320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

ZDoom LE, Pentium 133's, Windows 98, and DOS 3.1 all go here! A bygone era, of particular interest to some folks.
invictius
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by invictius »

Started up my "use this xp system if games fail to run whatsoever in 7" system (p4 3.2, geforce 9500gt). Went to benchmark an older version of zdoom, no 320x200. Opened a recent gzdoom, same thing. When did nvidia and amd drop 320x200 support?
User avatar
Rachael
Admin
Posts: 13110
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by Rachael »

They never really "dropped" it, per se, you can still coax both sets of cards to do it, but it's pretty tricky.

Intel adapters will still expose that mode, though.
invictius
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by invictius »

Rachael wrote:They never really "dropped" it, per se, you can still coax both sets of cards to do it, but it's pretty tricky.

Intel adapters will still expose that mode, though.
Could you link me to the workaround? I don't know how to tell google that I'm looking for that mode, I get results for the geforce 320m and such.
User avatar
Rachael
Admin
Posts: 13110
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by Rachael »

I, unfortunately, do not have such a work-around. I believe it can be accomplished with registry hacks on both cards, but such things inevitably require driver restarts. If you are using any WDDM-capable adapter (either you're on Windows 8+, or you are capable of running "Aero" transparency windows in Vista/7) all you have to do is disable and re-enable your display adapter in the device manager (this restarts your display driver) - otherwise you will have to restart Windows.

This tool may be sufficient to perform this task - but keep in mind I have never used it before - so use virus scans, etc, and check it before you attempt to run it.

Keep in mind - Windows actively blocks the use of 320x200 (for good reason) when using the desktop. As such, the mode may not even be exposed.

If you are running in windowed mode (not fullscreen) on GZDoom (versions 3.0 and later) you can simply use "vid_setmode 320 200" to force GZDoom itself to dynamically resize its window to any resolution you desire. This option is not available on prior ZDoom/GZDoom versions, but can be hacked in if you recompile it. Grep for "CCMD (vid_setmode)" in the source files and simply remove the verification check.
invictius
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by invictius »

Rachael wrote:I, unfortunately, do not have such a work-around. I believe it can be accomplished with registry hacks on both cards, but such things inevitably require driver restarts. If you are using any WDDM-capable adapter (either you're on Windows 8+, or you are capable of running "Aero" transparency windows in Vista/7) all you have to do is disable and re-enable your display adapter in the device manager (this restarts your display driver) - otherwise you will have to restart Windows.

This tool may be sufficient to perform this task - but keep in mind I have never used it before - so use virus scans, etc, and check it before you attempt to run it.

Keep in mind - Windows actively blocks the use of 320x200 (for good reason) when using the desktop. As such, the mode may not even be exposed.

If you are running in windowed mode (not fullscreen) on GZDoom (versions 3.0 and later) you can simply use "vid_setmode 320 200" to force GZDoom itself to dynamically resize its window to any resolution you desire. This option is not available on prior ZDoom/GZDoom versions, but can be hacked in if you recompile it. Grep for "CCMD (vid_setmode)" in the source files and simply remove the verification check.
Can I simply, and safely assume that 640*480 is going to be exactly (well within 10% variation) half the timedemo result as 320*240 with the same system on the same card? Because that would be problem solved. Oh and is a 320*200 timedemo in a window going to be the same result as running it fullscreen? My preliminary tests suggest this, but I can't completely rely on it because I was using a not really supported video card on 7 and the colors went funky (like trying to run doom95 on a modern system)
User avatar
Rachael
Admin
Posts: 13110
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by Rachael »

No, you cannot. First off, 320x200 / 640x480 is actually 5/24 (less than 1/4th).

Secondly, doing simple math such as that only covers pixel fill - it does not account for node walking, clipping processing, etc. all of which take some amount of CPU time - and if you are profiling the software renderer, your mileage can vary quite a bit at different horizontal runs just because each column does such different tests from another.

It would be better to simply benchmark on 640x480 directly.
invictius
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by invictius »

Rachael wrote:No, you cannot. First off, 320x200 / 640x480 is actually 5/24 (less than 1/4th).

Secondly, doing simple math such as that only covers pixel fill - it does not account for node walking, clipping processing, etc. all of which take some amount of CPU time - and if you are profiling the software renderer, your mileage can vary quite a bit at different horizontal runs just because each column does such different tests from another.

It would be better to simply benchmark on 640x480 directly.
Damn, I've benchmarked all my retro systems at 320x200 - mainly because my pentium 133 can't really handle zdoom at 640, and my 486-100 definitely can't - (9fps on an e1m1 speedrun timedemo @ 320x200!!!)
User avatar
Rachael
Admin
Posts: 13110
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by Rachael »

Well it's worth trying the vid_setmode command anyway - you never know, it might just work...
invictius
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by invictius »

Rachael wrote:Well it's worth trying the vid_setmode command anyway - you never know, it might just work...
Can I confirm that 320x200 in windowed mode isn't going to give a similar result to the same resolution in full screen? I wasn't sure whether you were referring to my "just double the timedemo result for 640" or if you were referring to windowed vs fullscreen as well.
User avatar
wildweasel
Moderator Team Lead
Posts: 21519
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 7:33 pm
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10, 21H1
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by wildweasel »

invictius wrote:
Rachael wrote:Well it's worth trying the vid_setmode command anyway - you never know, it might just work...
Can I confirm that 320x200 in windowed mode isn't going to give a similar result to the same resolution in full screen? I wasn't sure whether you were referring to my "just double the timedemo result for 640" or if you were referring to windowed vs fullscreen as well.
For older computers/older Windows, running in windowed mode can also result in performance drops.
User avatar
drfrag
Vintage GZDoom Developer
Posts: 3111
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:51 am
Location: Spain

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by drfrag »

320x200 was only supported natively up to win9x. That 320x200 on intel cards is a pixel quadrupled low resolution mode. You could test ZDoom 2.1.4 Classic on that 486 BTW, i also still keep a couple of them but they are just DX33s.
invictius
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by invictius »

drfrag wrote:320x200 was only supported natively up to win9x. That 320x200 on intel cards is a pixel quadrupled low resolution mode. You could test ZDoom 2.1.4 Classic on that 486 BTW, i also still keep a couple of them but they are just DX33s.
Windows kept complaining that "a device attached to the system is not functioning" whenever zdoom classic on the 486 would exit and try to write a new config file.
User avatar
drfrag
Vintage GZDoom Developer
Posts: 3111
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:51 am
Location: Spain

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by drfrag »

Which windows version? 95 osr2(95b or 95c)? 95a? How much system ram?
Edit: what's the full error message? (that missing shell32.dll:... stuff).
koverhbarc
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:26 am

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by koverhbarc »

320x200 has actually been quadrupled by the video card since the original VGA! If it is now quadrupled in software (before the video card), then it's not the card's fault it is not available.

Anyway 320x240 should always work as a substitute for 320x200 - indeed, Doom should have originally been 320x240, but Carmack et al. did not see the advantages of square pixels - would have saved a lot of headache, wouldn't it!

Andrew Usher
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 48377
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: 320x200 suppot, when was it dropped on video cards?

Post by Graf Zahl »

The reason for that was that 320x240 required an undocumented hack mode that couldn't be guaranteed to exist on all hardware.

Return to “Legacy Discussion”