VOGONS


First post, by matti157

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hi, I'm fixing an old IBM 300GL 6282 PC

The PC has a pentium MMX 233 and an integrated Cirrus 5446 2MB card.

I wanted to try some of the most famous old DOS games, and some Windows 3.11 / Windows 95 games that I played when I was younger.

The best would be to combine the Cirrus 5446 with a 3D card like the Voodoo 2, but they cost too much ...

I found on ebay many ATI Rage XL 8MB for 10 €, can it be good as a 2d+3d card?

Alternatively I found the S3 Virge DX, what do you recommend?

Among the games that I would like to replay there is for example Flight Simulator 98

EDIT:
Alternatively, I can find ATI RAGE II + DVD or ATI 3D RAGE PRO PCI at good prices. But the Rage XL still costs me less and apparently offers the same functions

Reply 1 of 13, by auron

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

it's an okay choice for that machine, you could also still fall back to the cirrus chip if you encounter problems in DOS games.

the s3 card would be more compatible in DOS but hardly useful for 3d acceleration.

Reply 2 of 13, by Pierre32

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

If the Rage XLs you're looking at are those new generic ones, be warned they're very picky about the systems they work in, and when they do work the driver install is tricky. Not a recommended buy unless you're happy to throw a few bucks at an experiment.

If you're looking at the originals, disregard!

Reply 3 of 13, by matti157

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Pierre32 wrote on 2021-05-25, 04:44:

If the Rage XLs you're looking at are those new generic ones, be warned they're very picky about the systems they work in, and when they do work the driver install is tricky. Not a recommended buy unless you're happy to throw a few bucks at an experiment.

If you're looking at the originals, disregard!

I got a generic one from China for € 9, it's not a problem if it doesn't work.

My idea was to use these drivers for Windows 3.1: http://vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=3 … 8&menustate=6,1
These for Windows 95: https://www.vintage3d.org/driver.php
These for 98+NT: https://www.advantech.com/support/details/driver?id=1-ESV7U

Could it not be recognized as Rage XL?

Reply 4 of 13, by Pierre32

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Science awaits, then! I've just completed my tests this evening.

I can't offer any wisdom on your driver choices; I'll just run through my adventure with the card this week. My system is an Aptiva 2196, which is a low profile SS7 system with K6-2/533 and SiS540 chipset (packing SiS300 onboard graphics). My focus was initially Win98 only. I've tried an MX440 in it, which brought nothing to the table (as I understand it, it's a bit out-of-era for useful driver support). I got my Rage XL this week and grabbed the following drivers:

Phil's ATI uploads (the Rage Pro and Rage 128 packs): https://www.philscomputerlab.com/ati-9x-driver-archive.html
This big Catalyst archive: http://vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=1 … 9&menustate=6,1

Not one installer recognised the card. The eventual solution was to let Win98 install the standard VGA driver for it on startup, then manually update the driver from Device Manager and navigate to either of the Phil downloads. (I tried both and saw no difference between them).

3dmark99 results:
SiS300: 2011
MX440: 1987
Rage II XL: 966

Following some discussions elsewhere I then got into some DOS testing with Phil's benchmark pack: https://www.philscomputerlab.com/phils-ultima … se-project.html

Rage vs SiS benchmark.jpg
Filename
Rage vs SiS benchmark.jpg
File size
21.73 KiB
Views
485 views
File license
Public domain

I also ran Keen 4 for a scroll test, and while the SiS was a bit juddery, the Rage XL was a mess of shaking and tearing. So none of my results paint the Rage in a good light, but I've got it up against the SiS and my real takeaway from all of this is that the SiS540 delivers some pretty decent onboard graphics. On the other hand you're starting with a Cirrus that probably slays my system for 2D stuff, and with the addition of some ATI 3D the only way is up, right? I'll be interested to hear how you go.

[edit] I also tried the XL in this board, where it didn't work at all: http://www.win3x.org/uh19/motherboard/show/5956

Reply 6 of 13, by matti157

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Pierre32 wrote on 2021-05-25, 10:07:
Science awaits, then! I've just completed my tests this evening. […]
Show full quote

Science awaits, then! I've just completed my tests this evening.

I can't offer any wisdom on your driver choices; I'll just run through my adventure with the card this week. My system is an Aptiva 2196, which is a low profile SS7 system with K6-2/533 and SiS540 chipset (packing SiS300 onboard graphics). My focus was initially Win98 only. I've tried an MX440 in it, which brought nothing to the table (as I understand it, it's a bit out-of-era for useful driver support). I got my Rage XL this week and grabbed the following drivers:

Phil's ATI uploads (the Rage Pro and Rage 128 packs): https://www.philscomputerlab.com/ati-9x-driver-archive.html
This big Catalyst archive: http://vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=1 … 9&menustate=6,1

Not one installer recognised the card. The eventual solution was to let Win98 install the standard VGA driver for it on startup, then manually update the driver from Device Manager and navigate to either of the Phil downloads. (I tried both and saw no difference between them).

3dmark99 results:
SiS300: 2011
MX440: 1987
Rage II XL: 966

Following some discussions elsewhere I then got into some DOS testing with Phil's benchmark pack: https://www.philscomputerlab.com/phils-ultima … se-project.html

Rage vs SiS benchmark.jpg

I also ran Keen 4 for a scroll test, and while the SiS was a bit juddery, the Rage XL was a mess of shaking and tearing. So none of my results paint the Rage in a good light, but I've got it up against the SiS and my real takeaway from all of this is that the SiS540 delivers some pretty decent onboard graphics. On the other hand you're starting with a Cirrus that probably slays my system for 2D stuff, and with the addition of some ATI 3D the only way is up, right? I'll be interested to hear how you go.

[edit] I also tried the XL in this board, where it didn't work at all: http://www.win3x.org/uh19/motherboard/show/5956

Very very interesting, I will also write my test results
Thanks

But by installing a 2D / 3D card like the RAGE I completely lose the functionality of the cirrus I guess

Hezus wrote on 2021-05-25, 11:13:

I wouldn't even touch such a 'new' ATI rage XL with a 10 ft pole 🤣

🤣, let's see how bad it sucks then.
Why do you think?

It is worth buying a ATI RAGE II + DVD or ATI 3D RAGE PRO PCI?

Reply 7 of 13, by zyga64

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
matti157 wrote on 2021-05-25, 12:24:

It is worth buying a ATI RAGE II + DVD or ATI 3D RAGE PRO PCI?

If I had to choose between those two - definitely ATI Rage Pro!
According to this site https://gona.mactar.hu/ATI3DCIF/ it is 3x faster than ATI Rage II+DVD (in Tomb Raider).

1) VLSI SCAMP /286@20 /4MB /CL-GD5422 /CMI8330
2) i420EX /486DX33 /16MB /TGUI9440 /YMF718+GUS
3) i430HX /P233MMX /64MB /VirgeDX+3DFX /AWE32
4) i440BX /P!!!750 /256MB /MX440 /SBLive!+Vibra16s
5) i865G /E5800 /2GB /Ti4200 /YMF724

Reply 9 of 13, by matti157

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
zyga64 wrote on 2021-05-25, 13:10:
matti157 wrote on 2021-05-25, 12:24:

It is worth buying a ATI RAGE II + DVD or ATI 3D RAGE PRO PCI?

If I had to choose between those two - definitely ATI Rage Pro!
According to this site https://gona.mactar.hu/ATI3DCIF/ it is 3x faster than ATI Rage II+DVD (in Tomb Raider).

On this page there are the drivers to use!

Initially I'm interested in DOS 6.22 and windows 3.11, I'll see how it goes on the 2 systems. If bad, however, I can't buy the rage pro because it has the same problems (it's the same). I have to get the Rage II

Reply 10 of 13, by zyga64

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

If you only consider DOS and Windows 3.11 then Cirrus Logic you have is all you need.
It is one of the faster and most compatible DOS graphics cards (it's better than ATI ones according to this table https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/.
Moreover, almost all DOS games uses GFX card as simple framebuffer (no acceleration), so...
Windows 3.11 uses some 2D GDI functions, but CL-GD5446 already supports those. AFAIK there wasn't any 3D API for Windows 3.11.

If you decide to install Windows 9x in the future... Well, hunt for 3dfx (Voodoo 1s are not that expensive, well ...at least in my area).

1) VLSI SCAMP /286@20 /4MB /CL-GD5422 /CMI8330
2) i420EX /486DX33 /16MB /TGUI9440 /YMF718+GUS
3) i430HX /P233MMX /64MB /VirgeDX+3DFX /AWE32
4) i440BX /P!!!750 /256MB /MX440 /SBLive!+Vibra16s
5) i865G /E5800 /2GB /Ti4200 /YMF724

Reply 11 of 13, by matti157

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
zyga64 wrote on 2021-05-26, 06:52:
If you only consider DOS and Windows 3.11 then Cirrus Logic you have is all you need. It is one of the faster and most compatibl […]
Show full quote

If you only consider DOS and Windows 3.11 then Cirrus Logic you have is all you need.
It is one of the faster and most compatible DOS graphics cards (it's better than ATI ones according to this table https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/.
Moreover, almost all DOS games uses GFX card as simple framebuffer (no acceleration), so...
Windows 3.11 uses some 2D GDI functions, but CL-GD5446 already supports those. AFAIK there wasn't any 3D API for Windows 3.11.

If you decide to install Windows 9x in the future... Well, hunt for 3dfx (Voodoo 1s are not that expensive, well ...at least in my area).

Thanks, the comparison table is beautiful.
In fact, I did not think I had a similar jewel integrated into the PC

For the Voodoo, if I want to take the whim, there are 1 for about € 50 and 2 for about € 80
In my case it is better to take a 3D accelerator rather than a 2D + 3D card, otherwise I lose the ability to use the Cirrus