High-end PC graphics circa 1990?Recommendations for high quality cheap RF demodulatorHow can I upscale the video output of a Nintendo 64 for low-latency and high quality graphics on an HDTV?What was the difference between “Video Low” and “Video High” on the VIC-20?Graphics chips in 1980How do high-resolution graphics work on the ZX81?What specific technical advance(s) allowed PCs to play “Full-screen full-motion” video?How do CGA emulators for Hercules graphics work?Daisy wheel graphics using the period?Looking for PC graphics demo software from the early 90s called “Unreal”
Locked out of my own server
Do any Star Trek characters play rock band instruments?
Promotions usually come with raises, right?
Is (manual) feature extraction outdated?
How does Deep Packet Inspection work with encrypted packets?
What is the topology on the set of field orders
How time is defined in astronomical science
A Caesar cipher in Python3
How did composers "test" their music?
Is this bible in Koine Greek?
Transit in Amsterdam for 10 hours, do I have time to visit the city for sightseeing?
What is the speed of "electricity"?
Comparison of C-Cl bond length in CH3Cl and CF3Cl
Can Alter Self be used to enter an enemy's body and destroy it from the inside?
Proxy a domain from one server to another and retain domain name
Why does a Max constraint work, but this non-negativity constraint does not?
Peano's dot notation
How should chips with pins on bottom be drawn?
Why the real and imaginary parts of a complex analytic function are not independent?
Dodging a Deathbeam travelling at speed of light
Is SSH key with passphrase a 2FA
Is it possible to save a (science) PhD in 10 months?
What would an inclusive curriculum look like in a computer science course?
Decrypt T-SQL log backup header and read LSN
High-end PC graphics circa 1990?
Recommendations for high quality cheap RF demodulatorHow can I upscale the video output of a Nintendo 64 for low-latency and high quality graphics on an HDTV?What was the difference between “Video Low” and “Video High” on the VIC-20?Graphics chips in 1980How do high-resolution graphics work on the ZX81?What specific technical advance(s) allowed PCs to play “Full-screen full-motion” video?How do CGA emulators for Hercules graphics work?Daisy wheel graphics using the period?Looking for PC graphics demo software from the early 90s called “Unreal”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
I remember CAD being a major driver for PCs with high-end graphics cards; specifically AutoCAD was rising quickly in popularity around 1990 as PCs were able to compete with very costly CAD workstations.
My memory about the high-end graphics cards of the time is sparse. I do remember the TI TARGA compatible cards, which were popular for photo-realistic graphics, and I think could work with AutoCAD as well. And I remember Number Nine cards being highly regarded by some AutoCAD users.
I am mainly interested in the period from 1988 to 1992-3. At that time, SVGA was new (VGA even somewhat new), and lower-cost video cards lacked the resolution and performance desired by AutoCAD users. I think they were aiming for 1024x1024 pixel resolution with accelerated 2D.
So, what were the most capable/popular high-end video cards for CAD on PC's at this time, and what were their capabilities (resolution, color depth, monitor freq., VRAM capacity, etc.)?
graphics ibm-pc video
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
|
show 6 more comments
I remember CAD being a major driver for PCs with high-end graphics cards; specifically AutoCAD was rising quickly in popularity around 1990 as PCs were able to compete with very costly CAD workstations.
My memory about the high-end graphics cards of the time is sparse. I do remember the TI TARGA compatible cards, which were popular for photo-realistic graphics, and I think could work with AutoCAD as well. And I remember Number Nine cards being highly regarded by some AutoCAD users.
I am mainly interested in the period from 1988 to 1992-3. At that time, SVGA was new (VGA even somewhat new), and lower-cost video cards lacked the resolution and performance desired by AutoCAD users. I think they were aiming for 1024x1024 pixel resolution with accelerated 2D.
So, what were the most capable/popular high-end video cards for CAD on PC's at this time, and what were their capabilities (resolution, color depth, monitor freq., VRAM capacity, etc.)?
graphics ibm-pc video
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
I vaguely recall the Tseng Labs ET3000/4000/6000 chipsets being a big deal at the time, but I don't know if they were used in high-end workstations.
– fadden
Jun 14 at 15:17
1
I know AutoCAD is almost unique in using the accelerator functions built into the IBM 8514, but I've no idea as to its actual performance or popularity, alas.
– Tommy
Jun 14 at 15:56
In 1990 high-end like you described either meant higher resolution and/or colour depth than VGA (and not necessary VGA compatible, so not SVGA, like with the Truevision TARGA) or alternatively 2D accelerators like with the IBM 8514/A and its many clones.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 14 at 16:00
My memory says that Diamond Stealth cards were big then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia#Stealth
– LAK
Jun 14 at 17:03
1
@Criggie I'm talking about whatever was most important to AutoCAD users. Not having been a user, myself, I can only speculate on what they valued highest. My guess would be resolution and re-draw speed, but I'm happy to be corrected.
– Brian H
Jun 15 at 14:25
|
show 6 more comments
I remember CAD being a major driver for PCs with high-end graphics cards; specifically AutoCAD was rising quickly in popularity around 1990 as PCs were able to compete with very costly CAD workstations.
My memory about the high-end graphics cards of the time is sparse. I do remember the TI TARGA compatible cards, which were popular for photo-realistic graphics, and I think could work with AutoCAD as well. And I remember Number Nine cards being highly regarded by some AutoCAD users.
I am mainly interested in the period from 1988 to 1992-3. At that time, SVGA was new (VGA even somewhat new), and lower-cost video cards lacked the resolution and performance desired by AutoCAD users. I think they were aiming for 1024x1024 pixel resolution with accelerated 2D.
So, what were the most capable/popular high-end video cards for CAD on PC's at this time, and what were their capabilities (resolution, color depth, monitor freq., VRAM capacity, etc.)?
graphics ibm-pc video
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
I remember CAD being a major driver for PCs with high-end graphics cards; specifically AutoCAD was rising quickly in popularity around 1990 as PCs were able to compete with very costly CAD workstations.
My memory about the high-end graphics cards of the time is sparse. I do remember the TI TARGA compatible cards, which were popular for photo-realistic graphics, and I think could work with AutoCAD as well. And I remember Number Nine cards being highly regarded by some AutoCAD users.
I am mainly interested in the period from 1988 to 1992-3. At that time, SVGA was new (VGA even somewhat new), and lower-cost video cards lacked the resolution and performance desired by AutoCAD users. I think they were aiming for 1024x1024 pixel resolution with accelerated 2D.
So, what were the most capable/popular high-end video cards for CAD on PC's at this time, and what were their capabilities (resolution, color depth, monitor freq., VRAM capacity, etc.)?
graphics ibm-pc video
graphics ibm-pc video
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
asked Jun 14 at 14:18
Brian HBrian H
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
23k2 gold badges89 silver badges197 bronze badges
I vaguely recall the Tseng Labs ET3000/4000/6000 chipsets being a big deal at the time, but I don't know if they were used in high-end workstations.
– fadden
Jun 14 at 15:17
1
I know AutoCAD is almost unique in using the accelerator functions built into the IBM 8514, but I've no idea as to its actual performance or popularity, alas.
– Tommy
Jun 14 at 15:56
In 1990 high-end like you described either meant higher resolution and/or colour depth than VGA (and not necessary VGA compatible, so not SVGA, like with the Truevision TARGA) or alternatively 2D accelerators like with the IBM 8514/A and its many clones.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 14 at 16:00
My memory says that Diamond Stealth cards were big then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia#Stealth
– LAK
Jun 14 at 17:03
1
@Criggie I'm talking about whatever was most important to AutoCAD users. Not having been a user, myself, I can only speculate on what they valued highest. My guess would be resolution and re-draw speed, but I'm happy to be corrected.
– Brian H
Jun 15 at 14:25
|
show 6 more comments
I vaguely recall the Tseng Labs ET3000/4000/6000 chipsets being a big deal at the time, but I don't know if they were used in high-end workstations.
– fadden
Jun 14 at 15:17
1
I know AutoCAD is almost unique in using the accelerator functions built into the IBM 8514, but I've no idea as to its actual performance or popularity, alas.
– Tommy
Jun 14 at 15:56
In 1990 high-end like you described either meant higher resolution and/or colour depth than VGA (and not necessary VGA compatible, so not SVGA, like with the Truevision TARGA) or alternatively 2D accelerators like with the IBM 8514/A and its many clones.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 14 at 16:00
My memory says that Diamond Stealth cards were big then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia#Stealth
– LAK
Jun 14 at 17:03
1
@Criggie I'm talking about whatever was most important to AutoCAD users. Not having been a user, myself, I can only speculate on what they valued highest. My guess would be resolution and re-draw speed, but I'm happy to be corrected.
– Brian H
Jun 15 at 14:25
I vaguely recall the Tseng Labs ET3000/4000/6000 chipsets being a big deal at the time, but I don't know if they were used in high-end workstations.
– fadden
Jun 14 at 15:17
I vaguely recall the Tseng Labs ET3000/4000/6000 chipsets being a big deal at the time, but I don't know if they were used in high-end workstations.
– fadden
Jun 14 at 15:17
1
1
I know AutoCAD is almost unique in using the accelerator functions built into the IBM 8514, but I've no idea as to its actual performance or popularity, alas.
– Tommy
Jun 14 at 15:56
I know AutoCAD is almost unique in using the accelerator functions built into the IBM 8514, but I've no idea as to its actual performance or popularity, alas.
– Tommy
Jun 14 at 15:56
In 1990 high-end like you described either meant higher resolution and/or colour depth than VGA (and not necessary VGA compatible, so not SVGA, like with the Truevision TARGA) or alternatively 2D accelerators like with the IBM 8514/A and its many clones.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 14 at 16:00
In 1990 high-end like you described either meant higher resolution and/or colour depth than VGA (and not necessary VGA compatible, so not SVGA, like with the Truevision TARGA) or alternatively 2D accelerators like with the IBM 8514/A and its many clones.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 14 at 16:00
My memory says that Diamond Stealth cards were big then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia#Stealth
– LAK
Jun 14 at 17:03
My memory says that Diamond Stealth cards were big then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia#Stealth
– LAK
Jun 14 at 17:03
1
1
@Criggie I'm talking about whatever was most important to AutoCAD users. Not having been a user, myself, I can only speculate on what they valued highest. My guess would be resolution and re-draw speed, but I'm happy to be corrected.
– Brian H
Jun 15 at 14:25
@Criggie I'm talking about whatever was most important to AutoCAD users. Not having been a user, myself, I can only speculate on what they valued highest. My guess would be resolution and re-draw speed, but I'm happy to be corrected.
– Brian H
Jun 15 at 14:25
|
show 6 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Basic level - 8514/a clones, like ATI Mach 8 (1990, up to 8-bit color, up to 1 meg VRAM, up to 899$) - see
Medium level - TIGA-based video accelerators, especially for CAD. see
High end - CAD/PostScript accelerators like SPEA Fire with i860 CPU onboard.
Early solution - miro GRAPH 510 on Signetics SCC63484 ACRTC chipset, 1986, 2 meg VRAM. see
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
Did any video cards with that Signetics chipset have the full 2 MiB of Video RAM?
– snips-n-snails
Jun 14 at 19:49
1
Some impressive cards there. I had forgotten about the i860 as a graphics accelerator.
– Brian H
Jun 14 at 20:16
add a comment
|
I think the Metheus UGA 1228 ($3,995 in February 1990, equivalent to $7,750 in 2018) qualifies as high-end. It supported 2 MiB of Video RAM for a maximum resolution of 1,280×1,024 pixels in 256 colors, when most other graphics cards at the time topped out at 512 KiB and 1,024×768 in 16 colors.
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
1280x1024 at 8bpp is only about 1.31 MB. You can neatly fit 1600x1200 at 8bpp into 2 MiB (it requires 1.92 MB, plus whatever, if anything, is needed in video RAM for color look-up tables and such).
– a CVn
Jun 15 at 14:28
@aCVn That's true but it appears that color 1600x1200 monitors didn't arrive until around 1992 or 1993.
– snips-n-snails
Jun 16 at 19:20
I think I have/had one of these Metheus cards. I thought it was just a CGA card on account of the 9-pin connector but it had a standard text font that looked similar to what you get on a Sun so I always liked it for that.
– bodgit
Jun 18 at 8:54
add a comment
|
High-res monitors (1024 and above) were not commonly available at consumer or office store prices back circa 1991. So several companies, Sigma Designs for one, manufactured and sold custom monitors and matching graphics card combos. Custom yokes and magnetics, etc. in addition to a graphics card with a custom ASIC or gate array.
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
add a comment
|
In 1989 I had a "high resolution" video card for the time - but it was two-colour being black or white.
The Hercules graphics adaptor was capable of all normal text resolutions, and could display 720x350 pixel image. While not a lot of colours, its a respectably high resolution for the time.
Remember that one of your points in the question is CAD where high resolution easily trumps a couple of colours.
The Hercules card was an 8 bit ISA card, and was probably full length in earlier iterations, shrinking down to 8 bit card size by around 1990. Often doubled with a parallel port on the board, they had 64 kilobytes of video memory, compared to 16 kbytes for CGA or 4 kbytes for the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter.
Power users could run a herc monitor and a VGA monitor side by side too, for early dual-screen PCs.
Further information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_Graphics_Card
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
1
In 1989 the Hercules Graphic Card was the exact opposite of high-end PC graphics. It was for people who couldn't anything better.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 19:31
@RossRidge Not sure if we're at cross purposes here - a high resolution 720x350 was well above what CGA could offer, and a higher res than EGA. Released in 1987, VGA was simply not able to exceed 720x350 until SVGA extensions made 800x600 possible.
– Criggie
Jun 15 at 22:10
4
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that in 1989 that Hercules graphics were for people who couldn't afford anything better. Also for CAD, VGA's 640x480 16 colour graphics were a massive improvement over Hercules 720x350 mono
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 22:20
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f11373%2fhigh-end-pc-graphics-circa-1990%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Basic level - 8514/a clones, like ATI Mach 8 (1990, up to 8-bit color, up to 1 meg VRAM, up to 899$) - see
Medium level - TIGA-based video accelerators, especially for CAD. see
High end - CAD/PostScript accelerators like SPEA Fire with i860 CPU onboard.
Early solution - miro GRAPH 510 on Signetics SCC63484 ACRTC chipset, 1986, 2 meg VRAM. see
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
Did any video cards with that Signetics chipset have the full 2 MiB of Video RAM?
– snips-n-snails
Jun 14 at 19:49
1
Some impressive cards there. I had forgotten about the i860 as a graphics accelerator.
– Brian H
Jun 14 at 20:16
add a comment
|
Basic level - 8514/a clones, like ATI Mach 8 (1990, up to 8-bit color, up to 1 meg VRAM, up to 899$) - see
Medium level - TIGA-based video accelerators, especially for CAD. see
High end - CAD/PostScript accelerators like SPEA Fire with i860 CPU onboard.
Early solution - miro GRAPH 510 on Signetics SCC63484 ACRTC chipset, 1986, 2 meg VRAM. see
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
Did any video cards with that Signetics chipset have the full 2 MiB of Video RAM?
– snips-n-snails
Jun 14 at 19:49
1
Some impressive cards there. I had forgotten about the i860 as a graphics accelerator.
– Brian H
Jun 14 at 20:16
add a comment
|
Basic level - 8514/a clones, like ATI Mach 8 (1990, up to 8-bit color, up to 1 meg VRAM, up to 899$) - see
Medium level - TIGA-based video accelerators, especially for CAD. see
High end - CAD/PostScript accelerators like SPEA Fire with i860 CPU onboard.
Early solution - miro GRAPH 510 on Signetics SCC63484 ACRTC chipset, 1986, 2 meg VRAM. see
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
Basic level - 8514/a clones, like ATI Mach 8 (1990, up to 8-bit color, up to 1 meg VRAM, up to 899$) - see
Medium level - TIGA-based video accelerators, especially for CAD. see
High end - CAD/PostScript accelerators like SPEA Fire with i860 CPU onboard.
Early solution - miro GRAPH 510 on Signetics SCC63484 ACRTC chipset, 1986, 2 meg VRAM. see
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
answered Jun 14 at 19:00
WheelmagisterWheelmagister
4947 bronze badges
4947 bronze badges
Did any video cards with that Signetics chipset have the full 2 MiB of Video RAM?
– snips-n-snails
Jun 14 at 19:49
1
Some impressive cards there. I had forgotten about the i860 as a graphics accelerator.
– Brian H
Jun 14 at 20:16
add a comment
|
Did any video cards with that Signetics chipset have the full 2 MiB of Video RAM?
– snips-n-snails
Jun 14 at 19:49
1
Some impressive cards there. I had forgotten about the i860 as a graphics accelerator.
– Brian H
Jun 14 at 20:16
Did any video cards with that Signetics chipset have the full 2 MiB of Video RAM?
– snips-n-snails
Jun 14 at 19:49
Did any video cards with that Signetics chipset have the full 2 MiB of Video RAM?
– snips-n-snails
Jun 14 at 19:49
1
1
Some impressive cards there. I had forgotten about the i860 as a graphics accelerator.
– Brian H
Jun 14 at 20:16
Some impressive cards there. I had forgotten about the i860 as a graphics accelerator.
– Brian H
Jun 14 at 20:16
add a comment
|
I think the Metheus UGA 1228 ($3,995 in February 1990, equivalent to $7,750 in 2018) qualifies as high-end. It supported 2 MiB of Video RAM for a maximum resolution of 1,280×1,024 pixels in 256 colors, when most other graphics cards at the time topped out at 512 KiB and 1,024×768 in 16 colors.
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
1280x1024 at 8bpp is only about 1.31 MB. You can neatly fit 1600x1200 at 8bpp into 2 MiB (it requires 1.92 MB, plus whatever, if anything, is needed in video RAM for color look-up tables and such).
– a CVn
Jun 15 at 14:28
@aCVn That's true but it appears that color 1600x1200 monitors didn't arrive until around 1992 or 1993.
– snips-n-snails
Jun 16 at 19:20
I think I have/had one of these Metheus cards. I thought it was just a CGA card on account of the 9-pin connector but it had a standard text font that looked similar to what you get on a Sun so I always liked it for that.
– bodgit
Jun 18 at 8:54
add a comment
|
I think the Metheus UGA 1228 ($3,995 in February 1990, equivalent to $7,750 in 2018) qualifies as high-end. It supported 2 MiB of Video RAM for a maximum resolution of 1,280×1,024 pixels in 256 colors, when most other graphics cards at the time topped out at 512 KiB and 1,024×768 in 16 colors.
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
1280x1024 at 8bpp is only about 1.31 MB. You can neatly fit 1600x1200 at 8bpp into 2 MiB (it requires 1.92 MB, plus whatever, if anything, is needed in video RAM for color look-up tables and such).
– a CVn
Jun 15 at 14:28
@aCVn That's true but it appears that color 1600x1200 monitors didn't arrive until around 1992 or 1993.
– snips-n-snails
Jun 16 at 19:20
I think I have/had one of these Metheus cards. I thought it was just a CGA card on account of the 9-pin connector but it had a standard text font that looked similar to what you get on a Sun so I always liked it for that.
– bodgit
Jun 18 at 8:54
add a comment
|
I think the Metheus UGA 1228 ($3,995 in February 1990, equivalent to $7,750 in 2018) qualifies as high-end. It supported 2 MiB of Video RAM for a maximum resolution of 1,280×1,024 pixels in 256 colors, when most other graphics cards at the time topped out at 512 KiB and 1,024×768 in 16 colors.
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
I think the Metheus UGA 1228 ($3,995 in February 1990, equivalent to $7,750 in 2018) qualifies as high-end. It supported 2 MiB of Video RAM for a maximum resolution of 1,280×1,024 pixels in 256 colors, when most other graphics cards at the time topped out at 512 KiB and 1,024×768 in 16 colors.
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jun 14 at 18:08
snips-n-snailssnips-n-snails
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
11.5k3 gold badges41 silver badges89 bronze badges
1280x1024 at 8bpp is only about 1.31 MB. You can neatly fit 1600x1200 at 8bpp into 2 MiB (it requires 1.92 MB, plus whatever, if anything, is needed in video RAM for color look-up tables and such).
– a CVn
Jun 15 at 14:28
@aCVn That's true but it appears that color 1600x1200 monitors didn't arrive until around 1992 or 1993.
– snips-n-snails
Jun 16 at 19:20
I think I have/had one of these Metheus cards. I thought it was just a CGA card on account of the 9-pin connector but it had a standard text font that looked similar to what you get on a Sun so I always liked it for that.
– bodgit
Jun 18 at 8:54
add a comment
|
1280x1024 at 8bpp is only about 1.31 MB. You can neatly fit 1600x1200 at 8bpp into 2 MiB (it requires 1.92 MB, plus whatever, if anything, is needed in video RAM for color look-up tables and such).
– a CVn
Jun 15 at 14:28
@aCVn That's true but it appears that color 1600x1200 monitors didn't arrive until around 1992 or 1993.
– snips-n-snails
Jun 16 at 19:20
I think I have/had one of these Metheus cards. I thought it was just a CGA card on account of the 9-pin connector but it had a standard text font that looked similar to what you get on a Sun so I always liked it for that.
– bodgit
Jun 18 at 8:54
1280x1024 at 8bpp is only about 1.31 MB. You can neatly fit 1600x1200 at 8bpp into 2 MiB (it requires 1.92 MB, plus whatever, if anything, is needed in video RAM for color look-up tables and such).
– a CVn
Jun 15 at 14:28
1280x1024 at 8bpp is only about 1.31 MB. You can neatly fit 1600x1200 at 8bpp into 2 MiB (it requires 1.92 MB, plus whatever, if anything, is needed in video RAM for color look-up tables and such).
– a CVn
Jun 15 at 14:28
@aCVn That's true but it appears that color 1600x1200 monitors didn't arrive until around 1992 or 1993.
– snips-n-snails
Jun 16 at 19:20
@aCVn That's true but it appears that color 1600x1200 monitors didn't arrive until around 1992 or 1993.
– snips-n-snails
Jun 16 at 19:20
I think I have/had one of these Metheus cards. I thought it was just a CGA card on account of the 9-pin connector but it had a standard text font that looked similar to what you get on a Sun so I always liked it for that.
– bodgit
Jun 18 at 8:54
I think I have/had one of these Metheus cards. I thought it was just a CGA card on account of the 9-pin connector but it had a standard text font that looked similar to what you get on a Sun so I always liked it for that.
– bodgit
Jun 18 at 8:54
add a comment
|
High-res monitors (1024 and above) were not commonly available at consumer or office store prices back circa 1991. So several companies, Sigma Designs for one, manufactured and sold custom monitors and matching graphics card combos. Custom yokes and magnetics, etc. in addition to a graphics card with a custom ASIC or gate array.
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
add a comment
|
High-res monitors (1024 and above) were not commonly available at consumer or office store prices back circa 1991. So several companies, Sigma Designs for one, manufactured and sold custom monitors and matching graphics card combos. Custom yokes and magnetics, etc. in addition to a graphics card with a custom ASIC or gate array.
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
add a comment
|
High-res monitors (1024 and above) were not commonly available at consumer or office store prices back circa 1991. So several companies, Sigma Designs for one, manufactured and sold custom monitors and matching graphics card combos. Custom yokes and magnetics, etc. in addition to a graphics card with a custom ASIC or gate array.
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
High-res monitors (1024 and above) were not commonly available at consumer or office store prices back circa 1991. So several companies, Sigma Designs for one, manufactured and sold custom monitors and matching graphics card combos. Custom yokes and magnetics, etc. in addition to a graphics card with a custom ASIC or gate array.
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
answered Jun 15 at 3:53
hotpaw2hotpaw2
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
3,4788 silver badges28 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
In 1989 I had a "high resolution" video card for the time - but it was two-colour being black or white.
The Hercules graphics adaptor was capable of all normal text resolutions, and could display 720x350 pixel image. While not a lot of colours, its a respectably high resolution for the time.
Remember that one of your points in the question is CAD where high resolution easily trumps a couple of colours.
The Hercules card was an 8 bit ISA card, and was probably full length in earlier iterations, shrinking down to 8 bit card size by around 1990. Often doubled with a parallel port on the board, they had 64 kilobytes of video memory, compared to 16 kbytes for CGA or 4 kbytes for the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter.
Power users could run a herc monitor and a VGA monitor side by side too, for early dual-screen PCs.
Further information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_Graphics_Card
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
1
In 1989 the Hercules Graphic Card was the exact opposite of high-end PC graphics. It was for people who couldn't anything better.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 19:31
@RossRidge Not sure if we're at cross purposes here - a high resolution 720x350 was well above what CGA could offer, and a higher res than EGA. Released in 1987, VGA was simply not able to exceed 720x350 until SVGA extensions made 800x600 possible.
– Criggie
Jun 15 at 22:10
4
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that in 1989 that Hercules graphics were for people who couldn't afford anything better. Also for CAD, VGA's 640x480 16 colour graphics were a massive improvement over Hercules 720x350 mono
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 22:20
add a comment
|
In 1989 I had a "high resolution" video card for the time - but it was two-colour being black or white.
The Hercules graphics adaptor was capable of all normal text resolutions, and could display 720x350 pixel image. While not a lot of colours, its a respectably high resolution for the time.
Remember that one of your points in the question is CAD where high resolution easily trumps a couple of colours.
The Hercules card was an 8 bit ISA card, and was probably full length in earlier iterations, shrinking down to 8 bit card size by around 1990. Often doubled with a parallel port on the board, they had 64 kilobytes of video memory, compared to 16 kbytes for CGA or 4 kbytes for the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter.
Power users could run a herc monitor and a VGA monitor side by side too, for early dual-screen PCs.
Further information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_Graphics_Card
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
1
In 1989 the Hercules Graphic Card was the exact opposite of high-end PC graphics. It was for people who couldn't anything better.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 19:31
@RossRidge Not sure if we're at cross purposes here - a high resolution 720x350 was well above what CGA could offer, and a higher res than EGA. Released in 1987, VGA was simply not able to exceed 720x350 until SVGA extensions made 800x600 possible.
– Criggie
Jun 15 at 22:10
4
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that in 1989 that Hercules graphics were for people who couldn't afford anything better. Also for CAD, VGA's 640x480 16 colour graphics were a massive improvement over Hercules 720x350 mono
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 22:20
add a comment
|
In 1989 I had a "high resolution" video card for the time - but it was two-colour being black or white.
The Hercules graphics adaptor was capable of all normal text resolutions, and could display 720x350 pixel image. While not a lot of colours, its a respectably high resolution for the time.
Remember that one of your points in the question is CAD where high resolution easily trumps a couple of colours.
The Hercules card was an 8 bit ISA card, and was probably full length in earlier iterations, shrinking down to 8 bit card size by around 1990. Often doubled with a parallel port on the board, they had 64 kilobytes of video memory, compared to 16 kbytes for CGA or 4 kbytes for the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter.
Power users could run a herc monitor and a VGA monitor side by side too, for early dual-screen PCs.
Further information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_Graphics_Card
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
In 1989 I had a "high resolution" video card for the time - but it was two-colour being black or white.
The Hercules graphics adaptor was capable of all normal text resolutions, and could display 720x350 pixel image. While not a lot of colours, its a respectably high resolution for the time.
Remember that one of your points in the question is CAD where high resolution easily trumps a couple of colours.
The Hercules card was an 8 bit ISA card, and was probably full length in earlier iterations, shrinking down to 8 bit card size by around 1990. Often doubled with a parallel port on the board, they had 64 kilobytes of video memory, compared to 16 kbytes for CGA or 4 kbytes for the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter.
Power users could run a herc monitor and a VGA monitor side by side too, for early dual-screen PCs.
Further information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_Graphics_Card
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
answered Jun 15 at 7:53
CriggieCriggie
18710 bronze badges
18710 bronze badges
1
In 1989 the Hercules Graphic Card was the exact opposite of high-end PC graphics. It was for people who couldn't anything better.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 19:31
@RossRidge Not sure if we're at cross purposes here - a high resolution 720x350 was well above what CGA could offer, and a higher res than EGA. Released in 1987, VGA was simply not able to exceed 720x350 until SVGA extensions made 800x600 possible.
– Criggie
Jun 15 at 22:10
4
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that in 1989 that Hercules graphics were for people who couldn't afford anything better. Also for CAD, VGA's 640x480 16 colour graphics were a massive improvement over Hercules 720x350 mono
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 22:20
add a comment
|
1
In 1989 the Hercules Graphic Card was the exact opposite of high-end PC graphics. It was for people who couldn't anything better.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 19:31
@RossRidge Not sure if we're at cross purposes here - a high resolution 720x350 was well above what CGA could offer, and a higher res than EGA. Released in 1987, VGA was simply not able to exceed 720x350 until SVGA extensions made 800x600 possible.
– Criggie
Jun 15 at 22:10
4
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that in 1989 that Hercules graphics were for people who couldn't afford anything better. Also for CAD, VGA's 640x480 16 colour graphics were a massive improvement over Hercules 720x350 mono
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 22:20
1
1
In 1989 the Hercules Graphic Card was the exact opposite of high-end PC graphics. It was for people who couldn't anything better.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 19:31
In 1989 the Hercules Graphic Card was the exact opposite of high-end PC graphics. It was for people who couldn't anything better.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 19:31
@RossRidge Not sure if we're at cross purposes here - a high resolution 720x350 was well above what CGA could offer, and a higher res than EGA. Released in 1987, VGA was simply not able to exceed 720x350 until SVGA extensions made 800x600 possible.
– Criggie
Jun 15 at 22:10
@RossRidge Not sure if we're at cross purposes here - a high resolution 720x350 was well above what CGA could offer, and a higher res than EGA. Released in 1987, VGA was simply not able to exceed 720x350 until SVGA extensions made 800x600 possible.
– Criggie
Jun 15 at 22:10
4
4
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that in 1989 that Hercules graphics were for people who couldn't afford anything better. Also for CAD, VGA's 640x480 16 colour graphics were a massive improvement over Hercules 720x350 mono
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 22:20
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that in 1989 that Hercules graphics were for people who couldn't afford anything better. Also for CAD, VGA's 640x480 16 colour graphics were a massive improvement over Hercules 720x350 mono
– Ross Ridge
Jun 15 at 22:20
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f11373%2fhigh-end-pc-graphics-circa-1990%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I vaguely recall the Tseng Labs ET3000/4000/6000 chipsets being a big deal at the time, but I don't know if they were used in high-end workstations.
– fadden
Jun 14 at 15:17
1
I know AutoCAD is almost unique in using the accelerator functions built into the IBM 8514, but I've no idea as to its actual performance or popularity, alas.
– Tommy
Jun 14 at 15:56
In 1990 high-end like you described either meant higher resolution and/or colour depth than VGA (and not necessary VGA compatible, so not SVGA, like with the Truevision TARGA) or alternatively 2D accelerators like with the IBM 8514/A and its many clones.
– Ross Ridge
Jun 14 at 16:00
My memory says that Diamond Stealth cards were big then. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Multimedia#Stealth
– LAK
Jun 14 at 17:03
1
@Criggie I'm talking about whatever was most important to AutoCAD users. Not having been a user, myself, I can only speculate on what they valued highest. My guess would be resolution and re-draw speed, but I'm happy to be corrected.
– Brian H
Jun 15 at 14:25