2D games for DOS were mostly 320x200 up until the end. DOS games that offered higher res (usually 3D games) still usually used 320x200 as the standard mode that should work for everybody.
A larger number of 1990s 2D games for Windows DirectDraw were probably designed for 640x480.
When 3D came along there was no longer any particular resolution that the game was "designed" for, you can project a 3D render to any resolution you want. Some HUD overlays and font sizes might still be an issue I guess, where those 2D elements might not be programmed to scale well.

Classifying 3D cards as if they're only meant for particular resolutions is just marketing. I ran something approaching 4K on triple monitors with a GTX275. The framerate wasn't high but good enough for an RPG. It's up to what you're running and what tradeoffs the user wants to make. There are too many unspecified variables to pin a particular card as being for some specific resolution.

shamino wrote on 2025-03-24, 09:34:

2D games for DOS were mostly 320x200 up until the end. DOS games that offered higher res (usually 3D games) still usually used […]
Show full quote

2D games for DOS were mostly 320x200 up until the end. DOS games that offered higher res (usually 3D games) still usually used 320x200 as the standard mode that should work for everybody.
A larger number of 1990s 2D games for Windows DirectDraw were probably designed for 640x480.
When 3D came along there was no longer any particular resolution that the game was "designed" for, you can project a 3D render to any resolution you want. Some HUD overlays and font sizes might still be an issue I guess, where those 2D elements might not be programmed to scale well.

Classifying 3D cards as if they're only meant for particular resolutions is just marketing. I ran something approaching 4K on triple monitors with a GTX275. The framerate wasn't high but good enough for an RPG. It's up to what you're running and what tradeoffs the user wants to make. There are too many unspecified variables to pin a particular card as being for some specific resolution.

You last point is only true for later 3d cards, many early ones were for 800x600 or 1024x768 and really only had enough Vram to cover that at non slide show frame rates, early 3DFX cards were affected by this with the original Voodoo limited to 640x480 max and the Voodoo 2 only bettered that to 800x600 or 1024x768 in SLI with 12Mb cards. It wasn't a driver limitation either but a true hardware one and you as the user had no way to override this there simply wasn't enough frame buffer memory on these cards to go higher.

As for DOS games are we using DOS4GW and UniVBE ? if so then 640x480 up to 1024x768 was available for DOS games with even higher for late DOS games . .even 2D ones could use 640x480, the main issue with going beyond 800x600 was scaling ..there was none so the game had to be designed to handle the high resolutions with an internal HUD scaler or some other scaling solution.

I remember trying to play Duke3D in 1600x1200 .... it ran and the 3d part was amazing but the HUD and any text was impossible to read since they didnt scale to match the resolution... truly funny to see.

The idea that modern video cards should be associated with one specific resolution is an invention of the marketing people and tech press. Maybe if you are playing the exact games that the reviewers are using to test video cards then there is some sense to it. Otherwise it's pure marketing. Soon they'll be upgrading the "gaming" chairs to "4k gaming" chairs (if they haven't already).

bakemono wrote on 2025-03-24, 11:13:

The idea that modern video cards should be associated with one specific resolution is an invention of the marketing people and tech press. Maybe if you are playing the exact games that the reviewers are using to test video cards then there is some sense to it. Otherwise it's pure marketing. Soon they'll be upgrading the "gaming" chairs to "4k gaming" chairs (if they haven't already).

My point of the post was to document this marketing. And the way they used to compare benchmarks in resolutions, as well on tech websites

3dfx Banshee touted 1920x1200 (at least for Monster Fusion). It's already been beyond the "full HD" of the big tv hd gaslight industry in 1998.

Need help to identify common video resolutions from 1996 to 2006

leileilol wrote on 2025-03-25, 00:59:

3dfx Banshee touted 1920x1200 (at least for Monster Fusion). It's already been beyond the "full HD" of the big tv hd gaslight industry in 1998.

The Matrox Millennium II from 1997 could do 1920x1200 as well, if you had the memory expansion module installed.

Heck, it could even do it with the stock 4MB but only at 256 colors.

DosFreak wrote on 2025-03-25, 01:36:

Need help to identify common video resolutions from 1996 to 2006

Hm can confirm 1920x1200 was fairly standard enough as high end, looking at benchmarks circa 2009-2012. Maybe the GF 9 series was more of a starting point then the GF 8 series.

I am confused about the 1440p transition, if it was more during the GTX 980/Ti era or the GTX 1080/Ti era.

For post 2021, 3840x1600 can be fairly challenged against 3840x2160.

shamino wrote on 2025-03-24, 09:34:

2D games for DOS were mostly 320x200 up until the end. DOS games that offered higher res (usually 3D games) still usually used 320x200 as the standard mode that should work for everybody.

Except for the, uhm, "intellectual" games, with lots of text (ie, not Doom).
Includes board games, card games, simulators or graphics adventures with text.
They primarily ran in 640x480 16c (mode 12h), with an option for Super VGA (800x600 16c).

Later VBE games also ran in 640x400 and up.
Includes games with FMVs (full motion videos).

PC Player Benchmark (DOS) by default uses VBE mode 100h, too.
Unfortunately, the gamers always add /vgamode for mode 13h so results for 640x400 are mostly unavailable.

Edit: Probably not considered "canon" here, but PC-98 systems running MS-DOS used to use 640x400 16c by default (two graphics layers).
DOS/V computers (-PC/AT compatibles with Japanese DOS-) used 640x480 16c (mode 12h) by default, too.
Games on these platforms never were in 320x200 256c. Ports to English MS-DOS use 640x480 16c, too.
Knights of Xentar (JRPG) maybe is among most popular, followed by games such as Seasons of the Sakura (VN).

shamino wrote on 2025-03-24, 09:34:

A larger number of 1990s 2D games for Windows DirectDraw were probably designed for 640x480.

I've played Windows 3.1 games in 640x480, this screen resolution was what developers had expected. In 16c and 256c (Windows wants 20c for itself).

Some Windows 3.1 games also had supported 800x600 resolution.
Warpath!, for example, has a zoom mode that enlarges to 800x600, I think.
Games like Creatures! and strategy games made good use of SVGA resolution, too.

Edit: Fullscreen mode games on Windows 3.1 often take up whole screen, rather than switching to full screen (mode 13h is technically possible for them to invoke). I'm thinking of games such as Myst here.
That means they're operating in 640x480, rather than switching resolutions.
Some Windows 3.1 games can take up full screen in 800x600, too, though.
At higher resolutions, the game runs centered with a large black border.

shamino wrote on 2025-03-24, 09:34:

2D games for DOS were mostly 320x200 up until the end.

There were some 2D DOS games which ran at 640x480 during the mid 90s. A few examples off the top of my head:

• Transport Tycoon (1994)
• WarCraft 2 (1995)
• Master of Orion 2 (1996)
• Settlers 2 (1996)
• Heroes of Might and Magic 2 (1996)

I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones I have played recently and remember clearly.

There are practical limits on cards and resolutions.
These days it's the bandwidth of the bitclock/cable standard.

If you're willing to sacrifice one part of the bandwidth, like colour depth and frame rate, you can stretch resolutions far higher than advertised.

Eg 4k 120fps 32bit colour could get 4* 4k 16bit 60fps.
It's the same bandwidth.

@Joseph_Joestar I believe there are hundreds of games supporting full VGA or SVGA of some kind.
However, they're not that mainstream and don't come to mind if we think of "DOS games".

By DOS games, many people think of Doom, Wolf 3D, Duke Nukem, Monkey Island, Loom, Prince of Persia, Jill of Jungle, Commander Keen and Jazz Jackrabbit.
Maybe fun racers such as Skunny Kart and Whacky Wheels, aa well.
And Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.

What's lesser being thought of are SVGA-capable games such as
Magic Carpet 2, Terminal Velocity, Descent 2, Tomb Raider, Sim City 2000, Flight Unlimited 2 etc..

Or the whole IF genre and the flight simulators.: It's not cool enough. Boom, boom, boom! 🔫🧨🧨🧨

Jo22 wrote on 2025-03-25, 10:33:

@Joseph_Joestar I believe there are hundreds of games supporting full VGA or SVGA of some kind.
However, they're not that mainstream and don't come to mind if we think of "DOS games".

The ones I listed above are all reasonably popular mainstream titles, which had fairly decent sales numbers for the time.

By DOS games, many people think of Doom, Wolf 3D, Duke Nukem, Monkey Island, Loom, Prince of Persia, Jill of Jungle, Commander Keen and Jazz Jackrabbit.
Maybe fun racers such as Skunny Kart and Whacky Wheels, aa well.
And Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.

That might depend on when someone initially started DOS gaming. For me, it was in the middle of 1996 when I got my first PC. So my first association with DOS gaming is Duke3D, Stonekeep, Command & Conquer, WarCraft 1&2, Tyrian, Simon the Sorcerer 2 and Doom. I did play a few older games as well, but I mostly stuck to those released between 1993 and 1997.

^ Hi, I think there's a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to correct you at all.
By "mainstream", I meant those games that appear over and over again in forums, on Youtube videos and in news articles.
Games like, say, Might and Magic, Alone in the Dark, Cruise for a Corpse, Laura Bow 2: The Dagger of Amon Ra or Larry 2 are classics too but aren’t nearly as often being mentioned as Doom, Monkey Island or Prince of Persia.