3dmark99 will not run, CPU Features missing.
Maybe you run wrong DirectX Version.
i stepped into same Problem.
Get DirectX Buster remove your DirectX and reinstall with DirectX 6.1
MS states DX7 should be fine on 486, but it' isnt in some cases..

matze79 wrote:

3dmark99 will not run, CPU Features missing. Maybe you run wrong DirectX Version. i stepped into same Problem. Get DirectX Buste […]
Show full quote

3dmark99 will not run, CPU Features missing.
Maybe you run wrong DirectX Version.
i stepped into same Problem.
Get DirectX Buster remove your DirectX and reinstall with DirectX 6.1
MS states DX7 should be fine on 486, but it' isnt in some cases..

3dmark99 does run on 486, if it crashes that its probably the videocard driver that failed.
i got a stunning 10pts with riva128zx pci. i got 1200+ pts with the same card on a pentium3-1.4g, so the performance of 486-133 is about 1/120 of the pentium3.

A lack of P5, P6, and MMX probably adds a buttload to that.

I actually managed to get Directx 8.0 installed on my 486 by putting the hdd in another computer. It seems to work fine even though
it shouldn't
Someone else here mentioned a while back that 3dmark99 gives extremely low results for cpu's without pentium instruction set, far lower
than the actual performance numbers should be.

Ultimately it's an exercise in futility maybe aside from some pimped out overclocked 200mhz machine, and then likely only using glide with voodoo
cards will give anything worthwhile.

Interesting that someone will run games on win95 with a 486 too 😀
"Pitfall the mayan adventure" could possible be working.

From past testing, I determined that the latest version of winamp to work with DirectSound on a 486 is Winamp v2.05. This version has DirectSound plug-in 0.72 beta. Post your 486 Winamp benchmarks

In Win95c, I have DirectX 6.1 installed. I think I used an AWE64Gold.

What graphics card and sound card are you using?

3DMark99 Lite and Max will yield uncharacteristically low values on pre-MMX Cyrix 5x86, 6x86, 486 CPUs, or the VIA Nehemiah. On the other hand, the pre-MMX AMD K5 and Pentiums run fine. MediaGXm also runs fine and I do not beleive it contains Pentium instructions.

For example, a VIA Nehemiah at 600 MHz yields a CPU 3DMark score of 27. A Cyrix 5x86 MediaGX 133 system scores 419. There is clearly something up with this translation of results. Another example is a Cyrix 6x86L at 150 MHz scoring 7, while an AMD K5 at 75 MHz scoring 573.

I had hoped that 3DMark99 Lite ran these older CPUs with a proper translation to results, but it does not. I'm surprised they did not make a software correction for the Cyrix 6x86L. It seems like your CPU needs to have either MMX instructions (e.g. MediaGX), or can run Pentium code (AMD K5?). Adding to the confusion is that the VIA C3 Samuel, C3 Samuel-2, and C3 Ezra run fine, while the VIA C3 Nehemiah does not (that is, it runs, but with abnormally low scores).

IDT Winchips, all versions, and the RiSE mp6 run with normal benchmark results.

Perhaps someone could shed some light on this 3DMark99 phenomena?

sni pcd-4l d882 (et4000 w32) audican32plus dx2/66 no cache-chip.
winamp27 does not work, winahx/thx works.

Imperious wrote:

I actually managed to get Directx 8.0 installed on my 486 by putting the hdd in another computer.

Wow, I'm surprised that DX 8 can even be installed on a 486! 😁
I thought something like 6.x was the last one to be compatible with its instruction set.

The real failure points will be games that rely on the TSC for CPU detection for settings ending up crashing (like FF7PC)

9 years ago here I was running a 98/2K 486 dualboot with the intent for running as much modern stuff on a 486 I could (after recreating the 486 i've had in 1993-96). Installing a Voodoo2 is a good idea 😜

There have been reports that some 486 motherboards do not work with W2K. I do recall having issues with PC Chips M919 and HOT-433 in W2K, but perhaps it was a SCSI issue.

Weird because my M919 works with 2k just fine. I don't use SCSI however. I was able to run Cinebench for 24 hours straight on it even

Try it with PCI SCSI! Actually, I think even PCI UDMA IDE controllers have issue with M919 and W2K.

My best friend used to play Diablo 1 with me on his Packard Bell 486SX2/66mhz. I had a P3. Diablo 1 used Directx 3 as i recall, that at least had no issues.

Surprisingly few issues except the game ran at about half-speed for him, he saw me skipping around quite a bit and entire rooms of monsters would sometimes just *poof* and drop loot.

At first I thought you made a typo with "SX2/66" and really meant to write "SX2/50", but low and behold, there really was an FPU-less SX2 at 66 MHz. http://chipdb.org/img-intel-a80486sx2-66-q0569-es-6750.htm

What was the market for the SX2-66? Why would someone go for this chip over a DX2-66? How much savings was there? I'm surprised Intel even made this. Did Intel really have a sizable quantity of Intel DX2-66 chips with defective FPUs? I thought Intel just disabled the FPUs on perfectly fine DX2 chips to make the SX.

Did some further testing on my unisys-cwd-486 DX2/66 (without 2nd lc)
The CL542x Onboard does not support 3D, but there are DX3-Drivers.

Winamp205 does work for MOD/S3M, but it does not work for MP3 even if
I change the settings for 486-support "half" or "quarter" on the settings.

this works, but is a bit slow http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=17647

I'm running an AMD 5x86-X5 133 MHz with Windows 95C, DirectX 6.1, S3 Virge/DX + Voodoo 1. Yesterday I installed and played Age of Empires on it. Runs perfectly fine, I just had to rip the videos, since they didn't play back smoothly. Early 32-bit Windows games like Pitfall, Hover, Fury3, etc. run fine as well. I'm about to test some Glide stuff (GLQuake for example) later, as so far I only tested Tomb Raider 3dfx, which is smooth as hell.

Winamp works for MP3 if I choose "mono" and "half"! 😀
Gaming on a 486 is difficult within win95. Pitfall the Mayan adventure works, but it cannot be synced to the monitor, so it is not smooth.

Win9x games on a 486? I am not a masochist.

dr.zeissler wrote:

but it cannot be synced to the monitor, so it is not smooth.

No problem here. May depend on the graphics card.

Win9x games on a 486? I am not a masochist.

Well, an AMD 5x86 X5-133 is as fast as a Pentium 75. Actually, it's even faster than a P75 on an early Pentium chipset like the NX. When I tested my Intel Premiere II/Plato mainboard with a P75, I tried several games on it, e.g. Screamer. It was hardly playable even in low-res with medium details. On the AMD 5x86 X5-133 however it's smooth with little to no frame drops in more complex sections. Now I know that's a DOS game. But a P75-like machine can handle early Win9x games fine if the rest of the system isn't crappy.