Very nice, thanks you!

I also own this card
PGA - Matrox PG-640A

But I think I didnt find that demo on the driver disks. Where is it from?

Predator99 wrote on 2026-02-20, 11:37:

Very nice, thanks you! […]
Show full quote

Very nice, thanks you!

I also own this card
PGA - Matrox PG-640A

But I think I didnt find that demo on the driver disks. Where is it from?

What driver disks do you have? Are we allowed to link to driver software? The demo's in pg640_drivers.zip which is actually just demos and utilities. I haven't tried everything in there yet, that is "demo.bat".

There are a lot of drivers etc. for the next generation of these boards (PG-641, 1281) but they are not compatible. Those are more just regular TIGA boards + 3D. I'd love to find documentation for how to program them.

The 640 and 1280 are IBM PGC clones and we do have full documentation for them.

Actually we do have more programming information than I thought. Possibly for this whole era of Matrox cards. I'll update after I have a chance to look it over.

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-20, 10:25:

It's not fast. Apparently it is faster than the IBM PGC it is a clone of though. This is running on a 10 MHz 286.

https://youtu.be/lgrRibMoZTk

Wow, that is awesome! Thanks for taking the time to record and upload a video of that.

I just browsed the manual, and it's very cool to see so much about the card's basic 3D acceleration in there. I know not many people would be able to appreciate it in real-time on real hardware, but it would be interesting if someone put together a very simple 3D game that is actually accelerated by such an old card. I wonder how it works with an original 8088 at 4.77Mhz...

I dont have any driver disk. Think I downloaded everything from vcfed.

It was a little disappointing there is not much software for the PGC available. Maybe we should create a collection of everything...at least there is a program to display pictures.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-02-20, 20:42:

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-20, 10:25:

It's not fast. Apparently it is faster than the IBM PGC it is a clone of though. This is running on a 10 MHz 286.

https://youtu.be/lgrRibMoZTk

Wow, that is awesome! Thanks for taking the time to record and upload a video of that.

I just browsed the manual, and it's very cool to see so much about the card's basic 3D acceleration in there. I know not many people would be able to appreciate it in real-time on real hardware, but it would be interesting if someone put together a very simple 3D game that is actually accelerated by such an old card. I wonder how it works with an original 8088 at 4.77Mhz...

That is my exact plan and I welcome any advice and help.

I started my project https://github.com/trguhq/testglobe/ with this general idea in mind, before I had much of an idea of the performance of the very oldest 3D hardware. testglobe might run in a very rudimentary form on a PGC but it would be very basic, maybe something like the Amiga demo with the spinning globe in my avatar. As of now, the oldest hardware I've run testglobe on is a Sun Ultra 60 (where it runs at pretty much full speed compared to my modern Mac). Other people have run it on older SGIs. That project itself was actually to see the viability of using some older 3D hardware without texture mapping to run quake with just shaded triangles, but that's a topic for another day/thread. It evolved into an "what's the oldest 3D hardware that can spin some form of a globe?"

One thing I want to try is to just use old hardware to do the polygon fills or line drawing, and use an FPU (if available) to do the 3D transforms. So here even a 2D card might be able to usefully accelerate testglobe... or a game. For that I'm thinking a 386 with a coprocessor and a TIGA board. That'd also be through Windows or Mac OS drivers for simplicity, so it could potentially run on a lot of hardware.

For a game I'm thinking a battle mech game which at its most basic would be like Battlezone, but ideally would use filled polygons instead of just lines. I think a PGC is too slow for that. PG-640A might be too slow. A PG-641 though, may be able to make a nice game. That an XT with a PGC could run a 3D game is pretty optimistic, but we'll see. I intend to find out what the hardware can do.

A PG-640A is compatible with a PGC, but I'm not yet certain how compatible a PG-641 is. I'm looking into that now. I love the idea of a single "PGC" version using IBM's interface for apples to apples comparison between cards but it may be more like a PGC version, a Matrox version, and an accelerated-2D version that uses the FPU for 3D.

Couple additional things...

The PG-640 and such (there are many variations) were used in industrial equipment, some of which has survived in service to this day. So parts recyclers may try to get a high price for them as they are needed for valuable equipment to operate. They were widely used cards though so there will be other sources now and then. I also imagine once electronics are pushing 40 years old they tend to be retired so maybe we will see more from that source.

For a reality check, this is what an Amiga from 1985 can do with a 68000, 2D acceleration, and no FPU (albeit more slowly than this yet still usably - this is with a very fast processor):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xowft94FILo

I've had some discussions about whether an old FPU can even beat integer math for 3D transforms. The early FPUs were anemic.

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-21, 00:20:

That is my exact plan and I welcome any advice and help. […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-02-20, 20:42:

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-20, 10:25:

It's not fast. Apparently it is faster than the IBM PGC it is a clone of though. This is running on a 10 MHz 286.

https://youtu.be/lgrRibMoZTk

Wow, that is awesome! Thanks for taking the time to record and upload a video of that.

I just browsed the manual, and it's very cool to see so much about the card's basic 3D acceleration in there. I know not many people would be able to appreciate it in real-time on real hardware, but it would be interesting if someone put together a very simple 3D game that is actually accelerated by such an old card. I wonder how it works with an original 8088 at 4.77Mhz...

That is my exact plan and I welcome any advice and help.

I started my project https://github.com/trguhq/testglobe/ with this general idea in mind, before I had much of an idea of the performance of the very oldest 3D hardware. testglobe might run in a very rudimentary form on a PGC but it would be very basic, maybe something like the Amiga demo with the spinning globe in my avatar. As of now, the oldest hardware I've run testglobe on is a Sun Ultra 60 (where it runs at pretty much full speed compared to my modern Mac). Other people have run it on older SGIs. That project itself was actually to see the viability of using some older 3D hardware without texture mapping to run quake with just shaded triangles, but that's a topic for another day/thread. It evolved into an "what's the oldest 3D hardware that can spin some form of a globe?"

The attachment testglobe.png is no longer available

One thing I want to try is to just use old hardware to do the polygon fills or line drawing, and use an FPU (if available) to do the 3D transforms. So here even a 2D card might be able to usefully accelerate testglobe... or a game. For that I'm thinking a 386 with a coprocessor and a TIGA board. That'd also be through Windows or Mac OS drivers for simplicity, so it could potentially run on a lot of hardware.

For a game I'm thinking a battle mech game which at its most basic would be like Battlezone, but ideally would use filled polygons instead of just lines. I think a PGC is too slow for that. PG-640A might be too slow. A PG-641 though, may be able to make a nice game. That an XT with a PGC could run a 3D game is pretty optimistic, but we'll see. I intend to find out what the hardware can do.

A PG-640A is compatible with a PGC, but I'm not yet certain how compatible a PG-641 is. I'm looking into that now. I love the idea of a single "PGC" version using IBM's interface for apples to apples comparison between cards but it may be more like a PGC version, a Matrox version, and an accelerated-2D version that uses the FPU for 3D.

Sounds like a very cool project.

Playing the original Elite on a PC 5150 gives me the impression that an 8088 can handle just enough to make it worth it, but I don't know if running a 3D accelerator adds additional overhead that would be too much for such a slow CPU.

I don't have a PG-640A or any TIGA variants to run any of this stuff, but I actually got *most* of an IBM PGC from a scrapper last year. Sadly the DAC was gone so the card is non-functional unless I can find one that is compatible, and the card is missing it's bracket. On that note, if anyone has any idea how to get a replacement DAC for a PGC let me know. The datasheets for Intech DACs are basically nonexistent so it's really hard to figure out what models work as a proper replacement. There is some discussion of the topic in this thread.

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-21, 05:07:

For a reality check, this is what an Amiga from 1985 can do with a 68000, 2D acceleration, and no FPU (albeit more slowly than this yet still usably - this is with a very fast processor):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xowft94FILo

Oh wow, that is super impressive! It's so smooth, the on-planet scenes are very complex for the time and it has great music. I can't even imagine my 5150 producing that music, let alone the gameplay... 🤣

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-02-21, 05:17:

Playing the original Elite on a PC 5150 gives me the impression that an 8088 can handle just enough to make it worth it, but I don't know if running a 3D accelerator adds additional overhead that would be too much for such a slow CPU.

Yeah... We'll have to see. That Matrox demo doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Elite and Frontier were hand crafted and highly optimized just for what they do. The PGC also runs at 6480x480 in 8-bit instead of much lower resolution and bit depth.

That's what I'm aiming for though.

I don't have a PG-640A or any TIGA variants to run any of this stuff, but I actually got *most* of an IBM PGC from a scrapper last year. Sadly the DAC was gone so the card is non-functional unless I can find one that is compatible, and the card is missing it's bracket. On that note, if anyone has any idea how to get a replacement DAC for a PGC let me know. The datasheets for Intech DACs are basically nonexistent so it's really hard to figure out what models work as a proper replacement. There is some discussion of the topic in this thread.

I think the DACs are prone to failure on those. I started that thread. I haven't tried to fix the card again although it should be possible. I've got several "very similar" DACs but not with the exact set of markings. It doesn't quite work but I think I messed the board up with the Hakko desoldering tool.

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-21, 06:39:

Yeah... We'll have to see. That Matrox demo doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Elite and Frontier were hand crafted and highly […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-02-21, 05:17:

Playing the original Elite on a PC 5150 gives me the impression that an 8088 can handle just enough to make it worth it, but I don't know if running a 3D accelerator adds additional overhead that would be too much for such a slow CPU.

Yeah... We'll have to see. That Matrox demo doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Elite and Frontier were hand crafted and highly optimized just for what they do. The PGC also runs at 6480x480 in 8-bit instead of much lower resolution and bit depth.

That's what I'm aiming for though.

I don't have a PG-640A or any TIGA variants to run any of this stuff, but I actually got *most* of an IBM PGC from a scrapper last year. Sadly the DAC was gone so the card is non-functional unless I can find one that is compatible, and the card is missing it's bracket. On that note, if anyone has any idea how to get a replacement DAC for a PGC let me know. The datasheets for Intech DACs are basically nonexistent so it's really hard to figure out what models work as a proper replacement. There is some discussion of the topic in this thread.

I think the DACs are prone to failure on those. I started that thread. I haven't tried to fix the card again although it should be possible. I've got several "very similar" DACs but not with the exact set of markings. It doesn't quite work but I think I messed the board up with the Hakko desoldering tool.

Oh duh, I didn't even notice that was you... 🤣

Dealing with a nasty head cold right now and I'm not running on all cylinders (which isn't saying much anyway).

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-21, 05:07:

For a reality check, this is what an Amiga from 1985 can do with a 68000, 2D acceleration, and no FPU (albeit more slowly than this yet still usably - this is with a very fast processor):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xowft94FILo

I've had some discussions about whether an old FPU can even beat integer math for 3D transforms. The early FPUs were anemic.

That's impressive indeed! 😎👍
Though there's also a negative example: StarFlight port to Amiga
Compared to ports for IBM PC and other platforms animation was very slow on period-correct hardware (non-upgraded).
This video demonstrates the slowdowns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps_F48SQwS0

Personally, I think that the Amiga chipset was quite capable, comparable to how that of the Super NES was in the early 90s.

However, the 68000 CPU from the 70s was a bit dated by mid-80s, I think.
- Of course, it was a matter of affordability, also. At the time, the 68000 was available by many manufacturers and mass produced.

By late 80s, an 68020 or 68030 would have been more appropiate. Or an 68010, at least.
That's why the A2000 in 1987 had a CPU upgrade slot, I assume. It could take an 68020/68030 or higher.

The Macintosh had same issue. An 68000 at 8 Mhz was a bit too little, thus accelerator boards were sold early on.
The Atari Mega STE released in late 80s early 90s had featured an 16 MHz mode for the 68000 for good reason.

Edited. 2nd time.

PS: Sorry for the slightly off-topic comment. Please feel free to ignore, I just thought it's worth mentioning.
I saw the StarFlight video a long time ago and it just came to my mind.

Edit: Oh, and what also comes to mind is that the Amiga not only had OCS, ECS and AGA chipset, but also an early ICS chipset.
One difference between OCS and AGA that comes to mind is background scrolling.
The AGA version of Alfred Chicken has such a feature. It's not a 3D game, though, so it's not that relevant here. 😟

Also wanted to make clear that the video I posted was an Amiga 2000 _with a Pi accelerator in the CPU slot_. I didn't phrase that clearly enough. I don't have an example of a 68000 running the Frontier intro but it is playable on a 68000. A 25MHz 030 would've been something like what the Pi did I believe. A 68000 would've had a lower frame rate.

Hi, I know. I just meant to say that Frontier: Elite II was more playable on a stock Amiga than StarFlight was.
The Amiga chipset wasn't to blame in either case. In case of StarFlight it was the CPU which surprinsgly was the bottleneck.
Maybe due to the algorithm used for calculating the planetary surface, not exactly sure.
It's one of these games which could need an accelerator to let the Amiga shine. Wasn't meant as a criticism.

Btw, maybe these examples are also indirectly helpful insights to the relationship of IBM PC and PGC.
The IBM PGC (or a clone) might be powerful as long as the PC processor can keep up with it.
The NEV V20 has thas ins/outs instruction, for example. They could be helpful to communicate faster with the PGC, not sure.
Alternatively, there's the new MCL86+ accelerator or the classic PC-Sprint, too.

Jo22 wrote on 2026-02-22, 07:29:

Hi, I know. I just meant to say that Frontier: Elite II was more playable on a stock Amiga than StarFlight was. The Amiga chipse […]
Show full quote

Hi, I know. I just meant to say that Frontier: Elite II was more playable on a stock Amiga than StarFlight was.
The Amiga chipset wasn't to blame in either case. In case of StarFlight it was the CPU which surprinsgly was the bottleneck.
Maybe due to the algorithm used for calculating the planetary surface, not exactly sure.
It's one of these games which could need an accelerator to let the Amiga shine. Wasn't meant as a criticism.

Btw, maybe these examples are also indirectly helpful insights to the relationship of IBM PC and PGC.
The IBM PGC (or a clone) might be powerful as long as the PC processor can keep up with it.
The NEV V20 has thas ins/outs instruction, for example. They could be helpful to communicate faster with the PGC, not sure.
Alternatively, there's the new MCL86+ accelerator or the classic PC-Sprint, too.

I would like to try using 2D and 3D cards like these only for filling triangles, and use an FPU for doing the 3D transform. I suspect a 386/386 combined with any 2D accelerator could do some respectable solid shaded 3D.

For reference this is testglobe running on a Sun Ultra 60 with Elite3D m6 graphics from 1998. Clearly the 1980s cards have a long way to go from running anything like this except in its most basic form. I have hope for the "1" PG-641, -1281 and PG2-1281 though. They should be considerably faster than the PG-640.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CffPcvwioUA

What this demo illustrates is the difference between triangle count and texture mapping at a basic level.

thisisamigaspeaking wrote on 2026-02-21, 05:07:

For a reality check, this is what an Amiga from 1985 can do with a 68000, 2D acceleration, and no FPU (albeit more slowly than this yet still usably - this is with a very fast processor):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xowft94FILo

This following video is accurate for what a stock Amiga 500 will actually run at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1F0X-rK8HY