A few answers:

1. There are speed sensitive DOS games. There aren't TOO many, and they are generally the older ones. You can often work around in by using CPU limiters.
2. Some cards will be better than others. You would probably want an older card than that. No one card will be absolutely perfect but in my opinion the 4000 series of Nvidia cards are one of the best one card solutions.
3. I'm pretty sure it doesn't. You would want an older card than that, and even better you want an ISA sound card. That means a different motherboard.
4. Can't answer that. I'm pretty sure it works, not sure I'd recommend it though.
5. Too much RAM for Windows 98 really. You can patch it to support more, but with that system it's kinda wasted on 98.

I would get older/more compatible parts. You could get it working, but IMO what you've got there would be too new.

The parts you describe sound more like a Windows XP build.. especially with the 2GB RAM (98 has a limit of 512MB but can be unofficially patched) and X-Fi... and if your SSD is SATA (I assume it is) then 98 might not handle that too well either unless you use a SATA-to-IDE adapter.

So, if you're stuck with the parts, I would suggest an XP build. If you're stuck with Win98/DOS, then I would suggest a P3 (pretty much any speed), 512MB RAM, some IDE drive (or SATA-to-IDE adapter if you want the SSD), IDE DVD drive, Sound Blaster Live! or Audigy or if you're serious about DOS then an ISA sound card like AWE32 or Audician 32 Plus! and some kind of period correct video card.. GeForce 2 or 3 or Voodoo 3 or 5.. something like that.

My two cents.

1. It most likely can run titles that aren't speed sensitive, but there are ways to slow your system down to make the speed-sensitive games run (the idea that comes to mind is disabling CPU cache).
3. I'm pretty sure the X-Fi is too new to have any DOS support, but there are some older PCI sound cards with some extent of DOS sound emulation (like the Sound Blaster Live! or Audigy), here there are several topics discussing this situation. I'd also recommend an ISA sound card if you can either source a motherboard with ISA or be willing to build a secondary system for DOS.
4. Depends on how your motherboard can treat SATA drives. if the BIOS has a setting to change the SATA controller's mode, set it to IDE emulation, or look into a SATA-to-IDE adapter if you're still dead set on using a modern SSD with an older IDE-only system.
5. The amount of RAM is 4x too much as previously pointed out, look into lowering it down to 512MB; do you also have (or plan on getting) an optical drive for that system?
6. A P4 would be fine for a 9x build since that was considered the last stop for the 9x era and it's pretty powerful too, but I'd consider something old enough to have ISA for a DOS system - maybe a Slot 1 P2/P3 system.

Just my answers to some of your questions.

marlcomyork wrote:

I'm planing to build a P4 DOS and Windows 98 gaming computer.

Waste of time and money. Way too powerful for any game that can specifically benefit from Win98, not to mention DOS.

marlcomyork wrote:

-Intel D865PERL

Why this board of all boards?

marlcomyork wrote:

-Intel Pentium 4 610 3.2GHz

I cannot find any CPU with that particular number "610", but AFAIK, the P4 CPUs with numbers were LGA775 CPUs, not compatible with the Socket 478 D865PERL.

marlcomyork wrote:

6-Any other recommendations I should be considering?

Yeah, build a different system for Win98/DOS, like everyone else suggested.

dr_st wrote:

Waste of time and money. Way too powerful for any game that can specifically benefit from Win98, not to mention DOS. […]
Show full quote

marlcomyork wrote:

I'm planing to build a P4 DOS and Windows 98 gaming computer.

Waste of time and money. Way too powerful for any game that can specifically benefit from Win98, not to mention DOS.

marlcomyork wrote:

-Intel D865PERL

Why this board of all boards?

marlcomyork wrote:

-Intel Pentium 4 610 3.2GHz

I cannot find any CPU with that particular number "610", but AFAIK, the P4 CPUs with numbers were LGA775 CPUs, not compatible with the Socket 478 D865PERL.

marlcomyork wrote:

6-Any other recommendations I should be considering?

Yeah, build a different system for Win98/DOS, like everyone else suggested.

Build games scale very poorly and can eat all the CPU you've got at higher resolutions.

Lot of naysaying in this thread. Bullshit, I say go for it, why not? P4s are dirt-cheap right now.

Throw FreeDOS on. It supports modern hardware, happily boots from SATA (or anything, even USB sticks!), has some rudimentary power management features so that your CPU doesn't need to be running at 100% load during the idle loop, and handles large amounts of RAM. There's loads of stuff wanting a nice fast CPU in DOS. You don't need multithreading or 64-bit instructions so in some ways a P4 is ideal. Try running Quake at 1024x768 if you want to stress test it.

Ditch the X-Fi for an Audigy 1/2, Live!, Aureal Vortex, or Ensoniq AudioPCI (or whatever Creative called their version of that) if you want semi-functional DOS sound drivers. They won't work 100% of the time, but they'll do fine for some stuff.

gdjacobs wrote:

Build games scale very poorly and can eat all the CPU you've got at higher resolutions.

How high and what CPU can they eat? A whole 3GHz P4? I don't believe it.

xjas wrote:

Lot of naysaying in this thread. Bullshit, I say go for it, why not?

Because you would be wasting time working around compatibility problems that don't have to be there to begin with.

xjas wrote:

There's loads of stuff wanting a nice fast CPU in DOS

No, there isn't. Certainly not on a P4 3GHz level.

xjas wrote:

Try running Quake at 1024x768 if you want to stress test it.

If the goal it to build a system for benchmarks and stress tests, just so that one can post high numbers and discuss them in endless forum threads - then, yeah, sure. For a machine to actually use for DOS/Win98 - not the best option.

I would understand if he already had the parts. i would understand if he wanted a machine that can also cover WinXP era games, but given the starting point of this thread - it's not an ideal solution. Did not say "impossible". Just "not ideal".

Nevermind benchmarking -- what's wrong with wanting to play games at their max settings? Or in the case of late DOS -- highest resolutions. I think the better question isn't why anyone would want to build so-called overkill machines, but why game developers consistently include settings and features (or back then, resolutions) that could never be utilized.

Build games scale very poorly and can eat all the CPU you've got at higher resolutions.

It could be because I haven't set things up properly yet -- but Blood was choppy at 1280x1024 on an AMD 64 4000+ (2.4ghz). I know this CPU was an upgrade from my 3.2ghz Pentium 4 which must have been a Northwood since it was from '03 but I wonder if the P4 would perform better in DOS.

infiniteclouds wrote:

Nevermind benchmarking -- what's wrong with wanting to play games at their max settings? Or in the case of late DOS -- highest resolutions.

Well, there's nothing wrong, of course. The thing is that for 99.9% of the DOS games, even the highest settings (if different settings are even available) will not utilize even 25% of said CPU. On the other hand, you will be forced to deal with hard and sometimes impossible-to-resolve compatibility problems - sound card compatibility (in DOS, Win98 should be OK), too much RAM (for Win98, DOS doesn't care), inadequate slow-down capabilities for the speed-sensitive games. What for?

infiniteclouds wrote:

I think the better question isn't why anyone would want to build so-called overkill machines, but why game developers consistently include settings and features (or back then, resolutions) that could never be utilized.

I would not say anything like this was 'consistent'. Till now I only heard Build games mentioned as an example of something that scales poorly on high resolutions. How many such games exist? 5? Perhaps the engine is just not good with handling high resolutions. Perhaps it will not run really smooth on any CPU. Or maybe it will run just a tad smoother.

As long as we're talking about Build games - I'd ask this:

1. How much actual difference in high-res performance is there really between a 3GHz P4 and a 800MHz P3?
2. At what point does it start being choppy? If it's OK at 800x600 or 1024x768, is it really that much better to play it at 1600x1200? For the experience, not just to say that you can do it.
3. Is the tradeoff of increased performance for a handful of games versus reduced compatibility for a lot of others really worth it? I guess that depends on which specific games one plans to play.

dr_st wrote:

Because you would be wasting time working around compatibility problems that don't have to be there to begin with. [...] I would understand if he already had the parts. i would understand if he wanted a machine that can also cover WinXP era games, but given the starting point of this thread - it's not an ideal solution. Did not say "impossible". Just "not ideal".

You're missing a really good advantage of starting with a P4 - they are DIRT CHEAP, or often free, and dead-easy to find. Universities and businesses are just throwing them away by the skipload. P2s & P3s, especially ones with ISA slots, are being mercilessly held by the hoarders and are apparently gold-plated if you even find one for sale at all.

If the OP just wants to mess around with some stuff, why not start with a P4? If or when he decides he needs something more compatible, he can go on the hunt then. Trust me, a 1.4GHz tualatin with an ISA slot and a Voodoo5 isn't gonna fall into anyone's lap these days.

dr_st wrote:

xjas wrote:

There's loads of stuff wanting a nice fast CPU in DOS

No, there isn't. Certainly not on a P4 3GHz level.

Yeesh - I gave you an example in literally the next bullet point you tried to refute. Just about any of the late 3D stuff that runs under DOS likes a ton of horsepower if you crank the resolution. Quake, Hexen 2, various flight sims, Tomb Raider, Carmageddon, Descent 2, even Build games as mentioned. You may not be maxing out a 3GHz P4 on those, but you're certainly gonna get high framerates with no slowdowns. Throw Vsync on and play at 1280x1024 @ 60FPS all day.

dr_st wrote:

xjas wrote:

Try running Quake at 1024x768 if you want to stress test it.

If the goal it to build a system for benchmarks and stress tests, just so that one can post high numbers and discuss them in endless forum threads - then, yeah, sure. For a machine to actually use for DOS/Win98 - not the best option.

What's wrong with wanting to play Quake in software at ridiculously high res and a good framerate? Who said anything about synthetic benchmarks?

dr_st wrote:

Well, there's nothing wrong, of course. The thing is that for 99.9% of the DOS games, even the highest settings (if different settings are even available) will not utilize even 25% of said CPU. On the other hand, you will be forced to deal with hard and sometimes impossible-to-resolve compatibility problems - sound card compatibility (in DOS, Win98 should be OK), too much RAM (for Win98, DOS doesn't care), inadequate slow-down capabilities for the speed-sensitive games. What for?

It really does depend on what games you want to play - even a Pentium III build is a bad idea if slow-down capabilities is what one is after. RAM is not really an issue as it is very easy to just change the maxmem parameter in msconfig.exe. When it comes to sound cards I would imagine that late DOS games generally have good compatibility with SB emulation, use CD audio, or have external MIDI support? Again just a guess -- I don't have much experience and am experimenting.

I would not say anything like this was 'consistent'. Till now I only heard Build games mentioned as an example of something that scales poorly on high resolutions. How many such games exist? 5? Perhaps the engine is just not good with handling high resolutions. Perhaps it will not run really smooth on any CPU. Or maybe it will run just a tad smoother.

I think you might be right. I am beginning to think that there isn't any CPU that can do 1600x1200 in games like Blood or Redneck Rampage at a smooth 50+ FPS.... at least not on a board that can give you sound in DOS. There are other examples, even beyond DOS. There was a setting in KOTOR that would always chop up the gameplay when turned on.... eventually when there were GPUs that were powerful enough the software/driver end made it still impossible to use that feature. Splinter Cell is another instance -- anything beyond at ti4800 and you lose those shadows but a ti4800 isn't going to let you max the game's settings, either.

As long as we're talking about Build games - I'd ask this: […]
Show full quote

As long as we're talking about Build games - I'd ask this:

1. How much actual difference in high-res performance is there really between a 3GHz P4 and a 800MHz P3?
2. At what point does it start being choppy? If it's OK at 800x600 or 1024x768, is it really that much better to play it at 1600x1200? For the experience, not just to say that you can do it.
3. Is the tradeoff of increased performance for a handful of games versus reduced compatibility for a lot of others really worth it? I guess that depends on which specific games one plans to play.

1) I can't speak to the GHZ P4 but I can compare my Athlon 64 4000+. If I downclock it to its slowest speed of 723mhz the Quake 320x200 framerates are right in line with a Pentium III 750-850mhz Coppermine... looking at the benchmarks here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lvF9n … wpNU/edit#gid=0. If I then jump up to the max Quake resolution of 1280x1024 it'll drop to ~20FPS. If I return to full speed (2.4ghz) then I get ~40 FPS at that same resolution... so the performance is about double.

2) It depends on the person, I suppose. When you're talking software rendering and no anti-aliasing I like higher resolutions. With hardware I'd personally take maxed out AA/Aniso over a resolution bump but with the popularity of deferred shading in modern games making hardware anti-aliasing impossible I find the need for higher resolutions, or at the very least supersampling/downsampling to be more important.

3)

I guess that depends on which specific games one plans to play.

Agreed. I re-read the OP and noticed he mentioned downclocking and 2D games. P4s definitely don't make good slowdown machines.

xjas wrote:

Throw Vsync on and play at 1280x1024 @ 60FPS all day.

How do you Vsync DOS games?

infiniteclouds wrote:

Agreed. I re-read the OP and noticed he mentioned downclocking and 2D games. P4s definitely don't make good slowdown machines.

Not to be overly cheeky, but a P4/3.0 will run DOSBox just fine if you need to slow it down to play Jazz Jackrabbit. 😜 That also solves 100% of the other compatibility issues (e.g. the sound card) in one swoop. Build a Win98 monster and put DOSBox on it for the older stuff.

infiniteclouds wrote:

xjas wrote:

Throw Vsync on and play at 1280x1024 @ 60FPS all day.

How do you Vsync DOS games?

^^ The game itself needs to have the option, some did, most don't. Drawing blanks on which games though. I know that was one of the first things implimented in Descent 1 & Descent 2 when the community got their hands on the source code (the D1X & D2X mods.)

xjas wrote:

Not to be overly cheeky, but a P4/3.0 will run DOSBox just fine if you need to slow it down to play Jazz Jackrabbit. :P That als […]
Show full quote

infiniteclouds wrote:

Agreed. I re-read the OP and noticed he mentioned downclocking and 2D games. P4s definitely don't make good slowdown machines.

Not to be overly cheeky, but a P4/3.0 will run DOSBox just fine if you need to slow it down to play Jazz Jackrabbit. 😜 That also solves 100% of the other compatibility issues (e.g. the sound card) in one swoop. Build a Win98 monster and put DOSBox on it for the older stuff.

infiniteclouds wrote:

xjas wrote:

Throw Vsync on and play at 1280x1024 @ 60FPS all day.

How do you Vsync DOS games?

^^ The game itself needs to have the option, some did, most don't. Drawing blanks on which games though. I know that was one of the first things implimented in Descent 1 & Descent 2 when the community got their hands on the source code (the D1X & D2X mods.)

I'm with xjas on this one, it is possible to utilize the P4 platform quite good in combo with DOSBox. I'm currently running a P4EE, Vortex2+midi daughterboard, 6800 Ultra AGP with Windows ME. Everything that goes into earlier, older, middle DOS era I'll run in DOSBox (I highly recommend the DOSBox ECE for perfect pixel patch, mt-32 emulation, sb16 NUKED emulation. just replace the sdl file with the older 0.74 for Win9x compatibility) and have all older DOS covered. The rest, well that would be Win9x software, which runs excellent in Windows ME.

The OP mentioned he has an AMD DX4-120 as well. I'd think that would cover 80-90% of his DOS needs, and so on the other side of things the parts he has would make a very fast Windows 98SE/ME machine to handle 9x gaming.

This kind of hardware is the stuff I like to find for my in-law's 9x LAN setup - they want to play LucasArts' Outlaws, which doesn't work well under NT systems, but also want to play later 2000-2004 era (mainly FPS) games which often work well on late 9x hardware. Basically I need fast P3 or P4 machines, and DX7-DX9 era GPUs.

MalcomYork wrote:

I'm planing to build a P4 DOS and Windows 98 gaming computer. The pieces I am planing to buy are the following: […]
Show full quote

I'm planing to build a P4 DOS and Windows 98 gaming computer. The pieces I am planing to buy are the following:

-Intel D865PERL
-Intel Pentium 4 610 3.2GHz
-2GB of DDR RAM
-Some 120GB SSD
-SoundBlaster X-Fi SB0640
-USB floppy emulator
-Some AGP video card

I have a couple of questions:

1-Will this machine be able to run DOS games? I know some games are CPU speed sensitive, so I'm trying to understand if its posible to do underclocking.
2-Would any AGP GPU be able to play DOS 2D and 3D games? (ATI Radeon 9550, for example)
3-Does the sound card have retro compatibility with SB16 for DOS games?
4-Will I be able to install Windows 98/DOS in the SSD?
5-Will I have any troubles with the setup I have planned?
6-Any other recommendations I should be considering?

I also happen to have an Am486 DX4-120, so I might be looking to build a 486 build as well.

Forget everything Dos on that motherboard. If for some reason, one or two dos games work on this, then see it as a bonus.
Win98 on the other hand.... Drivers are avaliable, yet it is more a kind of low-performing XP gaming machine.

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/147 … -Desktop-Boards

I have had Win98 running on a Socket-754 sempron setup, using a GF4-ti4200 and 512mb Ram some time ago.
Even that was possible, yet it felt too fast in resolution lower than 1024x768. That and up ran good.
Under that, the games would acually jump ahead in gaming. You know.. The exact opposite of lagging.

You just need to choose the right sound and gfx card. Personally I like stereo cards over surround.
And the best cards mentioned here on vogons, for Win98, are allways Vortex2 and YMF-724.
For the GFX, then get a GF4-ti4200, or Radeon-9600.
Those are good starters, and you can allways look for something slightly better out there.

Wow!
I'm surprised how many people are interested in discussing this thread!

I believe I am going to go the AMD DX4-120 way. I've got a SOYO SY-5EMA+ V1.1 motherboard, 265 MB of DDRA RAM and a SoundBlaster 128 bits. I'm trying to get an IDE HDD, but it is very hard to get hands on one of those where I live, so I'm looking for other alternatives. I've seen PhilsComputerLab recommending a compact flash-to-ide controller to replace the IDE HDD need, but I have also found out I could be using a SATA PCI controller card and a new SATA disk, which, I guess, it would perform a little better than a compact flash card.

As far as I understand, CF cards are better left for Dos. You can allways downsize an platter drive, and if it is a sata drive, then you just run it with a converter. I have done it before on Seagate drives, and I have found a tool that can do it on most drives. That said. I have downsized a variaty of drives from a variaty of manufactors. Maxtor, samsung, and so on. I have yet to test if the drives will actually work with Dos and Win98.

The reason was that I had only a laptop out at that moment, yet the drives that were downsized, was detected by the BIOS as the new size. I even went as low as 125mb, just to see how low I could get the drives. I have no idea if this will work on sata drives or even 40pin pata drives.

That motherboard and CPU combination isn't going to work, The motherboard is socket 7 (Pentium) motherboard not 486
http://www.motherboards.org/files/manuals/107/m5em1011.pdf

As for the hard drive you could also go down the SATA to IDE converter which Phil also did a video on
https://youtu.be/yp9AyMQ62js

xjas wrote:

Trust me, a 1.4GHz tualatin with an ISA slot and a Voodoo5 isn't gonna fall into anyone's lap these days.

I believe you. I do think that probably a 1GHz P-III with a Voodoo3 is going to be enough, and you may get it with ISA slots more easily. However, you do have a point for a first retro build, if one accepts the limitation, a P4 is reasonable.

xjas wrote:

Yeesh - I gave you an example in literally the next bullet point you tried to refute. Just about any of the late 3D stuff that runs under DOS likes a ton of horsepower if you crank the resolution. Quake, Hexen 2, various flight sims, Tomb Raider, Carmageddon, Descent 2, even Build games as mentioned. You may not be maxing out a 3GHz P4 on those, but you're certainly gonna get high framerates with no slowdowns. Throw Vsync on and play at 1280x1024 @ 60FPS all day.

That's the question - what CPU are you going to be maxing out? My feeling is that even a mid/high P-III is going to handle most things OK. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

dottoss wrote:

I'm with xjas on this one, it is possible to utilize the P4 platform quite good in combo with DOSBox. I'm currently running a P4EE, Vortex2+midi daughterboard, 6800 Ultra AGP with Windows ME. Everything that goes into earlier, older, middle DOS era I'll run in DOSBox (I highly recommend the DOSBox ECE for perfect pixel patch, mt-32 emulation, sb16 NUKED emulation. just replace the sdl file with the older 0.74 for Win9x compatibility) and have all older DOS covered. The rest, well that would be Win9x software, which runs excellent in Windows ME.

Now that's an idea I like more. I play lots of DOS games via DOSBox myself on my P4 3GHz (except it runs WinXP).