squareguy wrote:

Pentium 4 3.2: 694
Celeron 450: 731
Pentium 4 3.4: 736

Hahaha, I love it when people stop and think ... WTF "Celeron 450"?? 🤣 Especially those who remember the legendary Celeron 300A @450!

That result confirms what I suspected. Now how about a ~3GHz Core 2? 😁

Re: ASRock 775i65G boards, I can only find R2.0 boards locally, so will have to import if I insist on the R3.0, and prices would be a little high. I'm also aiming for a ConRoe865PE (full ATX!), but so far I only see one listing (used) coupled with a Q6600 which I don't really have a use for. It too can accept Celeron 430/440/450 and Core2 X6800 but doesn't officially support Pentium E5700/5800.

I like the stability & reliability of the 865/875 platform, and it's great to have a P6 derivative running on it!

Yeah this is the newest type Intel motherboard that has Windows 98 support. Intel i865 chipset and it has AGP.

I have already played with underclocking the Celeron 450 and it works fine. The Celeron 450 is a 800 MHz FSB part so changing the FSB to 400 gives you 1.1 GHz and 533 gives 1.47 GHz.

I have run the E5800 on this board and it's a beast but I don't need that much power for this project. But it was fun running Unreal in highres... in software mode 🤣.

And with Celeron 420 (1.6GHz) we can get 800MHz easily.

As the X6800 is unlocked, and I've been wanting to try running at 800MHz x (highest multi available)... but looks like I have to eBay & import it as well.

I know right... 😜 I guess the X6800 will go to an XP build eventually...

Don't rule out AMD for high powered Windows 98 SE systems 😀

Had a 3700+ once running Windows 98 with a FX 5800. Now that was a FAST system. nGlide ran faster than a native Voodoo 5

Did you mean Zeckensack's glidewrapper? AFAIK nGlide is XP minimum.

I'm also looking for alternative wrapper for use in 9x/Me..

archsan wrote:

Did you mean Zeckensack's glidewrapper? AFAIK nGlide is XP minimum.

That's what I thought until a viewer, who asked the nGlide developer, told me otherwise. So I made this video: https://youtu.be/1-w1NziFoLg

Woohoo! That's great! I took what's listed on Zeus' website for granted, never thought of trying it anyway. 😊

I think I should watch ALL your videos ASAP, Phil, otherwise I'll risk making myself look silly. 😁

I learnt so much from my viewers! It really is an awesome community. Pro tip: You never know it all and you constantly learn something new in the retro gaming universe 😀

Rhuwyn wrote:

SRQ wrote:

Interesting idea: What's the lowest wattage processor that works with DOS and 98SE stuff and is equivalent to a baseline of, say, a PIII 900?

Interesting Question. Obviously in order to support 16bit code it must be a 32bit processor. Maybe a Pentium M, or Athlon-XP mobile? Perhaps one of the last Intel Atom's before they moved to 64bit. Not sure how one of those Atoms would compare to a Pentium3.

64 Bit CPUs can run 16 bit code too, but only under 32 bit Windows versions

Carlos S. M. wrote:

Rhuwyn wrote:

64 Bit CPUs can run 16 bit code too, but only under 32 bit Windows versions

Or DOS 😉

Playing around with the math it looks like if you wanted to roughly reproduce the speed of a Pentium III 1.4 GHz Tualatin you could use a Celeron 440 with a clock of 133.33 MHz (533 FSB) for CPU speed of 1333 MHz.

The math is rough but this calculates a PassMark single threaded score of 440 while the Pentium III 1.4 GHz is listed as 419.

Clock for clock the Celeron 4x0's are a little faster than the Pentium III Tualatins.

archsan wrote:

That result confirms what I suspected. Now how about a ~3GHz Core 2? 😁

Re: ASRock 775i65G boards, I can only find R2.0 boards locally

the 2.0 revision supports the Celerons. If you think about it the Celeron 4x0 series is almost a direct descendant of the Tualatin.

^Yeah, the L2 cache are the same on both so that's convenient. Pentium M's have much bigger cache.
Also I wonder how much advantage is there from FSB-quadrupling and DDR... should be quite significant.

In other news, that SE440BX-2 in your sig... I saw on an online store the other day, they still have 400+ units!!! For as low as $30 if you buy in volume (100 or more). 😁

(Yes, I checked and compared with other items in their store, and their quantity counter seems to be working just fine)

UPDATE: Only 380 left!!! 🤣
http://www.primelec.com/intel-se440bx-2-mothe … 65#.V3kmJdXbthE

Those are great boards! I am quite the collector of BX2's and BX3'S, I think I have 4 or 5. I have a ton of stuff (literally) that I am going to start selling off soon. I will hold onto the BX2's!

That's a good price, I would only want to confirm that the revision handles the coppermine CPU's.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

archsan wrote:

Did you mean Zeckensack's glidewrapper? AFAIK nGlide is XP minimum.

That's what I thought until a viewer, who asked the nGlide developer, told me otherwise. So I made this video: https://youtu.be/1-w1NziFoLg

Goodness, I'm not even sure I knew that! 😁

Damnit Phil.... I feel some serious scope creep coming on with this project 😜

Now where did I put that Quadro FX 3000

Carlos S. M. wrote:

Rhuwyn wrote:

SRQ wrote:

Interesting idea: What's the lowest wattage processor that works with DOS and 98SE stuff and is equivalent to a baseline of, say, a PIII 900?

Interesting Question. Obviously in order to support 16bit code it must be a 32bit processor. Maybe a Pentium M, or Athlon-XP mobile? Perhaps one of the last Intel Atom's before they moved to 64bit. Not sure how one of those Atoms would compare to a Pentium3.

64 Bit CPUs can run 16 bit code too, but only under 32 bit Windows versions

16bit protected mode programs can be run natively from 64bit mode. Yes, long mode (not just compatibilty mode).
So in theory, a modified Win3.1 version -similar to WIN-OS/2 or WABI- could be made run in 64bit mode.

DOS or V86, however, have to stay out.
Anyway, Win16 apps themselfes are quite long mode friendly. Execpt for some Win 1.x/2.x real-mode apps maybe.

I've found an article about this : Legacy 16-bit Applications on 64-bit Operating Systems

However, there's one thing which I can't understand:
Why do most people on the net forget that ntvdm was also available in Win NT ports for RISC machines since the 90s ?
They never mention this. Even tech experts and professors rarely talk about this fact.

Jo22 wrote:

However, there's one thing which I can't understand:
Why do most people on the net forget that ntvdm was also available in Win NT ports for RISC machines since the 90s ?
They never mention this. Even tech experts and professors rarely talk about this fact.

It came up the other day in Re: NTVDM on windows 10 x64 , at least.

I guess it's easy to forget that the WinNT ports for RISC machines exist?

Sure. Microsoft forgot pretty easily.