fosterwj03 wrote on 2024-08-25, 16:06:

One more update: […]
Show full quote

One more update:

After some more testing, it looks like the OpenGL library from Catalyst 3.2 (release 4.14.01.9088, dated 02/28/2003) also works with Windows 95. I didn't observe any measurable performance difference from the library in Catalyst 3.1 with my Radeon 9250. It is newer if that matters to you.

Control Panel 3.2 also installs on Windows 95. It has a different appearance from Control Panel 3.1, and some of the tabs work properly (DirectX and OpenGL controls in particular). Other tabs have bugs, and it messes up other display property tabs. I recommend Control Panel 3.1 which seems to work properly all-around.

Both OpenGL libraries from Catalyst 3.1 and 3.2 appear to function properly with the driver packages from Catalyst 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6. I didn't see any measurable performance differences among the newer driver versions in DirectX. Catalyst 3.5 and 3.6 throw up more USER32.DLL errors than Catalyst 3.4. I recommend Catalyst 3.4 for a more compatible experience with Windows 95.

Catalyst 3.7 and newer versions don't seem to install properly in Windows 95, and the video card remains in 16-color, 640x480 mode after reboot. Unfortunately, that makes the Radeon 9800-series the end of the line for ATI video cards with Windows 95.

Good to know all this. I wouldn't be too sad about Radeon 9800-series being the end-of-the road for Win95, since you're limited to DX 8 anyway. Those cards are beastly! These are in many cases faster than the GeForce 4 or FX-series, and certainly less power hungry. I tried a 9800 Pro on one of my systems with Windows 95 and I could not make this card slow down. Any game I threw at it, I could max out all the details and cap the CRT resolution (1600x1200) and still get a solid 60+ FPS or more.

My OpenGL tests are still pending though, so if you don't mind, I could take the newer OpenGL-file also, and maybe Control Panel 3.1 as well? The beta driver package I have doesn't include it so I only get to tweak the settings through the registry atm.

Where are you sourcing these anyway?

I source the older Catalyst drivers and control panels from Archive.org. I get the original links from the repository linked in an easier post:

https://alt.3dcenter.org/downloads/treiber-radeon.php

I copy the link to the file I want, and then I use the Wayback Machine to find and download the file. It works pretty well in this case.

Archived captures from the 2003-2004 timeframe work best for ATI's old website

Here are the links to the Catalyst drivers for Windows 9x:

Catalyst 3.1 Drivers: https://web.archive.org/web/20040203130839/ht … 007447c-efg.exe

Catalyst 3.1 Control Panel: https://web.archive.org/web/20040206185602/ht … 007447c-efg.exe

Catalyst 3.2 Drivers: https://web.archive.org/web/20040206154358/ht … 008040c-efg.exe

Catalyst 3.4 Drivers: https://web.archive.org/web/20040604123457/ht … 008946c-efg.exe

I just received the Radeon 9800 XL (an under-clocked Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB of RAM) pictured below (seller's photo), and I immediately put it into my Windows 95 Retro Rocket with the modified Cat 3.4 drivers (including the Cat 3.1 OpenGL library). Driver installation went smoothly with the setup package identifying the card as a Radeon 9800 Pro.

The driver works correctly in 2D acceleration, with all available resolutions and color modes available for my monitor. It does have similar glitches to the way the drivers acted with my Radeon 9250 (screen blanking when starting the control panel and some 3D programs). OpenGL also had the same glitch where the screen corrupts unless the desktop color depth matches the OpenGL application's color depth.

Compared to my Radeon 9600 TX in the same machine, the 9800 XL gets between 25% and 40% better results depending on the application. Final Reality actually gave the 9800 XL a lower score, but I've found Final Reality to give wildly different results between systems and components which leads me not to trust it. I wish I could have gotten a quick 3DMark 99 score, but I couldn't get the benchmark to run without vertical sync in the short time I tested the system.

Also like the 9600 TX, the 9800 Pro seems to run in PCI mode on my system likely due to the AGP 2x limitation I mentioned earlier.

I think you can add R350-based cards to the list of fully compatible cards for Windows 95 based on my quick test. I'll test the system some more this weekend.

Someday , we should try GeForce 6800 ultra EXTREME but on 95. And maybe even 7950gx2 !

Radeon 9200 is a DirectX 8.1 class card. 6800 isn't. 7950 isn't. DirectX 9 on Windows 95 is unsupported.

leileilol wrote on 2025-01-27, 10:03:

Radeon 9200 is a DirectX 8.1 class card. 6800 isn't. 7950 isn't. DirectX 9 on Windows 95 is unsupported.

Aren't Radeon 9600/9700/9800-series DX9 though? I'm not saying you'll play any DX9 games with those, but they seem to work all the way up to anything DX8 + OpenGL enable on Win95. Maybe the same can be true for some of these nVidia cards? I doubt it though, just due to how bulky those later Detonator-drivers got.

the dx9 line is drawn at 9500

I haven't had any luck with the Nvidia drivers that support the 6000-series and beyond with Windows 95. The drivers just don't work right even if you ignore all of the error messages at boot time.

I've reconsidered my last post. I've gotten 2D acceleration to work with my GeForce 6800 GS and Windows 95 in early tests, but 3D acceleration didn't work correctly. I don't know if the Nvidia driver components are as well documented as ATI's, yet I wonder if taking older libraries from known good drivers for Windows 95 could also get later driver packages to work just like the Catalyst drivers. I might try to find time to experiment a little this weekend.

The Nvidia drivers from the 66.94 package (4.14.10.6694) contains a readme file with a list of files that make up the driver components. It might be as simple as swapping out .DLL files for DirectX, OpenGL, and the Control Panel (.CPL).

I might have time this afternoon to test the theory on a FX 5200 with version 44.03 files moved into the 66.94 package. I'll need to test the functionality of 44.03 in Windows 95 first to make sure that has fully compatible files. Then, I'll move the libraries into 66.94 to test again.

It's no good. Swapping out the OpenGL library in a newer driver package, for instance, breaks OpenGL. Swapping out the Control Panel files resolved the related boot errors, but the Nvidia settings tab doesn't appear in the Display properties.

Version 44.03 seems mostly compatible with Windows 95 without any need for modification. The only issue is an error loading the NV Helper Service which isn't critical. The Control Panel app also functions properly which helps to modify adapter settings (such as VSync). Version 44.03 should support most of the early FX-series cards (but not the PCI-E variants).

Version 66.94 and later drivers (unmodified) had a broken Control Panel app. OpenGL functioned properly (with VSync enabled by default). DirectX seemed to run, but the video output was rotated 90 degrees (this behavior has been noted in other threads). I couldn't find any way to rotate the video back.

I could live without the Control Panel and modify the adapter setting in the registry, but the rotated video is definitely a deal-breaker if I ever wanted to run 6000-series or 7000-series cards with Windows 95.