VOGONS


First post, by Swiego

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I have been struggling to understand the best video card for a given system based upon researching threads here and elsewhere. The situation that I run into is that many threads focus either on operating system compatibility or processor compatibility (and loosely related to the latter point, period correctness.) but, it seems to me that the matrix I need must look at both.... what OS compatibility I can expect as a function of driver availability, bugs etc. but also what cards are incompatible with older architectures as a function of driver instruction sets etc. Most “what’s the best” discussions I’ve perused look at one of these two dimensions but not both simultaneously.

Is there a matrix out there that organizes cards by tiers following an OS & processor platform two dimensional matrix? If so I’d really appreciate pointers to it! If not, perhaps this is something we can collectively document?

Reply 1 of 4, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

We do have a DOS compatibility matrix:

https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/

It might be useful to make another one for driver versions and OS compatibility, as you suggest. Support for 8-bit palleted textures and table fog could also be relevant for early Win9x games.

Using Audigy drivers with a Sound Blaster Live
Installing DOS drivers on an Audigy2 ZS
OPL3 vs. ESFM vs. CQM vs. SBLive
OPTi 82C930 review

Reply 2 of 4, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Is there a matrix out there that organizes cards by tiers following an OS & processor platform two dimensional matrix?

That's too much trouble to make and CPU compatibility, for the most part, is not an issue.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 3 of 4, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

For Win98 it's more about additional drivers and stuff, not chipset drivers themselves (I ran Win98 on i7 980X).
IF your hard drive controller, GPU, USB, Audio, LAN, etc. has drivers for WIn98 - it should work (assuming platform configuration isn't an issue* )
*like having too much RAM on install
Since GPUs with 8-pallete option are limited to FX Geforce series and earlier (not sure about ATI but probably earlier than Radeon 9700), you should stick to that. Fastest official is 6800 Ultra, while moding .inf gives you 7900 GTX support (assuming you won't get issues with 512MB VRAM on moded driver).

Windows XP works natively with everything up to Sandy Bridge and AM3+.
Later support isn't official, but there are guides for how to do it.
Best GPUs for XP are based on Kepler (native) or Maxwell 2.0 (GTX970+ need .inf edit) and GCN 1.0 (Radeon HD 7970).

108080818886.png

Reply 4 of 4, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
agent_x007 wrote on 2020-02-20, 16:19:
For Win98 it's more about additional drivers and stuff, not chipset drivers themselves (I ran Win98 on i7 980X). IF your hard dr […]
Show full quote

For Win98 it's more about additional drivers and stuff, not chipset drivers themselves (I ran Win98 on i7 980X).
IF your hard drive controller, GPU, USB, Audio, LAN, etc. has drivers for WIn98 - it should work (assuming platform configuration isn't an issue* )
*like having too much RAM on install
Since GPUs with 8-pallete option are limited to FX Geforce series and earlier (not sure about ATI but probably earlier than Radeon 9700), you should stick to that. Fastest official is 6800 Ultra, while moding .inf gives you 7900 GTX support (assuming you won't get issues with 512MB VRAM on moded driver).

Windows XP works natively with everything up to Sandy Bridge and AM3+.
Later support isn't official, but there are guides for how to do it.
Best GPUs for XP are based on Kepler (native) or Maxwell 2.0 (GTX970+ need .inf edit) and GCN 1.0 (Radeon HD 7970).

None of the radeons work with 8 bit paletted textures in FF7 and FF8. Not even the original Radeon DDR from 2000 that I have.