

How can I remove this annoying message?

I tried to run the drivers setup again, but it did not give me an chance to uninstall any individual options, just removing the drivers.

EDIT:
The above step, actually removed it!

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 18:01:

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 17:57:

C0deHunter wrote on 2020-10-10, 17:45:

Now, that I have replaced my ATI Rage 128 Pro with GeForce4, every time I boot the system, Windows ME reports that:

"The ATI Control Panel failed to initialize because no ATI driver is installed, or ATI driver is not working properly. The ATI Control PAnel will now exit"

How can I remove this annoying message?

I tried to run the drivers setup again, but it did not give me an chance to uninstall any individual options, just removing the drivers.

EDIT:
The above step, actually removed it!

EDIT 2:
After all that, seemed like the card is defective (Sluggish page change or navigation / movement in AMI BIos settings), and some graphical artifacts in pure DOS mode. Ended up going back to my Rage 128 Pro!