http://vgamuseum.info/index.php/benchmarks

Vgamuseum has some isa and vlb comparisons mostly in the 486 tests.

Everyone has different testing expectations, some people will test cards in the fastest system possible so that the vga card is the likely bottleneck. You get some super unrealistic scenarios.

Personally I think compatibility is more important than ram speed.

Just searched here at vogons and found this link too:

http://retronn.de/ftp/docs/eliandas_isa_vga_roundup.pdf

BinaryDemon wrote on 2020-07-21, 00:17:

Everyone has different testing expectations, some people will test cards in the fastest system possible so that the vga card is […]
Show full quote

Everyone has different testing expectations, some people will test cards in the fastest system possible so that the vga card is the likely bottleneck. You get some super unrealistic scenarios.

Personally I think compatibility is more important than ram speed.

Just searched here at vogons and found this link too:

http://retronn.de/ftp/docs/eliandas_isa_vga_roundup.pdf

Agree ! That test is on an insane computer for ISA but eliminates CPU bottlenecks, shows raw speeds. The Cirrus CD5426 and GD5428 are known for good speed and compatibility with GD5434 being about the best, ET4000 are also very good. There is a difference between good overall compatibility and overall DOS plus Win performance, with some having best Compat but not so great speeds. Anonymous Coward gives some great advice in this thread about Video on a 386: posting.php?mode=quote&f=46&p=876702

BinaryDemon wrote on 2020-07-21, 00:17:

http://vgamuseum.info/index.php/benchmarks […]
Show full quote

http://vgamuseum.info/index.php/benchmarks

Vgamuseum has some isa and vlb comparisons mostly in the 486 tests.

Everyone has different testing expectations, some people will test cards in the fastest system possible so that the vga card is the likely bottleneck. You get some super unrealistic scenarios.

Personally I think compatibility is more important than ram speed.

Just searched here at vogons and found this link too:

http://retronn.de/ftp/docs/eliandas_isa_vga_roundup.pdf

Thanks, ill take a look. They seem to have quite an extensive database other there.
I agree that compatibility is important. From what I gather the likes of a Tseng card is great for DOSgames, but terrible in Windows.

I guess I really care most about what the general consensus is regarding a card rather than what a card scores as performance wise.
Ive never found a card as of yet that doesnt work well with games. I have a 386 machine given to me that has a real basic realtek card and jazz jackrabbit ran well on it, so obviously in DOS, you dont need anything extremley powerful until you get into 3D type games i guess.

Horun wrote on 2020-07-21, 00:43:

BinaryDemon wrote on 2020-07-21, 00:17:

Everyone has different testing expectations, some people will test cards in the fastest system possible so that the vga card is […]
Show full quote

Everyone has different testing expectations, some people will test cards in the fastest system possible so that the vga card is the likely bottleneck. You get some super unrealistic scenarios.

Personally I think compatibility is more important than ram speed.

Just searched here at vogons and found this link too:

http://retronn.de/ftp/docs/eliandas_isa_vga_roundup.pdf

Agree ! That test is on an insane computer for ISA but eliminates CPU bottlenecks, shows raw speeds. The Cirrus CD5426 and GD5428 are known for good speed and compatibility with GD5434 being about the best, ET4000 are also very good. There is a difference between good overall compatibility and overall DOS plus Win performance, with some having best Compat but not so great speeds. Anonymous Coward gives some great advice in this thread about Video on a 386: posting.php?mode=quote&f=46&p=876702

Yes very true, bottlenecks really are the limiting factor, especially on 386 systems.
I have a GD5420, but dont know where that stacks up between a GD5428 and my WD90C30 over a 90C31 for example. I also have an ISA ET4000AX somewhere burried, but have the VL bus version too.

nzoomed wrote on 2020-07-21, 01:42:

[...]

I agree that compatibility is important. From what I gather the likes of a Tseng card is great for DOSgames, but terrible in Windows.

As with everything else, key is getting your requirements clear - particularly as in the ISA and VLB period great DOS and Windows performance could be mutually exclusive: the best Windows cards tended to have awful DOS performance and vice versa. Also "Windows" depended on version. Some cards that excelled at 3.1 were worse than useless in 95.

For general DOS use there's no such thing as 'acceleration' and it comes down to raw bandwidth - how fast can you get pixels into the framebuffer? For Windows the acceleration features are key. There exist cards that are pretty good at both (hence the enthousiasm about CL-GD53xx cards), but you only need that if you want to run both DOS and Windows - and you need best-in-class performance in both.

Yes very true, bottlenecks really are the limiting factor, especially on 386 systems.
I have a GD5420, but dont know where that stacks up between a GD5428 and my WD90C30 over a 90C31 for example. I also have an ISA ET4000AX somewhere burried, but have the VL bus version too.

If you actually have the cards, the obvious thing to do is to test it yourself. That way you get a comparison in your specific system in applications you consider important. That's always going to be better than anything anyone else did.

My VL-Bus benchmark is here

I have a few more cards that I benchmarked and need to add (ARK 1000, Trident, CL 543x).

But as far as VL-Bus and DOS performance there is nothing to write home about...

dionb wrote on 2020-07-21, 07:43:

As with everything else, key is getting your requirements clear - particularly as in the ISA and VLB period great DOS and Window […]
Show full quote

nzoomed wrote on 2020-07-21, 01:42:

[...]

I agree that compatibility is important. From what I gather the likes of a Tseng card is great for DOSgames, but terrible in Windows.

As with everything else, key is getting your requirements clear - particularly as in the ISA and VLB period great DOS and Windows performance could be mutually exclusive: the best Windows cards tended to have awful DOS performance and vice versa. Also "Windows" depended on version. Some cards that excelled at 3.1 were worse than useless in 95.

For general DOS use there's no such thing as 'acceleration' and it comes down to raw bandwidth - how fast can you get pixels into the framebuffer? For Windows the acceleration features are key. There exist cards that are pretty good at both (hence the enthousiasm about CL-GD53xx cards), but you only need that if you want to run both DOS and Windows - and you need best-in-class performance in both.

Yes very true, bottlenecks really are the limiting factor, especially on 386 systems.
I have a GD5420, but dont know where that stacks up between a GD5428 and my WD90C30 over a 90C31 for example. I also have an ISA ET4000AX somewhere burried, but have the VL bus version too.

If you actually have the cards, the obvious thing to do is to test it yourself. That way you get a comparison in your specific system in applications you consider important. That's always going to be better than anything anyone else did.

Its quite interesting to learn about the difference in performance between DOS and windows, even though i work in IT, all this hardware is well before my time, as I was only a child when I was using this hardware!
I guess DOS performance for me would be the most ideal, on a 386 system at least, but its possible I would want something more substantial if I were to run the likes of windows 95 on a 486 where its likely I would be running some early windows 95 games.

BinaryDemon wrote on 2020-07-21, 00:17:

http://vgamuseum.info/index.php/benchmarks […]
Show full quote

http://vgamuseum.info/index.php/benchmarks

Vgamuseum has some isa and vlb comparisons mostly in the 486 tests.

Everyone has different testing expectations, some people will test cards in the fastest system possible so that the vga card is the likely bottleneck. You get some super unrealistic scenarios.

Personally I think compatibility is more important than ram speed.

Just searched here at vogons and found this link too:

http://retronn.de/ftp/docs/eliandas_isa_vga_roundup.pdf

Just been going through that list and the benchmarks for an Et4000AX, WD90C30 and my Cirrus logic 5420(which turns out to be faulty) seem to have all the same score.
Does that seem right? I would have thought the Tseng would have scored far higher being an accelerated card, but perhaps the WD card is a goer? (ive found a few of them, and I could upgrade its memory if I wanted)

I thought I had another Cirrus logic card along with the Tseng, but have no idea where they have gone!