Nope, the 9000 only supports 256 or 512 KiB of RAM. See datasheet as well:

http://pdf.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheets/11 … 0/501951_DS.pdf

512kb actually isn't too bad. You can do up to 800x600 in 256 colours, so it's fine for stuff like Windows 3.x.

Thanks all =)

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2019-02-21, 05:28:

512kb actually isn't too bad. You can do up to 800x600 in 256 colours, so it's fine for stuff like Windows 3.x.

Are you sure? I have TVGA9000i 512kB and couldn't get more than 800x600 16 colours. The manual says same: https://www.minuszerodegrees.net/manual ... Rev. B.pdf ???

foxbat wrote on Yesterday, 22:27:

Are you sure? I have TVGA9000i 512kB and couldn't get more than 800x600 16 colours. The manual says same: https://www.minuszerodegrees.net/manual ... Rev. B.pdf ???

Let me guess: that card has 100 ns RAM chips, right?
For 800 x 600 x 256 you need 80 ns RAM.

Grzyb wrote on Yesterday, 23:04:

foxbat wrote on Yesterday, 22:27:

Are you sure? I have TVGA9000i 512kB and couldn't get more than 800x600 16 colours. The manual says same: https://www.minuszerodegrees.net/manual ... Rev. B.pdf ???

Let me guess: that card has 100 ns RAM chips, right?
For 800 x 600 x 256 you need 80 ns RAM.

The card in OP's first post has 80ns DRAM, if I am not mistaken.

The manual linked here is indeed likely from a card with 100ns DRAM.

And your guess is probably quite accurate

Source: datasheet from here : https://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/cpu/item … ident-tvga9000i

EDIT: By the way, the TVGA9000i is quite slow, AFAICR, and as you already know and hopefully OP also knows.

My 9000i has two types of ram chips on it. Two are normal dip and the other two are funny upright ones, they look like oversized resistor strips with square corners.

One kind is 80ns and the other 100ns. I cannot remember which is which, but I think the funny upright ones are 100ns.

I have this one since new, I "upgraded" to it back in the day to get 256 colours in windows 95. Was the cheapest and didn't know any better back then.

This specific specimen can run 800x600 in 256 colours, but it looks like crap and the screen shimmers. 640x480x256 is fine though. Thought it was the monitor back then (only used to run 640x480 up until I got the card) but now I know the card also had a healthy contribution to the situation.

Watching it paint the screen is quite painful.

Rather go for a 8900D, it is double the speed.

I used to play Transport Tycoon on 386DX40 with Trident 9000i with ISA bus OCed to 12 Mhz to make it faster. On 386, 800x600 isn't usable for anything else than viewing static pictures as it's too slow. Giving it 1MB VRAM wouldn't improve it much.

AlexZ wrote on Today, 09:53:

Giving it 1MB VRAM wouldn't improve it much.

I'd venture to say it might even make it worse, as it would invite you to try out things that would end up tasting like disappointment.

That datasheet makes no mention of VRAM and is quite explicit about DRAM. I doubt VRAM would even work, regardless of quantity or speed, and generally VRAM actually has lower DOS performance compared to DRAM on the same chipset. OCing the ISA bus might make more sense and upgrading the 100ns DRAM to 80ns; that would enable non-interlaced modes at other resolutions. But the card would remain a complete slug whatever you do to it.

dionb wrote on Today, 12:57:

That datasheet makes no mention of VRAM and is quite explicit about DRAM. I doubt VRAM would even work, regardless of quantity or speed, and generally VRAM actually has lower DOS performance compared to DRAM on the same chipset. OCing the ISA bus might make more sense and upgrading the 100ns DRAM to 80ns; that would enable non-interlaced modes at other resolutions. But the card would remain a complete slug whatever you do to it.

I think VRAM in this context was meant to mean

"Ordinary DRAM used as video RAM, hence VRAM"

rather than

"Dual ported VRAM used in higher end video cards before SGRAM, WRAM, EDO DRAM, SDRAM, SGRAM, etc)