mpe wrote on 2020-01-22, 20:54:

However, the 150/50 is preferable over 166/40 as it is better in most apps as soon as your board can handle 50 MHz with no extra ws.

Often times 40MHz FSB gives more room for BIOS tweaks that will give the the 160MHz system a performance advantage.
I would really try both settings and see which I could configure to perform better. The end result really depends on the individual components and getting your system fine tuned to run perfect is the most challenging and rewarding thing about "ultimate" builds imho. :-)

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-22, 15:05:

If you want practical build for DOS and early Win9x, find 430TX board and use Pentium MMX. This setup is very tweakable for gaming.

A PMMX can give you a smooth performance range between medium 386 and full P55c. It can take the place of a 386, 486, S4, and S5 Pentium. I'd recommend going this direction unless you specifically want to mess around with period hardware or unless the older machine has deturbo options that drop you into 286 or less territory.

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-01-23, 05:45:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-22, 15:05:

If you want practical build for DOS and early Win9x, find 430TX board and use Pentium MMX. This setup is very tweakable for gaming.

A PMMX can give you a smooth performance range between medium 386 and full P55c. It can take the place of a 386, 486, S4, and S5 Pentium. I'd recommend going this direction unless you specifically want to mess around with period hardware or unless the older machine has deturbo options that drop you into 286 or less territory.

If you want 'one machine to rule them all', I'd agree with that (or perhaps a Via C3). However if you have the space, time, budget and desire, there's enough reason for separate builds. A PC is more than just a CPU. In particular sound cards for 386 and sound cards for Pentium are quite different beasts. Of course a generic SBPro2 card with decent MIDI will cover most, but if you want more specific stuff, you run out of ISA slots and/or resources fast.

I've tried the 'build a P55C machine with everything but the kitchen sink in it' route, getting it working with PAS16 (PAS and great OPL3), GUS (er, GUS), Music quest (intelligent mode MIDI) and either Aztech NXPro (SBPro2, WSS and Covox) or SB32 CT3670 (SB16, AWE, CQM) but not both at the same time. But 'working' is stretching it - to get it all to play nice I needed to use very non-standard resources for most of it. Technically fine, but a lot of games don't support that oddball stuff meaning half the cards can't be used with any given game. Conclusion in the end: this is not the way to do it.

Splitting it up over multiple systems makes a lot more sense, with two I can put the 'old crap' - NXPro and Musicquest into an early 486 or faster 386 and cover OPL2 (+ OPL3), SPBro2, Covox and MIDI (MT-32). Then the PAS16, SB32 and GUS can go into a Pentium for OPL3, CQM, PAS(16), AWE and GUS, maybe with added Musicquest for bug-free MIDI (GM) here too. That latter system is still on the edge though, so a third system, like a fast 486/5x86 would let me put PAS16 vs SB16 on there, then have 'simple' GUS + SB32 (or AWE64 Gold) in the Pentium.

Thanks everyone for your replies. About the best hardware thing, it doesn't need to be the absolute best or fastest, I just want it to be considered high end for it's period. I knew that AMD and Cyrix had faster 486s but I'll go with Intel just because of personal preference, not saying that AMD or Cyrix are worse or anything, I just prefer intel for some reason (I think naming schemes but I'm not really sure.). So I'll stick with the DX4-100MHz for the So3.

For So5 and So7 I already planned to get the P54CQS-120MHz and the PMMX-233MHz. I wanted to avoid Overdrive they were made to allow older sockets to reach newer sockets levels of performance and that doesn't go very well with the "Period correct high end PC". I think the So4 build would be like the ultimate 1993 build and that's something I'd like to have. So I'll have time to decide about the So4 while I build the So3.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-22, 21:51:

HIstorical value, hardware collecting, period specific benchmarking? Sure. Practical use for games? Eh, not really. Unless you can find Socket 4 CPU and motherboard extremely cheap and don't have PCI Socket 3 already.

I'll try to look out for any oportunity to get it cheap since it's a pretty interesting build to have, it's the first Pentium after all.

Though they will be mainly for gaming, I had the idea to use each one of these builds as my main PC for some weeks as an experiment. That's why I selected Windows 95 OSR 2.1 for the Socket 3, 4 and 5 builds and Windows 98 SE for the 7 and slot 1 ones. I think that's the best choice performance/compatibility wise. Take in account all this project is still "on paper" so it would take me some years to get all the parts to make this PCs (and the money 😜), but I think it will be worth it at the end. I'll try to make a spreadsheet with all the parts for each PC (so I'll know the minimun amount of ports I need on the motherboard).

I don't know if I should make a separated topic about this or not but, what was the common capacity of an HDD in 1993/1994 and 1995/1996?

I don't know if I should make a separated topic about this or not but, what was the common capacity of an HDD in 1993/1994 and 1995/1996?

Just buy 512Mb-1Gb IDE DOM or use CF card via adapter.

'94: 504/528 mb (depending on how you want to count it) was the CHS/BIOS limit, and i believe 540mb was the common high-end IDE size in '94. more would have been most likely SCSI territory (+adapters with their own BIOS), or maybe some really early LBA drives. if someone knows, i'd be interested when the first LBA IDE drive actually hit the market.

'95: EIDE/LBA was firmly established, and sizes like 1 or 1.27 gb would have been pretty nice, although still plenty of 540 mb ones sold. high-end would have been like 2gb, top-end a 4gb double-height SCSI drive. wide SCSI (68/80pin) also slowly started around here. for '96-'97, you could pretty much double all of those sizes. still, 2 gig drives were also still being made plenty in '97, even on SCSI. actually, 2.1 gb was another common BIOS limit, which is probably why that was a prevalent size.

about socket 4, you'd be lucky to find a board actually dating from 1993, these were only really built in volume for high end mainstream PCs in 1994, where the batman's revenge board and variants is what you'd most likely encounter. even those aren't that commonly seen nowadays though.

dionb wrote on 2020-01-23, 09:46:

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-01-23, 05:45:

A PMMX can give you a smooth performance range between medium 386 and full P55c. It can take the place of a 386, 486, S4, and S5 Pentium. I'd recommend going this direction unless you specifically want to mess around with period hardware or unless the older machine has deturbo options that drop you into 286 or less territory.

If you want 'one machine to rule them all', I'd agree with that (or perhaps a Via C3). However if you have the space, time, budget and desire, there's enough reason for separate builds. A PC is more than just a CPU. In particular sound cards for 386 and sound cards for Pentium are quite different beasts. Of course a generic SBPro2 card with decent MIDI will cover most, but if you want more specific stuff, you run out of ISA slots and/or resources fast.

I'd even go so far as to say that sound cards (and video to a lesser extent) are one of the primary reasons to go with real hardware instead of DosBox. However, you can use the same base platform and swap sound cards. Not many sound boards are speed sensitive enough to not work in a Pentium motherboard. Those that do have readily available and fairly transparent alternatives.

Ultimately, the versatility of the PMMX (or VIA C3) means you can do one build that will give you a lot of mileage and then build specialty rigs as necessary, or depending on how your interests develop. It's not a decision you can't revisit down the road.

dionb wrote on 2020-01-23, 09:46:

I've tried the 'build a P55C machine with everything but the kitchen sink in it' route, getting it working with PAS16 (PAS and great OPL3), GUS (er, GUS), Music quest (intelligent mode MIDI) and either Aztech NXPro (SBPro2, WSS and Covox) or SB32 CT3670 (SB16, AWE, CQM) but not both at the same time. But 'working' is stretching it - to get it all to play nice I needed to use very non-standard resources for most of it. Technically fine, but a lot of games don't support that oddball stuff meaning half the cards can't be used with any given game. Conclusion in the end: this is not the way to do it.

To get multiple cards to play nice is not to use oddball resources that games fail to use, but rather choosing sound cards that are naturally complementary without conflicting resources, as well as cards that can be disabled whilst still installed in your system. This way, you can enable and disable cards that would otherwise conflict and still use standard resources for compatibility. I've had 6 sound cards installed with standard resources and without conflict.

j^aws wrote on 2020-01-23, 19:29:

[...]

To get multiple cards to play nice is not to use oddball resources that games fail to use, but rather choosing sound cards that are naturally complementary without conflicting resources, as well as cards that can be disabled whilst still installed in your system. This way, you can enable and disable cards that would otherwise conflict and still use standard resources for compatibility. I've had 6 sound cards installed with standard resources and without conflict.

That's one approach. However I wanted it all at the same time, and I wanted to tailor the system to specific cards, not the other way around. If I need to enable and disable stuff and drop cards I like because of the system I might as well build multiple systems. Which is what I'm doing. Unfortunately this is something of a slippery slope, as there's always one more card - now trying to figure out where I'll put my Prometheus Aria... 😉

dionb wrote on 2020-01-23, 19:39:

j^aws wrote on 2020-01-23, 19:29:

[...]

To get multiple cards to play nice is not to use oddball resources that games fail to use, but rather choosing sound cards that are naturally complementary without conflicting resources, as well as cards that can be disabled whilst still installed in your system. This way, you can enable and disable cards that would otherwise conflict and still use standard resources for compatibility. I've had 6 sound cards installed with standard resources and without conflict.

That's one approach. However I wanted it all at the same time, and I wanted to tailor the system to specific cards, not the other way around. If I need to enable and disable stuff and drop cards I like because of the system I might as well build multiple systems. Which is what I'm doing. Unfortunately this is something of a slippery slope, as there's always one more card - now trying to figure out where I'll put my Prometheus Aria... 😉

There's no denying that one system is never enough.

However, your approach of using an oddball set of resources is not the best way to approach multiple sound card systems as it is asking for incompatibilities.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by 'wanting it all at the same time' - why would you want a GUS playing at the same time as a Sound Blaster Pro, or an AWE playing alongside a Game Blaster, for example?

You can cover the most popular sound standards across the 80s and 90s without compatibility issues by using standard resources and with multiple cards. And of course, have specialised builds for more exotic sound cards.

If you need ISA slots, an industrial backplane can house 9+ slots, and resources can be managed with batch files/ dip switches, for example.

why would you want a GUS playing

GUS is overrated, yes.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-23, 20:01:

why would you want a GUS playing

GUS is overrated, yes.

For the prices they currently go for, definitely. If you want to run some demoscene productions on real hardware for example, some won't play sounds without a GUS.

j^aws wrote on 2020-01-23, 19:57:

[...]

There's no denying that one system is never enough.

However, your approach of using an oddball set of resources is not the best way to approach multiple sound card systems as it is asking for incompatibilities.

I know all too well, that's why I've backed off that approach.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by 'wanting it all at the same time' - why would you want a GUS playing at the same time as a Sound Blaster Pro, or an AWE playing alongside a Game Blaster, for example?

You can cover the most popular sound standards across the 80s and 90s without compatibility issues by using standard resources and with multiple cards. And of course, have specialised builds for more exotic sound cards.

So you don't need to swap cards or reboot between cards. Just select the card and go, and switch to another one instantly. At least, that was the theory. Didn't quite work like that in practice.

That said, lots of games have separate settings for music and digital audio. Usually SBPro2/SB16 + GM is the best option, but with multiple cards doing GM and various digital audio options there can be quite a lot to choose from. AWE+Game Blaster is unlikely, but GUS and AWE are contemporary and you can combine those two in four different ways for starters. Which is why I'm pairing those two in my Pentium MMX system.

If you need ISA slots, an industrial backplane can house 9+ slots, and resources can be managed with batch files/ dip switches, for example.

Yep, actually have one of those - but no need: with 5 ISA slots on a regular motherboard I already had more slots than I could concurrently get to run anyway (at least, with things requiring IRQ, DMA and particular base I/O). Does remind me: I need to get a suitable SBC for it - I managed to destroy the Pentium 4 SBC it came with :'(

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-23, 20:01:

why would you want a GUS playing

GUS is overrated, yes.

Really, everything by AdLib, Audiotrix, Creative, Ensoniq (at least, the ISA cards), Gravis, Roland and Terratec is overrated. Yes, a lot of it is good, sometimes even very good, but hardly worth the premium you pay for it in terms of audio quality vs price.

My reason for wanting GUS is mainly nostalgia - I had a GUS Max from 1995 to 1999 and it was my first sound card, so that's what later era DOS gaming sounded like for me. And where it's natively supported I do generally prefer it to SB16 or WSS digital audio as well.

I would not, personally, pass on a Socket 4. To me, there is great historical value in that platform as it is the first for Pentium socket. Or as Doornkaat simply put it, its a cool thing to have. What I find the most fun, in my opinion, with retro tech, is chronicling its advancements and having living breathing examples of technological steps forward.

When you start introducing things like "what performs better" or what new socket gets outperformed by what configuration from the previous socket, you loose sight of the historical importance of the technological evolution. When you introduce "overdrive sockets' all you are doing is talking about manufacturer sponsored "hacks" to keep their previous lines relevant for various reasons. Its a consumer friendly practice which I respect, but falls short when considering historical importance of socket evolution.

In short, build a Socket 4 system because history.

If you can get 5 ISA sound cards working alongside each other more power to you. I spread my cards over at least three main PCs with ISA slots so I don't have to deal with resource conflict bullshit. I also have a testbench so I can easily swap out and experiment with even more cards if I want to.

you loose sight of the historical importance of the technological evolution

There's a simple fact: Socket 4 isn't practical. You have to decide how much you want to go on a cool/practical scale with your build. Then add some variables like for how much and in what time period you can acquire part X vs part Y. There's no definite answer to that.

None of my retro systems is practical.

They are less practical than emulation in most cases, but that's not the point.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-01-25, 19:15:

you loose sight of the historical importance of the technological evolution

There's a simple fact: Socket 4 isn't practical. You have to decide how much you want to go on a cool/practical scale with your build. Then add some variables like for how much and in what time period you can acquire part X vs part Y. There's no definite answer to that.

I agree with the analysis but if I use the passion for retrocomputing, non-practicality matters very little, it is the last of the values ​​and in any case I consider it only after purchasing the computer. Not all systems have the same reasons for being purchased. the 486DX2 was more important for the software and social evolution of information technology than socket4. But the P60 / 66 has features that make it perhaps less usable than the DX2 but certainly more desirable to have in the collection, even at the cost of almost never using it. If you have the economic possibilities, I recommend buying it, even if only to switch it on once a month.

AlessandroB wrote on 2020-01-25, 20:05:

I agree with the analysis but if I use the passion for retrocomputing, non-practicality matters very little, it is the last of the values ​​and in any case I consider it only after purchasing the computer. Not all systems have the same reasons for being purchased. the 486DX2 was more important for the software and social evolution of information technology than socket4. But the P60 / 66 has features that make it perhaps less usable than the DX2 but certainly more desirable to have in the collection, even at the cost of almost never using it. If you have the economic possibilities, I recommend buying it, even if only to switch it on once a month.

With me, I have space for a limited number of machines in use. I have extra parts, of course, but I keep only a limited number of active configurations.