I would say generally no - the biggest thing the extra RAM would give you is a higher maximum resolution. This might be helpful for games that use double-buffering, but in general a P133 and Virge combo isn't skookum enough to handle the kinds of resolutions that would need 4MB of RAM.

However, if the 4MB card is a Virge/GX or Virge/GX2 rather than a 325, it might be worth it - that's a faster chip, at least for 2D. (The Virge is generally uselessly slow for 3D in any case.)

I agree with jade_angel. The only thing you'd gain with 4MB would be higher resolutions or color depths in Windows. With 2MB you should be capable of at least 1024x768x16bpp.

Just don't ever believe it's a 3d card and you should be fine.

i had (still have) an s3 virge back in the day, it had 2mb originally and i wanted to play tomb raider 2.

with the 2mb it had half the textures missing. Half of Lara's legs were shaded white and etc
That was probably at 512x384 res to keep the frame rate up.

I got my local PC shop to source the extra 2 ram chips for me as was the style in 1996 and with 4mb it was all textured.

really solid 2D card, just not really a great thing in 3D. it had issues with transparencies as well from memory even with the upgraded ram.

What other 1995 era card would you recommend in the machine to fully play 1993-1995 era games? I have a Matrox Millenium (2 MB) card as well that I know is 95 era.

Or would the Virge I have play most of that era games outside the big 3D ones?

Both Matrox and Virge should be ideal 2D cards for your needs

I also have a Mach64 GT card and a Trio64V+ from the same 1995 era I just dug up...could give those a shot as well...Just want to get the best graphics performance for that era that I can with what i have now and maybe upgrade to something better (NV1?) later.

The Matrox is a great card, but the Virge will have the edge in compatibility.