VOGONS


First post, by fsmith2003

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

1995 seems like an odd transition year to me. 2D based into the 3D based cards. I am currently compiling parts for a 1995 year build. I already have everything I will need to build it except a video card. Does anyone have an opinion on what the "best" card would have been if you were to have built a dream machine in December of 1995? Were the early Nvidia or ATI cards any good that came out that year or would something from Matrox be the better choice? Id like to keep it to something released in 1995 unless there really wasn't anything worth getting that year. I already have builds for the years following this so I wouldn't be installing anything released post December 31st 1995.

Reply 2 of 6, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I assume you want good DOS and Win95 performance?
Best DOS card that year was ARK2000PV. It was decent in Win95 performance too.
The Matrox Millennium was probably the best Win95 card that year, but even though its DOS performance was very good, it had some compatibility issues with some DOS games.
The best from S3 that year were the Trio64V+ and Vision 968. The 968 was better in Windows, the Trio was better in DOS.

Here's how I might rank them:
In DOS:
1) ARK2000PV
2) Trio64V+ (Millennium is faster but Trio wins due to better compatibility)
3) Millennium
4) Vision 968

In Win:
1) Millennium
2) Vision 968
3) Trio64V+/ARK2000PV (tie)

Overall:
1) ARK2000PV
2) Trio64+
3) Millennium
4) Vision 968

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 3 of 6, by fsmith2003

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Clueless1, thanks for the great info. I will look into those cards!

ATI: 3D Rage, Mach 64 GX, Video Xpression+
Nvidia: Edge 3D (NV1) cards
Cirrus Logic: Cl-GD5436

Anyone have experiences with any of these and have a preference? I'm not too familiar with any of them.

Also, was there really much as far as games and/or software released yet for Windows 95 at this point?

Reply 4 of 6, by blurks

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The Video Xpression+ is just a variant of the Mach64 core - Mach64 VT4 if I remember correctly. I had a Mach64 VT or VT2 with 2 MB in 1997 and was pleasantly surprised by the far average Windows drivers, in terms of support, quality and stability. Another plus is the MPEG1 video acceleration of Mach64 chipsets, although I can't remember why but on my system ATI's own MPEG video player was a little bit finicky. ATI's DOS compatibility is almost unrivaled and I never experienced any unusual slowdowns or graphical issues back in the days. The Mach64 core in all variants is a great choice overall and is together with the S3 Trio one the cheapest chipsets you can get on eBay. If I had to choose I would go the Mach64 route. These cards are reliable partners in crime for 2D processing in DOS and Windows.

Can't tell anything about the NV1 and GD5436 although I have heard more than once, that later Cirrus Logic chipsets were not bad.

Reply 6 of 6, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
fsmith2003 wrote:

Also, was there really much as far as games and/or software released yet for Windows 95 at this point?

There sure was, though a lot of them were Win32s compatible. Win3.1 was still very used

apsosig.png
long live PCem