The big thing everyone was craving in 1996 was the Matrox Millennium. Superb output quality and performance.

I know back around that time (mid-late 90s) I had a Cirrus 5446 which I liked well enough, but I have no idea how the quality/performance compares to the Matrox. I've got a 3DLabs Glint500TX-based card that I keep around for testing and it has nice quality output, and supports relatively high resolutions (iirc it can do up to 1600x1200 in 32k color; it supports more colors at lower resolutions). It does support 3D as well, but just based on theoretical specs, the 3dfx cards will upstage it.

vetz wrote:

The big thing everyone was craving in 1996 was the Matrox Millennium. Superb output quality and performance.

+1 on the Matrox Millenium. it was *THE* card to pair with a VooDoo.

Munx wrote:

I'm looking to replace an Ati Mach64 vt2 in my w95 machine as the 2D card and was wondering, what would be a good substitute? What would be a common video card for around 1996 that is PCI, had at least decent video output quality (I want to pair it with a Voodoo) and is cheap to obtain today. Any suggestions?

What do you not like about your Mach64?

Alternatively, would W98 drivers work on w95? (I'm asking since I need to get Quake and some other 3d games to run 640x480 in software mode and I could do it easy on w98, w95 drivers just crash whenever I try).

Drivers specifically for W98SE definitely will not work. Other drivers might work.

I get nervous every time I install a driver on 95 due to having to re-install windows 3 times already.

If you use a disk image utility after you install Windows, you can just restore the image when you need to instead of going through the whole installation process again. (In theory, using XCOPY on the Windows directory will work just as well.)

I would go for a Diamond Stealth S3 Trio64 2MB, its a 1994 model but it was probably the most common video card in new computers 1996.

But it depends on your needs, the Matrox cards are better for high res image quality in Windows for sure.

Jorpho wrote:

Munx wrote:

I'm looking to replace an Ati Mach64 vt2 in my w95 machine as the 2D card and was wondering, what would be a good substitute? What would be a common video card for around 1996 that is PCI, had at least decent video output quality (I want to pair it with a Voodoo) and is cheap to obtain today. Any suggestions?

What do you not like about your Mach64?

I like it, actually. It's just that I want to do some software mode benchmarks and it flat out refuses to run anything 3D above 320x200 in W95.

Anyway, looks like I'll be on a lookout for any S3 Trio64's or Millenniums (have 3 matrox cards already but they are all agp...)

As other people already have mentioned it's the Matrox Millennium that you want.

Munx wrote:

Jorpho wrote:

Munx wrote:

I'm looking to replace an Ati Mach64 vt2 in my w95 machine as the 2D card and was wondering, what would be a good substitute? What would be a common video card for around 1996 that is PCI, had at least decent video output quality (I want to pair it with a Voodoo) and is cheap to obtain today. Any suggestions?

What do you not like about your Mach64?

I like it, actually. It's just that I want to do some software mode benchmarks and it flat out refuses to run anything 3D above 320x200 in W95.

I see, I think. I reckon any decent 3D card (a TNT2 or a GeForce or something) ought to have sufficient 2D capabilities for those software-mode applications, if you wanted something you could re-use for other things.

For best 2D/3D look for a Banshee. For best compatibility, great 2D and limited 3D look for a quality S3 Virge DX - they're very common and quite cheap. Windows drivers are good too (latest ones at least).

For good 2D in Win95 and DOS I prefer S3 cards. Virge series are my favorites - great image quality on some models and pretty speedy in 2D as well. 3D is just - there - don't expect much 3D performance out of it. The virge supports direct3D but no OpenGL. The Trio64 series are also great in 2D, but lacking in 3D as they offer no acceleration.

I've had problems in 2D and DOS with older Matrox cards (Mystique, Millenium PCI) - older games don't seem to like them much - stuttering, frameskips when scrolling (Warcraft 2 DOS, Supaplex) freezing and all-out crashes in Supaplex and Descent 1 - some games won't even launch (Golden Axe crashes after selecting VGA).

Nvidia cards newer than the Riva TNT won't do older dos games well - same issues as above. Older Nvidia cards should be fine (Riva Vanta, Riva 128). The only 3D Cards that do good 2D and 3D are newer one from Matrox (G200, G400, G450, G550), S3 (Savage 3D, Savage4, Savage 2000, SuperSavage) and of course all 3DFX Voodoos. The sweet spot for such a machine would be a Voodoo Banshee.

kanecvr wrote:

Nvidia cards newer than the Riva TNT won't do older dos games.

They don't? Why not? (Some of them have VESA 3.0 support, I thought. Some of them lack 8x14 font support, I suppose, but that's easily fixed.)

Jorpho wrote:

kanecvr wrote:

Nvidia cards newer than the Riva TNT won't do older dos games.

They don't? Why not? (Some of them have VESA 3.0 support, I thought. Some of them lack 8x14 font support, I suppose, but that's easily fixed.)

Well try running Supaplex on a TNT2 😁 - it stutters like crazy.

Sure, newer dos games like Stargunner and Duke 3D will run great because of better VESA support - but for best compatibility I'd still stick with an S3.

I knew the compatibility card was gonna get mentioned by someone in this thread after I mentioned the Matrox Millennium (which works without issues in Descent btw). He asked for a card from 1996 to pair with his Voodoo in a Windows 95 machine, and in 1996 S3 Virge cards were not the cards the magazines were writing about (albeit its a good alternative). In 1996, compatibility with games requiring a 386 were not the important thing. They liked it for its speed, windows performance and superb output quality. CGW and most magazines were all about having a Matrox and a Voodoo paired all up into 1997/1998 (with the Voodoo2).

+1 for the Millennium or Mystique. Some cards can match it for speed perhaps (ARK, Tseng), and I have an S3 based Stealth 64 which produces a comparable image, but none combine performance and image quality like the Matrox cards in my experience.

And the Matrox Windows 95 software package is good too.

vetz wrote:

I knew the compatibility card was gonna get mentioned by someone in this thread after I mentioned the Matrox Millennium (which works without issues in Descent btw). He asked for a card from 1996 to pair with his Voodoo in a Windows 95 machine, and in 1996 S3 Virge cards were not the cards the magazines were writing about (albeit its a good alternative). In 1996, compatibility with games requiring a 386 were not the important thing. They liked it for its speed, windows performance and superb output quality. CGW and most magazines were all about having a Matrox and a Voodoo paired all up into 1997/1998 (with the Voodoo2).

Local (romanian) magazines recommended S3 cards for the same purpose. None chose the Millennium because of its price. Both the Millennium and the Mystique are great cards - for windows. Output quality is better then the S3 Virge, but it's only noticeable at higher resolutions and color modes. At 640x480 and 800x600 @ 16bit there's hardly any difference.

Aforementioned compatibility is important for people who don't own a 386 / slow 486 for older DOS games. Personally I favor my S3 Virge DX 4MB over my Millennium since I don't play anything at resolutions greater then 800x600 anyway and I like to occasionally play older games on it since getting games on my 486 is a hassle.

I guess it all depends what OP wants to do on his machine - wider range of games spanning 1989-1997 (S3) or superb high-res 2D in windows and late DOS games (matrox all the way). Besides, even today, Millennium cards are considerably more expensive and harder to find then their S3 counterparts (at least where I live). Again S3 Virge - Cheap - Easy to find - great compatibility / Matrox Millenium - harder to find and more expensive - unrivaled image quality.

P.S. - my machine crashes randomly in Descent under DOS using my Millennium. I'm sure the card is not at fault since Duke 3D works great on it even at 1024x768. Maybe I have an early version / buggy bios? I have a MGA-2164W (Millennium II) Rev A by Compaq with memory expansion module installed.

I'm using this machine for late DOS (486 era) to early windows stuff. It mostly comes down to the price for me and both Millennium and S3 Virge seem to be good for the job, so I'll just snag the one I spot on e-bay for cheap first. Though I would prefer S3 for better compatibility.

The Stealth3D 2000 was a nice buy for 96, provided you don't actually use the 3d all that much than what was then a bilinear filtered slow novelty 😀

My favorite video card DOS info page. Tests some particularly quirky games.
http://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/

Heh!.. Again "Matrox the magnificent" and "S3 the most Compatible" are head to head!.. 🤣

I lived through that PCI VGA era (1995-1997) and this is what I remember: Matrox (Millennium, Millennium II, Mystique, Mystique 220) was the best thing to have, but everybody around had their S3's instead. The problem there was the availability (i.e.: price). I had my S3's back in the time, and I always liked them. Never had a Matrox, because of the obvious price issues, but always dreamed about having one.

So, today, I go for Matrox cards first (if I can score one for a reasonable price) since retro computing is somehow realizing my childhood dreams, at the end. If not, I go for S3 cards, as happily as ever. This is only for PCI, though. When it comes to AGP, no S3 or Matrox for me.

Yes these two always pop up 😀

Back in the day, I wanted a Matrox, but could only afford a S3 card 😊