2x10 pins, so it is a DIP-20 package.
The expansion is to go from 1MB to 2MB, so 8 chips for 1MB means 128KBytes per chip.
This came in 256Kx4 Fast Page Mode DRAM.

My guess would go for example at https://www.ebay.com/itm/303339433779
Datasheet: https://www.westfloridacomponents.com/mm5/gra … 4256A-70PSZ.pdf

That ebay listing is for 60ns. It is on the quicker end. You can check that the 60ns is enough by reading out the exact serial number on those two existing NEC DRAMs in U24 and U25 (can't quite make out the speed rating there).

If they end in -60, -70 or -80, then I would guess the above ebay memory would be good.

If those NEC memory chips end in -50, or -40, then that -60ns eBay listing might not be fast enough.

I have a CL-GD5428 that maxes out at 1MB:

That card uses 70 ns memory.

Another card, a CL-GD5434 that I have in my lab does have 2MB, comes with 60 ns:

So upgrading from 1MB to 2MB will likely provide the 1280*1024@8bpp and 1024*768@15/16bpp. Also 800*600@24bpp should also fit, but depends on the Cirrus firmware if it provides that - looks like my 2MB card doesn't give that, even though it would have enough VRAM.

Problem is the integrated DAC. It can only offer those higher modes interlaced, which is eye-melting. This is one of the best 1MB cards, but pretty pointless with 2MB.

For 2MB, look for S3 chips (any), Cirrus Logic GD-5434 and Trident TGUI9440 for higher modes, or Tseng ET4000/W32P for interlacing so higher performance.

dionb wrote on 2024-01-18, 20:59:

Problem is the integrated DAC. It can only offer those higher modes interlaced, which is eye-melting. This is one of the best 1MB cards, but pretty pointless with 2MB.

For 2MB, look for S3 chips (any), Cirrus Logic GD-5434 and Trident TGUI9440 for higher modes, or Tseng ET4000/W32P for interlacing so higher performance.

So it's good as is for a 1mb card?

DolchPac65 wrote on 2024-01-18, 21:12:

[...]

So it's good as is for a 1mb card?

Yes. VESA compatibility is as near perfect as you're going to get, performance is within 1% of highest you can have in DOS, and generally the build quality - and so image sharpness -was at least decent.

They're not hugely loved or sought-after cards, but if DOS gaming is what you want, they are fine, and despite lack of higher modes, Windows performance is good enough, with the 5428 you have being the first CL card to integrate a bitblitter.

dionb wrote on 2024-01-18, 21:51:

DolchPac65 wrote on 2024-01-18, 21:12:

[...]

So it's good as is for a 1mb card?

Yes. VESA compatibility is as near perfect as you're going to get, performance is within 1% of highest you can have in DOS, and generally the build quality - and so image sharpness -was at least decent.

They're not hugely loved or sought-after cards, but if DOS gaming is what you want, they are fine, and despite lack of higher modes, Windows performance is good enough, with the 5428 you have being the first CL card to integrate a bitblitter.

I just want to put something together with the NOS MoBo and this card, they were found together in a storage closet so figured I might as well make something of them, a DOS 6.22/Win3.1 machine would be just fine I think?

I really like 1024x768 even though it is interlaced. E.g. here is a recording of my Tseng ET4000 in interlaced mode in Windows: https://youtu.be/58YiU-4jUp8 . Interlacing doesn't bother me.

But of course it depends on the card and the display and the program that is used. For "low action pace" gaming it is kind of nice. (I'm playing Tetris, Minesweeper, Taipei, ... Windows 3.1 games atm)

DolchPac65 wrote on 2024-01-18, 21:56:

[...]

I just want to put something together with the NOS MoBo and this card, they were found together in a storage closet so figured I might as well make something of them, a DOS 6.22/Win3.1 machine would be just fine I think?

I lasted from 1995-early 1999 with a 1MB card in my Pentium 60 system, using it with a 14" (and later 15" ) monitor with 800x600@16b for desktop work like Word 6 and Excel 6 for my studies. It wasn't great, but it worked, and certainly in 1995 and 1996 it was what most people had to put up with. It was only when I got a 17" monitor that the low resolution really irritated me.

For DOS it's perfect, for Windows it's 'authentic'. Also, Win3.1 looks pretty bad on very high-res anyway - it was designed around 640x480 and 800x600. I have a 3MB S3 928 VLB card that can do 1024x768@24b or 1280x1024@16b. Sounds amazing, but in practice you need a magnifying glass to find stuff at that sort of resolution.

I find it to be decent.. maybe on an old 14" CRT it was a magnifying class job, but nowadays with big LCDs, not so much..

Right now as I type I'm spending the evening playing Windows games and listening to Midis, like this:

this is from 1024x768 interlaced (same as the above video I linked)..

(btw send help I'm stuck frozen which mine to guess..)

sure interlaced looks fine in a screencap that's not moving lmao

Well, that is why I led with posting a video... (icymi https://youtu.be/58YiU-4jUp8 )

The previous poster was referring to needing a magnifying glass, I thought a screenshot would do well refer to that.

clb wrote on 2024-01-19, 11:18:

Well, that is why I led with posting a video... (icymi https://youtu.be/58YiU-4jUp8 )

"(Recorded as 1024x768@50Hz progressivized with weaving deinterlacing)"

🤣

DolchPac65 wrote on 2024-01-18, 18:44:

Greetings,

Yesterday I acquired a NOS 486 Motherboard along with a Vesa Local Bus Video card, and a friend of mine said if I can find what kind of VRAM the video card takes I might be able to load it up for extra color depth. Would anyone be familiar with this card and what kind of VRAM it would take?

You did not write what CPU you are planning to use. If you use a DX2-66 then 100% go with the VLB Cirrus 5428. And DO NOT upgrade it.
For a 5x86 maybe a faster video card starts to make sense. Or when you want to use a super high resolution like 1280x1024 or 1024x768 with 64k colours. But such resolutions will be too much for a DX2-66, so .....