This constant parroting of the same generalised claim I see everywhere without any evidence is remarkable. I don't have access to my raw benchmark data atm, but Doom benchmarks for the OTI067 and OTI077 are within 91% of the GD5434 on a 486SLC-33, the OTI087 and OTI087X are within 97% of the results - that is clearly better than Trident 9000 or S3 911/924 cards which hover closer to 80%. Where the OTI067/077 really suffers is with 800x600x256 and higher on Windows 3.1 - this is especially annoying with an OTI077 that has 256K x4 DIP-20 chips instead of those bizarre 512K x4 SOJ-20 chips. The OTI087/OTI087X are once again better than the ET4000 in Windows 3.1 by a not-insigifcant margin, but has a weird performance dip in 800x600x256 which then mostly bounces back at 1024x768x256.

So you're parroting your own opinion with no access to benchmark data to back it up. OK then...

The only reason to drag up the OTI087X was because it had the power of the Weitek P9000 behind it for Windows acceleration. Only two vendors used such a combination, Diamond and Orchid. Diamond marketed the Viper as a Windows 3.x acceleration card, nothing more. This does not apply to 2D gaming, where everyone knew the market was dominated by the Mach32, ET4000AX, WD90c33, and the CL5424+. We are discussing gaming, not how fast Windows draws on a screen. Two completely different use case scenarios. There is a reason why OAK cards ended up in budget line PC's in those days..