So my Trident 8900c of course stinks in windows, no 2d acceleration, other than it though the system is doing fine in 3.1. I don't need blistering fast this is still a 16mhz 386sx, just an under 35 Isa card that has 2d acceleration
Spec's
386-SX16
Trident 8900c 1mb
ESS 1868 Sound
Goldstar Super I/O
Intel pro 10mb
340mb hdd
Windows 3.1
With 386sx-16 any video card will be slow.
Otherwise your options:
Cirrus Logic 5424, 5426, 5428, 5429, 5434
S3 801/805, 911, 924, 928
WD90C31
Tseng Labs ET4000/w32, ET4000/w32i
ATI Mach32, Mach64
Requests are also possible... /msg kixs
Back in the day we had a 386SX-16 and added a Cirrus Logic 5426 to it. It made a dramatic speedup in Windows 3.1. It made the GUI feel as fast as the 486s at school.
I have no idea what they cost though.
At least drawing functions for Windows etc will accelrate 3.x,
also adding a FPU helps with 3.x
https://www.retrokits.de - blog, retro projects, hdd clicker, diy soundcards etc
https://www.retroianer.de - german retro computer board
matze79 wrote on 2020-07-30, 16:59:At least drawing functions for Windows etc will accelrate 3.x,
also adding a FPU helps with 3.x
Are there any official old discussions/review that Win 3.x and 9x actually benefit from the FPU? I mean some bench or official technical talks on it?
It's something interesting I'd like to know. Sure Win3.x have a file that was related to the 387 and Win95 read it in the computer info but I wish to know some technical details about this. 😀
FPU won't help unless you run a program that actually uses FPU (Windows as such do not). The FPU won't help with GUI acceleration.
mpe wrote on 2020-08-02, 22:03:FPU won't help unless you run a program that actually uses FPU (Windows as such do not). The FPU won't help with GUI acceleration.
Sure seems like it does though. I don't think there is conclusive evidence that it does not
maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-08-02, 22:44:mpe wrote on 2020-08-02, 22:03:FPU won't help unless you run a program that actually uses FPU (Windows as such do not). The FPU won't help with GUI acceleration.
Sure seems like it does though. I don't think there is conclusive evidence that it does not
I would imagine that would depend in part on whether the driver for the card you are using takes advantage of an FPU or not .
386SX wrote on 2020-07-30, 17:44:matze79 wrote on 2020-07-30, 16:59:At least drawing functions for Windows etc will accelrate 3.x,
also adding a FPU helps with 3.xAre there any official old discussions/review that Win 3.x and 9x actually benefit from the FPU? I mean some bench or official technical talks on it?
It's something interesting I'd like to know. Sure Win3.x have a file that was related to the 387 and Win95 read it in the computer info but I wish to know some technical details about this. 😀
Windows 3.0/3.1/3.11 FPU Usage
A variety of things are accelerated (slightly)
Smartdrive and virtual memory access is said to be accelerated as well
looking at the linked post. The difference in Winmark is tiny. Can it be repeated? Some subtests seem to be quicker without FPU which suggest the benchmark run wasn't very stable. I'd consider those results as a fluke.
Win G or the benchmark could use some FPU code, I am not sure about that. But this is not a standard part of Windows.
I can't think any way how to speed up Win3.1 driver operation or GUI acceleration using floating-point math in Win 3.1 days. Even if there was you couldn't just release FP code in drivers back in those days as FPU wasn't standard and Windows had to run down to 286. You would need two sets of drivers or some FP emulation linked it which wouldn't be practical for drivers that are only a few kilobytes...
SMARTDRIVE source code is public, I've checked that and there is definitely not any FP code. I doubt there is anything in virtual memory management that would benefit from having a FP.
Now I am motivated to scan my Windows installation and drivers for FP opcodes. I am not convinced...
