I don't remember any significant problems with using a S3 Trio64v+ PCI in a 486.

On a 486 the performance differentiation between all of these won't matter. 3D will most likely be unusable as well. So I'd go with what the DOSBOX people emulated, Trio64.

Unless you desire high 2D resolutions and need 8MB RAM. But I am not sure how you'd find a Virge that is crisp at like 1600x1200. I had an 8MB VX (Stealth 3D 3000) once, supposedly a high end card, and it was blurry at 1280.

On a 486, I tested a 4 MB S3 Trio3D at 1280x1024 in Windows and the display was very crisp. I was not very impressed with the crispness of the Virge DX I have, but this may be a factor of a poorly designed PCB w.r.t. SNR. If you plan on goofing around with Quake 2 at all, the Voodoo3 is a good bet, esp. if you get a Cyrix running at 2x66.

Most of the Trio64V+ cards only have 2MB. There are a few 4MB models floating around, but far less common than the Virge cards. Trio64V+ and Virge GX seems to go for about the same price. So if I get a 4MB Virge will I be losing something that the Trio64V+ has to offer?

I'm probably going to go with either STB or #9 since they have a better reputation for build quality. I'd like to get clear output if possible. The Voodoo3 does indeed have excellent quality output, but it sounds like the windows 3.1 drivers are a bit lacking. I mean they're basically beta and not entirely stable from my understanding. I'm not terribly interested in 3D stuff.

Just a warning regarding the 8MB VX card from STB (which is the only 8MB Virge card that I know of) . Only 4 MB is available for Windows usage. The remaining 4MB are only available to special applications written to take advantage of them.

1600x1200 on a S3 Virge is not usable, it is terrible! Even 1280x1024 I would stay away from unless you have the GX2. 1024x768 is the highest I would use on a regular Virge.

If you want high resolutions on a 486 and also staying period correct, get a Matrox Millennium card.

Thanks for the info on the Virge VX. I'll stay away.

What's the story with the Gx2 and the Trio3D. Are they backward compatible with the Trio64V+?

If your target is Win 3.1 and a crisp display, how about a Matrox G200? Those drivers are still available on the Matrox website,
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/support/dri … atest/previous/

For a list of slightly more higher-end PCI graphics cards which I've tested on a 486, refer to this link,
Modern graphics on a 486

I was testing primarily for proper 1280x1024 operation in Win98/NT4 and functional OpenGL support.

feipoa wrote:

If your target is Win 3.1 and a crisp display, how about a Matrox G200? Those drivers are still available on the Matrox website,
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/support/dri … atest/previous/
.

Feipoa, why do you value the G200 PCI so highly? I only got the AGP version, but I can't see much difference in output quality compared to the Mystiqe or the Millennium/II (which also can be aquired in or upgraded to 8MB and have Win 3.1 drivers). The G200 PCI version is also much more rare and harder to aquire and more expensive than the other cards. I just don't see how the increased costs outweighs any benefits.

Because I have not tested the Mystique or the Millennium I/II. I know the G200 will properly run OpenGL mode on a 486 in NT4. The only other graphics card which does this well on a 486 is the Voodoo3 and a TNT1 (only some of them). The PCI G200 worked out so well for me the first time I tried it, I never bothered with the lower-end Mystique or Millennium I/II cards.

The G200 can also be upgraded to 16 MB, which according to the manual, is required for 1280x1024 3D display. That is obviously not a necessity on a 486. I'm not sure what other application might use the extra 8 MB.

I find the crispness of the display on the G200 to surpass any other card which will work on a 486. I also used the G200 to benchmark nearly 200 CPUs for the Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison (not yet published), so in that right, it has become somewhat of a standard comparison item for benchmarks. I'm not sure how the G200 compares with the Mystique, Millennium I/II, or the S3 cards for DOS compatibility.

I have had a lot of problems with pre-G200 Matrox cards. They are quirky busmasters and their drivers can cause image corruption because of some cheats they do for benchmarks.

G200 PCI rare? I have one. Did not do too much testing on it, though; for various reasons, one of them being that I have enough PCI S3 cards 😀
Right now I have in my lap a 2 Mb STB Nitro-3D, ViRGE/GX and a no-name 4 Mb ViRGE/MX. I have around here somewhere several more, like a 2 Mb ELSA Winner 2000AVI, S3 968, another 2 Mb STB, this time with a Trio64 and a 2 Mb no-name with Trio64 V+.

I bought a PCI Winfast card based on the GX2. It looks to have 8MB. I was going to go STB, but some bastard bought it out from under my nose on Taobao. It sounds like there aren't too many people running this card on VOGONS. Should be interesting to see what the output quality and win3.1 driver situation is like.

The trio64v+ seems a very decent choice according to this: http://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/
GX2 is a good option too , I can only see a minor Quake problem that is irrelevant to a 486

From my personal experiance s3savage 4 on 486 runs UT with 15 fps. The best card in gui , 3d and is vesa 2.0 compatible. Also not that cpu depandable.
Also i have 3d trio 2x , awsome card , but slower than savage 3d

UT? As in Unreal Tournament? On a 486? You're joking, right?

I don't plan on running any 3D on this system. I just want clear output, good compatibility...and FAST 2D graphics in both DOS and Windows 3.x

Were there any Trio3D PCI cards made?

sliderider wrote:

Were there any Trio3D PCI cards made?

Yes, I noted tested an S3 Trio3D 4MB on a 486 in this thread, Modern graphics on a 486