Best drivers for an Ancient card

phoenixphylok · Jun 3, 2003, 10:59 PM

I'm having to re-format my mothers peice-o computer this week, and I am wondering what Driver would be the best to install on her box.
It will be Windows XP, but her card is a TNT2 i believe, at least that's what it says on the sticker on her computer. The current drivers come up as a Vanta chip, so i'm not certain which one it really is.
At any rate, should I stick with the 29.xx's currently installed, or should I go with the 30.XX or 4X.XX?
It is an 8mb card, I do know that much. It is a Duron 900 I believe.
I'd appreciate all y'all's help on this!
THNX
Phoenixphylok

Matth · Jun 4, 2003, 04:36 PM

The VANTA is a lower-clocked version of the TNT2 M64 - which is a 64 bit (instead of 128 bit) memory bus version of the TNT2 - in short, the lowest in the food chain, unless you count the TNT and Riva.

While some earlier drivers have been praised, I wouldn't attempt to lower the version below the Xp-native level.

So Either:
1. Take what XP with SP1 gives you, and call it quits
2. Try the latest official 30.xx
3. If you are going to install DirectX9, I'd use the 44.03 (or latest) driver - DX9/DX9 driver/older card does seem to give better results than DX9/older driver/older card

I would suggest leaving DX9 OFF unless something actually requires it!

PS. with only 8Mb on the card, it will respond more to AGP Aperture tweaks than cards with more memory, 32Mb may prove to be optimal - and one test showed a marked drop in performance at 64Mb on a TNT2.

The restricted memory bus also makes it respond well to to RAM overclocking - find something that may be the memory speed in nanoseconds on the memory chips, as they may have used better ram than the clock speed is set for.

If graphics performance matters, I'd shop around for something better - there's a lot of leeway there with cards you can find at auction sites at quite acceptable prices - but for normal windows use, internet, office apps, it should be quite adequate.

phoenixphylok · Jun 4, 2003, 10:34 PM

WOW, thanks for all the information, so If i were to upgrade her video card, which should I go with..... A radeon 9000 or a GF4 MX440? Personally I think that the 9000 would be better, mainly cause the MX class isnt fully DX8.1 if i recall correctly...... Thanks again Matth

Matth · Jun 5, 2003, 06:13 PM

Dead right on the GF4 MX range - they're really only a fraction of a step above a Geforce 2 FULL.

Depends what it's going tp be used for...
The VANTA wolud probably be adequate for ANY 2D tasks, but it's DX6 hardware (no texture & lighting) makes it pretty useless for most 3D games

DX7 = Hardware texture & lighting (Geforce/2/2MX/4MX / ATI Radeon 7500)
DX8 = Shaders = (Geforce 3 / 4 TI / ATI Radeon 8500/9000)
DX9 = More shaders = (Geforce FX / Radeon 9500 & up)

The Fx5200 - the "cheap FX", makes a lot of use of software for DX9, and is often said to be too slow to REALLY make use of DX9 capability.

Jun 3, 2003, 10:59 PM	#1
phoenixphylok Mega-Lurker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 44 Rep Power: 0	Best drivers for an Ancient card I'm having to re-format my mothers peice-o computer this week, and I am wondering what Driver would be the best to install on her box. It will be Windows XP, but her card is a TNT2 i believe, at least that's what it says on the sticker on her computer. The current drivers come up as a Vanta chip, so i'm not certain which one it really is. At any rate, should I stick with the 29.xx's currently installed, or should I go with the 30.XX or 4X.XX? It is an 8mb card, I do know that much. It is a Duron 900 I believe. I'd appreciate all y'all's help on this! THNX Phoenixphylok

Jun 4, 2003, 04:36 PM	#2
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	The VANTA is a lower-clocked version of the TNT2 M64 - which is a 64 bit (instead of 128 bit) memory bus version of the TNT2 - in short, the lowest in the food chain, unless you count the TNT and Riva. While some earlier drivers have been praised, I wouldn't attempt to lower the version below the Xp-native level. So Either: 1. Take what XP with SP1 gives you, and call it quits 2. Try the latest official 30.xx 3. If you are going to install DirectX9, I'd use the 44.03 (or latest) driver - DX9/DX9 driver/older card does seem to give better results than DX9/older driver/older card I would suggest leaving DX9 OFF unless something actually requires it! PS. with only 8Mb on the card, it will respond more to AGP Aperture tweaks than cards with more memory, 32Mb may prove to be optimal - and one test showed a marked drop in performance at 64Mb on a TNT2. The restricted memory bus also makes it respond well to to RAM overclocking - find something that may be the memory speed in nanoseconds on the memory chips, as they may have used better ram than the clock speed is set for. If graphics performance matters, I'd shop around for something better - there's a lot of leeway there with cards you can find at auction sites at quite acceptable prices - but for normal windows use, internet, office apps, it should be quite adequate.

Jun 4, 2003, 10:34 PM	Thread Starter #3
phoenixphylok Mega-Lurker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 44 Rep Power: 0	WOW, thanks for all the information, so If i were to upgrade her video card, which should I go with..... A radeon 9000 or a GF4 MX440? Personally I think that the 9000 would be better, mainly cause the MX class isnt fully DX8.1 if i recall correctly...... Thanks again Matth

Jun 5, 2003, 06:13 PM	#4
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Dead right on the GF4 MX range - they're really only a fraction of a step above a Geforce 2 FULL. Depends what it's going tp be used for... The VANTA wolud probably be adequate for ANY 2D tasks, but it's DX6 hardware (no texture & lighting) makes it pretty useless for most 3D games DX7 = Hardware texture & lighting (Geforce/2/2MX/4MX / ATI Radeon 7500) DX8 = Shaders = (Geforce 3 / 4 TI / ATI Radeon 8500/9000) DX9 = More shaders = (Geforce FX / Radeon 9500 & up) The Fx5200 - the "cheap FX", makes a lot of use of software for DX9, and is often said to be too slow to REALLY make use of DX9 capability.