GPU Grudge Match '94: ATi vs S3

The two contenders for 1994's hottest gaming graphics card look almost identical on paper, but are the result of opposite intentions by their creators. ATi's Graphics Pro Turbo, based on their fully 64-bit mach64 GX chip, was Team Red's attempt to deliver a world-beating Windows accelerator and steal away some of rival Canadian outfit Matrox's CAD professionals. The Trio64, on the other hand, was S3's attempt to turn their high-end 64-bit Vision864 into a cut-down mainstream product by wedging a RAMDAC, clock generator and graphics core into a single chip. Neither product was designed to maximize DOS gaming performance, but both deliver considerable advances in that respect due to their 64-bit architectures' greater pixel throughput.

The Tests

In PC Magazine's contemporary synthetic tests, the cards were neck-and-neck in Windows with S3's offering holding a slight advantage in DOS. Recent testing on fast CPUs has shown more noteworthy differences. For instance, in VGA Museum's benchmarks on an Athlon XP 2200+, a Trio64 board with 1MB posted a remarkable 123.8 fps in Quake @ 320x240, the mach64 GX with 2MB turning in a more sedate 83 fps. The result is especially surprising given that, with only 1MB of RAM, the Trio64 can only use half of its 64-bit memory interface! A fully expanded Trio64 board posted an unbelievable 139.5 fps in the same test, besting not only every card made prior to '95, but many made long after such as ATi's 3D Rage Pro, intel 740 and S3's own Savage IX! So yeah, the Trio64 is a real firecracker - but will that translate to a real performance difference on period-correct hardware? Let's find out!

All of the following benchmarks were performed on my Pentium 100 with 16MB of EDO RAM running DOS 7.1. Write combining was not enabled as it is not supported by the motherboard's intel 430VX chipset.

Even with half the theorectical memory bandwidth, the S3 Trio64-based card shows a considerable lead in both 3D Bench and Doom. Given a faster CPU, and an extra 1MB of FPM DRAM to light up the full 64-bit bus, I'd expect the Trio64 to absolutely dust the mach64 GX in DOS. That said, in a '94-spec machine, the performance difference is negligable, especially in more sophisticated games like Quake that are entirely CPU bound.

Concerned about VESA mode performance and compatibility I tested out both TIE Fighter and System Shock at 640x480 and didn't notice any meaningful discrepancies. TIE Fighter was perhaps a hair faster on the Graphics Pro Turbo, System Shock perhaps a tiny bit smoother on the Stealth 64. Neither has an FPS counter, but I'd be surprised to see more than a 4 fps difference in either.

With little gap in terms of performance, you'd be better off considering other factors when selecting a graphics card for a period-correct, mid-90s machine. In fact, there's a reason why you might forget all about these figures and use the Graphics Pro Turbo in place of the venerable Stealth 64, and that reason is image quality.

Beyond the Numbers

Both the Trio64's integrated DAC and the mach64's outboard SpectraDAC advertise a maximum 135 Mhz pixel clock, so you'd expect these two boards to have comparable image quality. They don't. The VGA output from the Stealth 64 is soft, the colors muted. The Graphics Pro Turbo's output is, in comparison, razor sharp and beautifully saturated. And the difference is visible at every resolution in every color depth. Though a few titles that make use of dithering to simulate a broader palette looked a bit grainy, in nearly every case I found the ATi card's visuals easier on the eyes and well worth the 3 fps penalty.

Conclusion

After all the fuss I made about the Trio64's precocious performance on our Instagram, I've decided to leave the Graphics Pro Turbo in the slot for the time being. A game may come along that glitches out and forces me back to S3's unimpeachably compatible solution, but for now I'm enjoying my Nickelodeon Gak sludge and Lisa Frank Pinky Demons.