• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Newest Video Cards Supported on OSes

Raven

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,752
Location
DE, USA..
I figured it'd be cool to know this..

What's the newest video card that has drivers for Windows 3.x? For 95? For 98? 98SE? ME? What about NT3.x, 3.5x, or 4?

There's stuff like SDD as well, which can help things along, but it should be noted if that's required.

It's not hard to find this information for 2k and above, it gets spotty for 98SE/ME/NT4, but there's almost no documentation for 95/NT3/NT35/3x as far as this goes.

I have had a Geforce 4200Ti working on Windows 95 with official drivers, giving resolutions upward of at least 1080p on my modern monitor - no registry hacking even needed!

I know that my Matrox Millentium G250A has drivers for Win3x, but am about to investigate how that works out just today as for resolution/etc. This card is from ~1998, so it's quite late for hardware support on 3x. This card is spec'd to handle 1920x1200 at it's maximum, I believe, so I hope to see it do so on 9x, and would be thrilled to see it do so on 3x. My end goal, actually, is to see 1920x1080 on Win3x. Might have to get into the code-my-own-driver realm for that, though, or at least hex editing one..

This information is cool just for the sake of curiosity, but it's also useful, because you can pick a video card for a build based on what resolution you want to use, or based on how much power you want the machine to have, without having to hunt around for each card and figure out what works on what OS. You might want to be able to accelerate DirectX on a Win95 box to a point where only the CPU/RAM/etc. is being taxed for the sake of benchmarks. You might want to use a modern monitor at native resolution for convenience, as in my case. Not as frivolous as you might imagine.

I'd like to hear what you guys have run into. If there's interest I guess we could do sound cards and other things too, but personally I'm not too interested in that - the other direction, trying to get SB-compatible sound and IDE, FDD. etc. on newer systems interests me more when it comes to non-video. xD There's exceptions, of course, like 3dfx cards. Drivers up through XP exist for V2 and up..
 
I figured it'd be cool to know this..

What's the newest video card that has drivers for Windows 3.x? For 95? For 98? 98SE? ME? What about NT3.x, 3.5x, or 4?

There's stuff like SDD as well, which can help things along, but it should be noted if that's required.

It's not hard to find this information for 2k and above, it gets spotty for 98SE/ME/NT4, but there's almost no documentation for 95/NT3/NT35/3x as far as this goes.

I have had a Geforce 4200Ti working on Windows 95 with official drivers, giving resolutions upward of at least 1080p on my modern monitor - no registry hacking even needed!

I know that my Matrox Millentium G250A has drivers for Win3x, but am about to investigate how that works out just today as for resolution/etc. This card is from ~1998, so it's quite late for hardware support on 3x. This card is spec'd to handle 1920x1200 at it's maximum, I believe, so I hope to see it do so on 9x, and would be thrilled to see it do so on 3x. My end goal, actually, is to see 1920x1080 on Win3x. Might have to get into the code-my-own-driver realm for that, though, or at least hex editing one..

This information is cool just for the sake of curiosity, but it's also useful, because you can pick a video card for a build based on what resolution you want to use, or based on how much power you want the machine to have, without having to hunt around for each card and figure out what works on what OS. You might want to be able to accelerate DirectX on a Win95 box to a point where only the CPU/RAM/etc. is being taxed for the sake of benchmarks. You might want to use a modern monitor at native resolution for convenience, as in my case. Not as frivolous as you might imagine.

I'd like to hear what you guys have run into. If there's interest I guess we could do sound cards and other things too, but personally I'm not too interested in that - the other direction, trying to get SB-compatible sound and IDE, FDD. etc. on newer systems interests me more when it comes to non-video. xD There's exceptions, of course, like 3dfx cards. Drivers up through XP exist for V2 and up..

Of course you mean non-generic drivers...

NT 4.0 (by the market it was directed at) typically has video drivers that may do rather well on resolution, but are very limited (even with additional VRAM) on color depth...

I was recently surprised to see baseboard video with an ATI chipset and 4Mb of VRAM supported at full potential by NT WS 4.0...

With certain adapters I've seen some pretty good resolutions and color depths even with Windows 3.x...
 
Ati Rage XL chips were used in servers forever so I expect the supported old versions of NT on newer systems.
 
The best resolution support I've seen on 3x so far is the S3 cards that go up to 1600x1200. Still haven't tried this Matrox, though.
 
Windows 3.1x apparently has a hard limit of 4MB of VRAM tops for its video drivers. Never confirmed that though. Here are some surprisingly modern cards with 3.1x drivers.

-nVidia Riva 128/TNT/TNT2
-SiS 6326 AGP (built into many cheap Super 7 motherboards)
-Intel i740 (used Chips & Technologies branded drivers!)
-ATI Rage II+ and maybe the Rage Pro (drivers aren't available online for the Pro, Rage II+ used Mach64 drivers)
-Matrox G400

NT3.1 is a really tricky OS. Very little in the way of 3rd party drivers supported it. S3's cards had drivers though.
 
The GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP is supported on Windows 95 and newer...not sure why you would do something like that though.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/81.98_9x_supported.html

Edit: The Radeon X850 is supported in Windows 98.
https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/Catalyst_62_ME_release_notes.html

Although, these cards are new enough you would need to be smoking weed or something to use them on Windows 95 or Windows 98.

Awhile back I had a rig with 6800's in SLI running Xp. I know there were 98 drivers available and it was good to go with Vista. I think it might be hard to snag 95 drivers, although someone might have them squirreled away.
 
Awhile back I had a rig with 6800's in SLI running Xp. I know there were 98 drivers available and it was good to go with Vista. I think it might be hard to snag 95 drivers, although someone might have them squirreled away.

I had a 4200Ti running on 95 not too long ago, the drivers are still gettable from nVidia, even. Since it's a package, any card is in the same driver - should mean the 6800 too. For 98/ME there's the Omega Drivers, but they don't support 95, unfortunately, AFAIK. I've never had the chance to try SLI or Crossfire - almost had a Crossfire rig but I bought one card and the other card I needed was discontinued before I had the money to buy it.. :/ (X1800, d/c'd for the X1900 quickly)
 
The way I see it, when you're talking later AGP and PCI-E it's really about FPS. So I don't think I'd be playing a modem game on anything less than Xp. 98SE and especially 98ME are not the best gaming platforms in my estimation - drivers always seemed to be fighting with the system. I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere. I don't mess with the Pentiums (I-II-III) anymore because most any game that will run on them will also run okay on my W7 (dual boot Xp) setup (with a tweak or two). BTW, one of 486 my rigs with the POD83 almost runs Xp with a Matrox Millennium PCI - you could go out and wash the car or cut the grass while it loads. This is good stuff - we need to kick it around a little bit more.
 
ATI Radeon 9800-XT 256mb AGP works in Windows 95, 98, 98se, and ME. I've been using it the past few days in ME. Also nvidia nforce3 chipset has drivers for 95, 98, 98se, and ME on nvidia's website. ATI drivers for Win9x for the 9800-XT are on AMD.com
 
Back
Top